Sorry for being late in posting this, I usually try to do this on the 1st but was without internet the last few days.
This is thread to discuss whatever applies to alt parties and independent candidates, and from time to time other stuff, but is not being discussed in a specific thread. News tips, opinions and links all welcome.
As I write this the Libertarian National convention is going on with many of the IPR writers here as delegates, so naturally we are focusing heavily on that, but we do not intend to ignore the other alt parties and independent candidates.
Anyone wishing to discuss non-LP alt party and independent topics and our other writers are certainly encouraged to post about those.
There will be many more of those stories posted this month as well – but I myself with focus only on the LP convention until it is over, other than this post.
-paulie
That’s surprising if true.
AH @ 218: You pose some very interesting questions!
I posted the link mainly because I was so pleased to see that Angela was given writing credits. I don’t know that I’ve noticed that before.
Buddy, we hardly know ye!
BUDDY ROEMER ANNOUNCES END TO HIS PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/buddy-roemer-ends-longshot-presidential-campaign/story?id=16467218
oh, well. I would have voted for him.
If Obama is appeasing prejudice by highlighting it in his ad, wouldn’t it follow that Keaton is appeasing it by highlighting that ad, that you and I are appeasing it by talking about it here, etc?
McCain was responding to an overzealous supporter in terms that made sense to her. Educating someone who does not know the difference between Arabs and Muslims is not something he could have done in the time frame alloted.
Obama is not endorsing this woman’s prejudice by highlighting that clip, it’s showing that McCain responded to it, along with other examples, whereas Romney is in fact coddling the birther nut Trump.
Not sure I understand her there.
Obama’s ad quotes McCain responding to a woman that said Obama is an Arab by saying Obama is a decent family man, etc (therefore by implication not an Arab).
How is that a case of Obama appeasing prejudice?
Here’s an excellent article by Angela Keaton, formerly of the Libertarian Party:
http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2012/05/29/the-worst-horror-imaginable/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+AWCBlog+%28Antiwar.com+Blog%29&utm_content=FaceBook
GAIL PARKER ISGOING TO RUN FOR CONGRESS!?!?!?!?! WHAT!?!?!?!?
Virginia’s “Gail for Rail” Announces as Congressional Candidate for 2012
Contact: Gail “for Rail” Parker 571-282-8381 (mobile)
Joe Oddo 703-338-0200 (mobile) Carey Campbell 703-939-0970
For Immediate Release
Virginia’s “Gail for Rail” Announces as Congressional Candidate for 2012
Virginia’s Independent Green, Gail “for Rail” Parker, announced today that she will seek the Party’s nomination for District 1 Congressional candidate for 2012. Mrs Parker will campaign on the Indy Green’s signature issue, high-speed rail and adherence to the Arms Export Control Act.
Gail “for Rail” states that “the position on rail taken by Virginia’s elected officials compel me to run.” District 1 residents need dedicated passenger rail track, and communities need to be served more often with more trains to and from the National Capital Region and we need rail service all the way to Virginia Beach. Our elected officials are currently holding up on Federal Grant funds ($75M) that would provide better, safer rail VRE and Amtrak service to District 1. We must address these needs and the energy crisis facing the nation. We need to recognize the contribution of the Dulles Rail Corridor to Virginia’s economy and accept, due to Virginia’s close proximity to the Nation’s Capitol, address Virginia’s responsibility in supporting the National Capitol Region with rail service to the Capitol Region. We need elected officials that will facilitate resolution instead of creating barriers.”
Gail “for Rail” Parker states that adhering to the Arms Export Control Act and building new tracks with more trains, more often will promote National Security, create jobs, grow the economy and, therefore, grow revenue too.
Other reasons provided for building rail are to have cleaner air and water, help transition to renewable energy sources, cut dependency on oil, conserve our natural resources, reduce the need for fracking and to save lives.
The Independent Greens, long time rail advocates, began placing Gail “for Rail” on the ballot to advocate for building rail in 2005 and are largely responsible for orchestrating an increase in independent and Green candidates on the ballot in Virginia for many years.
Gail “for Rail” Parker has published an e-book, titled “More Trains, Less Traffic,” available exclusively on Amazon.com.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P7FVchd-gVo
The Independent Green Party of Virginia is expected to have a full slate of 2012 endorsee nominee congressional candidates. Among them are:
1st District Gail for Rail Parker
5th District Dr. Ken Hildebrandt
8th District Janet Murphy
10th District Kevin Chisholm
11th District Peter Marchetti
Gary Johnson’s documents for the Presidential Primary Matching Funds are now available at the fec.gov web site.
http://www.fec.gov/finance/2012matching/2012matching.shtml
Americans Elect and Vermont Progressive Party.
Here is an interesting essay on the Vermont Progressive Party website suggesting the Left/progressives hould take over the Americans Elect ballot lines.
http://www.progressiveparty.org/media/2012/americans-elect-political-ghost-ship-ripe-boarding
From what I’ve read here at IPR and BAN, it seems like it is not possible for the VT Progressive Party to lead a take over of the AE? What with Ackerman keeping control?
But I sure do like the idea of a national Progressive Party with 30 some ballot lines!
I realize that. I just used it as a segue to a somewhat but not entirely related issue of my choice.
I don’t know anything about the Senatorial candidate search, nor do I have any questions or suggestions on that.
I signed up the guy from the Citizens Party to post here, but he never did.
He said his first article would be …something already posted earlier…
I emailed him that it had been already posted and the link, and never heard from him again.
@206 Paulie, I was referring to the Senate candidate issue, not the elector issue. There is one covert hazard for electors, but perhaps it will be a non-issue.
It does seem that the 3 main Centrist 3rd party efforts that I am aware of – Modern Whig, Reform and Citizens Party – don’t really have that much of a presence on IPR – it would be nice to see if their reps would post here more often. If I get some time I will email these organizations with an invite.
George,
Speaking of MA I have been told that the Johnson campaign believes they have the elector issue solved. I can’t remember who told me that. Hopefully they are not acting under any delusions.
I’ve also been told that a contractor has been selected for the drive. I was not given a chance to bid on it, although I clearly expressed interest and, I would think given Joe Kennedy’s ballot access success, ability to fulfill any such contract.
I’m not sure what plan if any exists for distribution and pick up to/from cities and towns. If the winning bid (more accurately, non-competitively awarded contract) includes that service as part of the per signature rate I was told, I could not have beat it; if it does, I could have and would have.
Steven,
I’ll try to remember to do that when I get back from work. Hopefully someone will beat me to it in the meantime. My own sources have not revealed any petition activity by Modern Whigs.
Not sure about the other candidates on your list, but I doubt Gary Johnson would have anything to gain by getting their nomination. It seems very unlikely they would get him on the ballot in any state where he would not be on as LP. I suppose anything is possible though – Barr flubbed the Louisiana paperwork, and also flubbed the Mississippi paperwork but the state officials were nice enough to let him know and let him fix it. Washington State was reportedly another near-miss on the paperwork, even with a very low signature requirement (LA and MS required no signatures at all except Mr. Barr’s own and some electors).
The Massachusetts State Committee, on which I no longer serve, is looking for a U.S. Senate candidate. I do not currently expect that they will find one. There are some odd aspects of ballot access laws in MA that make life more complicated.
Paulie – good question. I’m not sure this is current but according to their wiki they have ballot access only in New Jersey and Florida currently but with State affiliates organized in 38 States. I don’t know whether they are petitioning in any States for more access. I doubt they have much money – but it is interesting that they were able to schedule a Convention and get a line up of speakers for it – plus they’ve been doing a bunch of website and social media updates recently – so seems they must have at least a tiny bit. You could possibly contact their Party Chair Andrew Evans at http://www.modernwhig.org/contact with a request for more info.
Steven Berson,
What states, if any, are the Modern Whigs on the ballot in or actively trying to get on the ballot in? Do they have any money? Is the independent candidate they endorsed in Mass on the ballot?
To be fair, Johnson signed the LP membership pledge in 1993 (and possibly also in the 1980s) and never revoked it, so in that sense he is also a longstanding LP member. Barr did have some pro-liberty parts of his record in office along with the anti-liberty parts. His rhetoric became more libertarian afterwards and he endorsed Badnarik over Bush. Of course, he’s relapsed more recently.
“Two years can be considered several. I think the point was that he did not just jump into the LP during the presidential campaign as Gravel and Johnson did, or as Ron Paul did in ’87-88.”
Ron Paul had been a part of the libertarian movement since the 1960’s, even though he did not join the Libertarian Party until the late ’80’s.
Bob Barr was never really part of the libertarian movement. If anything, he was a part of the anti-libertarian movement.
@ my post above – Looking at Bill Cimbrelo’s platform closer I find there are a good number of things I strongly disagree with him on – particularly immigration – where he has the typical Reform/Whig stance of wanting to create huge government barriers to any of it happening – something that I think would take a lot of government intrusion, at great expense – and only to fail at the end. I also think calls for “energy independence” are in fact naive.
The Modern Whig Party, a nascent political party pushing for rational and pragmatic centrist compromise in government, which for a while seemed to be doing very little activity has been getting more active and just posted its endorsement of independent candidate for US Senate from Massachusetts Bill Cremilo – that to me seems to be a definitely better choice than either Scott Brown or Elizabeth Warren (note: I’m not sure if there is an LP or GP candidate that is in this race yet) – http://www.modernwhig.org/candidates/massachusetts/bill-cimbrelo
http://billcimbrelo.com/
The Modern Whig Party also announced its National Convention for August 3 – 5 in Bloomington Minnesota – and will feature speakers such as Buddy Roemer and Michealene Risley – details at http://www.modernwhig.org/content/2012-whig-national-convention
Reversing prior announcements that the Modern Whigs would not nominate a candidate for President in 2012 – instead they have been attempting to somewhat continue on a grass roots level the primary election process started by Americans Elect. Apparently currently the candidates seeking the Whig nomination are Buddy Roemer, Andre Barnett (these first two also seeking the Reform Party nomination) Michealene Risley, and T.J. O’Hara. According to the MW website Gary Johnson and Rocky Anderson are also considering seeking the Whig nomination and apparently have been in contact with the Whigs about this.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/05/26/1095074/-Stunner-Gov-t-Secretly-Moves-To-Backstop-Wall-Street-s-Derivatives-Exchanges-Globally
More crooks needing salvation!
George Phillies
It all depends on which Communist Party.
For example:
The Soviet Communists certainly did not advocate freedom to marry the same gender, and the Chinese Communists one child policy opposes freedom to decide on procreation.
In the US and other countries where they are not in power, communists and nazis tend to be much more on the side of peace and civil liberties than in countries where they actually get power.
They also tend to be rhetorically in favor of empowering workers, but when they come to power they outlaw workers organizing independently of the managers of their workplaces,
@ 192, You gave the Communist Party points for supporting freedom “From government religiousness.”
Actually, Communist countries had enforced atheism, with varying degrees of penalties for expressing religious sentiment.
Forced atheism is no more pro-liberty than is forced religion.
Goode scores worse than Baldwin. See the onethissues.org links for a detailed analysis of both of their positions
http://ontheissues.org/Virgil_Goode.htm 80/10, and provides a lot more detail so you can do your own scoring
http://ontheissues.org/chuck_baldwin.htm 80/50, and while not as detailed as the section on Goode because he was not in Congress, still provides details so you can do your own scoring
as well as the IVN article
http://ivn.us/2012/05/26/constitution-partys-virgil-goode-runs-as-a-conventional-republican/
I’d say my original point, that Johnson is better than Barr and that Goode is worse than Baldwin, still stands.
Been meaning to write this up, but it would be great if someone beat me to it. Gotta get out to work..
Here is a high-precision interactive Nolan quiz, initialized to the positions of the Constitution Party. I’m curious how/whether this Goode person would score any better than Baldwin, who in 2008 seemed to echo the CP platform very closely.
Penn Jillette has endorsed Gary Johnson for president. Link: http://www.politico.com/blogs/click/2012/05/penn-jillettes-pick-gary-johnson-124450.html
True, but I think it is adequate for the purpose of illustrating approximate relative comparisons of Baldwin, Barr, Goode et al.
If you click the explanations for each question on the quiz it seems that they have numerous ideas lumped together on each question which in many cases means there is no correct libertarian position on the quiz.
I think their question about churches and welfare is mostly about Bush’s so-called “faith based initiatives.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith_based_initiatives
@185 Paulie,
You are correct about the quiz. I just checked it again and it is also wrong on the question on the US getting out of Iraq and Afghanistan.
I tried the link to contact the quiz makers but couldn’t make it work. Hopefully someone will write them a nice letter and explain their errors.
Bob Barr joined the Libertarian Party in December of 2006. He was not in the party for “several years” at that point.
Two years can be considered several. I think the point was that he did not just jump into the LP during the presidential campaign as Gravel and Johnson did, or as Ron Paul did in ’87-8.
Chuck Baldwin was definitely better than Bob Barr on taxes. Chuck Baldwin favored a flat 10% tariff. Bob Barr supported the Fair Tax, which is a 30% national sales tax which includes other BS like pre-bate checks (which in a sense, would expand the welfare state).
I don’t really like any taxes, but a 10% flat tariff rate is way less toxic than a 30% national sales tax. Also, it’s not like Barr favored eliminating tariffs. He never said anything about wanting to eliminate them.
Tariff and tax rates can change over time. Baldwin wanted to fund government mostly through tariffs, which realistically would have probably meant more than 10% tariffs in short order.
Barr supported a variety of alternative tax plans, including the so-called “fair” tax, to be considered as alternatives to the existing system. Likewise Ron Paul has said he would vote for the “fair” tax if it came up for a vote in Congress but would not sponsor it. Gravel and Johnson do back the “fair tax,” as does Goode. Baldwin opposes it.
I think that Chuck Baldwin is more libertarian than Bob Barr. You don’t see Chuck Baldwin endorsing scum like Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney for President. You don’t see Chuck Baldwin helping an exiled dictator “bring his message of hope” to the people of a country that he once oppressed, like Bob Barr did with Baby Doc.
True, but I have also seen the videos that Brian posted above, and the things you refer to happened after Barr’s campaign. For the purpose of this comparison we are comparing Barr in 2008 with Baldwin in 2008, not Barr in 1998 or 2012.
When Ron Paul said who he would vote for in 2008 he couldn’t have known about Barr shilling for Baby Doc or endorsing Newt and Mitt years later. He could have certainly known about Barr’s record in office, but Barr was (inadequately) dissociating himself from parts of that record.
As for Goode, see http://ivn.us/2012/05/26/constitution-partys-virgil-goode-runs-as-a-conventional-republican/
Read the whole article…very much in line with my points above.
Tried taking their quiz just now. I think the question that was creating confusion was “Allow churches to provide welfare services,” which they say libertarians oppose. We tend to support government getting out of the welfare business and allowing churches and other civic organizations to do it with their own money that they raise voluntarily, but what the quiz may mean by that question instead is churches being used to distribute tax money that is given to them by the government.
A bigger problem with the quiz is that it says libertarians oppose getting out of Iraq and Afghanistan, if I read it correctly.
In any case as per Ad Hoc “It’s not a perfect quiz but it does show Goode is far worse than Baldwin and certainly far worse than Johnson or Paul.
Johnson is not perfect either but he’s pretty good. His SS/M position needs to improve but it’s better than Goode’s.”
It is at http://www.ontheissues.org/Quiz/Quiz2010.asp?quiz=Pres2012
I haven’t checked to see whether it maps to the Nolan Chart in the same way the WSPQ does. In other words, some answers may (or may not) score a quiz taker more libertarian or less libertarian even though they are on the side of the quiz that says “oppose” or “support.”
@182 Actually, no, I’m not that successful. However, one of the commenters convinced me that you were posting the orthodox answer, which I had misinterpreted as the quiz answer. Sorry for the misinterpretation.
@171 GP
Ah, I see you’ve found the original quiz quote.
On a quiz with only 20 questions, this will cause distortion. This would be a problem more for individuals taking the quiz to evaluate their own postitions since they would be mislead about libertarianism and where they fit.
@ 168 GP
Yes, The quiz is in error. The quiz answer is saying that Libertarians prefer government welfare to having private charity take over.
Churches replacing government is private charity.
“To be fair, I’m not convinced that Baldwin was more libertarian than Barr. Baldwin has significant non-libertarian elements to his positions.”
I think that Chuck Baldwin is more libertarian than Bob Barr. You don’t see Chuck Baldwin endorsing scum like Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney for President. You don’t see Chuck Baldwin helping an exiled dictator “bring his message of hope” to the people of a country that he once oppressed, like Bob Barr did with Baby Doc.
“Taxes – both were bad; tariffs and sales tax are both bad, as is the status quo. Spending is more of an issue than taxes. Debt is more of an issue than taxes as well.”
Oh come on, Chuck Baldwin was definitely better than Bob Barr on taxes. Chuck Baldwin favored a flat 10% tariff. Bob Barr supported the Fair Tax, which is a 30% national sales tax which includes other BS like pre-bate checks (which in a sense, would expand the welfare state).
I don’t really like any taxes, but a 10% flat tariff rate is way less toxic than a 30% national sales tax. Also, it’s not like Barr favored eliminating tariffs. He never said anything about wanting to eliminate them.
“2. I believed that Barr truly did come around on a lot of the issues I cared about. Iraq, the Patriot Act, the war on drugs etc. If I can change my beliefs, I figured so could he. Not to mention he was in the party for several years at that point.”
Bob Barr joined the Libertarian Party in December of 2006. He was not in the party for “several years” at that point.
still didn’t come out right. Sorry, I will quit trying to post it here. Anyway, you get the idea.
Despite what the campaigns have been telling us, the most substantial policy positions of Barrack Obama and Mitt Romney are essentially the same. The TARP bank bailouts, which Obama signed into law, were supported by Romney in a statement he made in March of 2009. While Obama obviously won’t support the second amendment, Romney won’t either as he stated “I don’t line up with the NRA.” While Romney and the Republicans support the Patriot Act, so did Obama when he allowed it to be extended. While Obama claims he now supports same-sex marriage, he has not done anything to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act. Therefore, the Republicans essentially agree with Obama on the issue of marriage. When Romney was asked in September of 2011 about Obama’s plan to withdraw all troops from Afghanistan in 2014, Romney stated, “That’s something with which I concur.” Given the programs that each candidate has proposed created, neither could come close to balancing the federal budget.
With voting for either Obama or Romney, your vote will essentially be showing your support of the same set of substantial policy positions. The major parties’ nomination process left us with almost no real choice as both candidates agree on most issues. For those of you who disagree with “Obamney” on the issues, you may feel like not even going to the polls and voting. But instead of abstaining from voting, I urge you to consider casting your vote for Governor Gary Johnson. Johnson served as governor of New Mexico from 1995-2003, cutting taxes 14 times while leaving a budget surplus. Governor Johnson is the only socially tolerant and fiscally conservative candidate running for the office of president.
While it is, of course, very unlikely that he will be elected president this year, every vote he receives will show the folks in Washington that we are tired of their partisan games. Voting for Johnson will show both the Democrats and Republicans in Washington that a new party can and will replace them if they don’t do their job. Voting for Gary Johnson in November will also help clear the way for other third party candidates to have a chance of being elected in subsequent elections. Especially if you don’t live in a swing state and you know your state’s electoral votes will go to a particular candidate, why not give a third party a try? Governor Johnson is expected to be the only third party choice that will be on the ballot in all 50 states.
It was supposed to come out as three paragraphs but for some reason it didn’t.
Despite what the campaigns have been telling us, the most substantial policy positions of Barrack Obama and Mitt Romney are essentially the same. The TARP bank bailouts, which Obama signed into law, were supported by Romney in a statement he made in March of 2009. While Obama obviously won’t support the second amendment, Romney won’t either as he stated “I don’t line up with the NRA.” While Romney and the Republicans support the Patriot Act, so did Obama when he allowed it to be extended. While Obama claims he now supports same-sex marriage, he has not done anything to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act. Therefore, the Republicans essentially agree with Obama on the issue of marriage. When Romney was asked in September of 2011 about Obama’s plan to withdraw all troops from Afghanistan in 2014, Romney stated, “That’s something with which I concur.” Given the programs that each candidate has proposed created, neither could come close to balancing the federal budget.With voting for either Obama or Romney, your vote will essentially be showing your support of the same set of substantial policy positions. The major parties’ nomination process left us with almost no real choice as both candidates agree on most issues. For those of you who disagree with “Obamney” on the issues, you may feel like not even going to the polls and voting. But instead of abstaining from voting, I urge you to consider casting your vote for Governor Gary Johnson. Johnson served as governor of New Mexico from 1995-2003, cutting taxes 14 times while leaving a budget surplus. Governor Johnson is the only socially tolerant and fiscally conservative candidate running for the office of president.While it is, of course, very unlikely that he will be elected president this year, every vote he receives will show the folks in Washington that we are tired of their partisan games. Voting for Johnson will show both the Democrats and Republicans in Washington that a new party can and will replace them if they don’t do their job. Voting for Gary Johnson in November will also help clear the way for other third party candidates to have a chance of being elected in subsequent elections. Especially if you don’t live in a swing state and you know your state’s electoral votes will go to a particular candidate, why not give a third party a try? Governor Johnson is expected to be the only third party choice that will be on the ballot in all 50 states.
I wrote up a very rough copy of what could be a letter to the editor that Libertarians could send to their local newspaper. I have not sent it out yet because the election is still fairly far away, but it could be used closer to the election. Feel free to make changes to it and send it to your local newspaper if you want to. Like I said, it is a very rough copy but I just wanted to get some ideas down. Here it is:
@151 et seq: Perhaps the big debt includes contractually committed payments that have not yet come due; these would not show in the FEC reports.
@170 OK, with your reading the original remark is entirely reasonable, and that site is large enough that I didn’t find the original quote.
No, s/he said the quiz implies the opposite.
It’s not a perfect quiz but it does show Goode is far worse than Baldwin and certainly far worse than Johnson or Paul.
Johnson is not perfect either but he’s pretty good. His SS/M position needs to improve but it’s better than Goode’s.
Also, comparison with the Badnarik Congressional campaign suggests facially entirely legitimate paths to spending substantially more money for substantially less outcome.
@ 164There is no error here. A standard libertarian claim is that private charity, as described, will take over supporting welfare spending. I personally find this a bit unlikely, but I have grown cynical in my old age.
Be Rational,
I didn’t say they HAD contracted to pay that much. I don’t know whether the guy has a case or not.
I just said that your estimate of the worth of what they have done or are doing has nothing to do with whether or not they have contracted to pay that much.
There’s a difference.
To be rational is a virtue, but it’s not a virtue one finds in most political campaign spending.
They haven’t done anything worth that much money. Why would they contract to pay that much?
BR@163,
“Johnson hasn’t had much of a campaign and there is almost no way that he could owe $676,000 since his total campaign hasn’t been worth even that much.”
Check your premises.
What his campaign owes is not a function of how much his campaign is “worth,” it is a function of how much his campaign committed/contracted to pay for goods and services.
Paulie @71
The political quiz you have linked to has an error in their scoring. They presume that the Libertarian position is to support welfare.
http://ontheissues.org
The error on thePolitical Philosophy quiz:
Libertarians strongly support privatizing welfare and allowing churches to take over welfare and getting government out of welfare is the standard Libertarian position which should be refleced in the quiz.
The quiz implies the opposite, which does not correctly represent Libertarian viewpoints on this issue.
@151 Johnson hasn’t had much of a campaign and there is almost no way that he could owe $676,000 since his total campaign hasn’t been worth even that much.
This sounds like some kind of error, mistake or fraud – perhaps on the part of the claimant – but it’s all speculation and facts are needed before making any rash accusations or charges.
@151 That is part of an 8 page document.
Fortunately, political parties are not liable for the debts of their candidates, or Libertarians would already be saddled with the large debts owed by the 2008 Barr campaign. Debts, incidentally on which there was also litigation, that time filed in an appropriate court and leading to a judicial finding.
FYI This isn’t warren Redlich.
Once the libertarians wake up and realize that Johnson has saddled them with all of his republican debt they will not be happy.
Which is why I will not be financially supporting Johnson in any capacity this year.
Chet Goodwin did. His treasurer.
He’s ultimately responsible though, and should at least have a grasp if there is 500k disparity.
Johnson is a good candidate for President overall though. I’m pleased the delegates nominated him.
Paulie: “I don’t feel like scrolling to those comments, but from memory, there were details to Johnson’s position that were significantly different than Goode’s.”
You don’t need to scroll. I provided the relevant quotes & I know that Johnson has publicly specified a number of steps that he’d like to be taken, which Goode really hasn’t.
Paulie: “Even if Johnson does fully and honestly intend to preserve those boondoggles forever, at least he wants to get us started in the right direction; Goode, not so much, at least as far as I know.”
The problem, Paulie, is that when a Libertarian candidate says that a government program should be preserved for the “long-term,” that person is evaluating that program as something positive.
Imagine that a Libertarian candidate said that we need to reform how the drug war is being waged (e.g., shorter jail sentences, less wasteful spending, hospital treatment for first-time offenders) because *we should have drug prohibition in the long-term.* I think that’s wrong. Don’t you?
There’s nothing wrong with any Libertarian candidate proposing reforms in a libertarian direction. I’ve said that many times myself.
There IS something wrong with proposing intermediate reforms to a government welfare program because he says that welfare program is something that should exist far into the future. Social Security & Medicare are *not* positive things–they’re a gross injustice & shouldn’t exist, even if they were sustainable, which they aren’t.
No Libertarian candidate should say that any injustice should continue for the long-term. If one does, then that candidate isn’t *fundamentally* different on that issue than others who say that those programs should be preserved far into the future.
Either way works 🙂
I don’t feel like scrolling to those comments, but from memory, there were details to Johnson’s position that were significantly different than Goode’s.
Goode doesn’t propose reforming the system, he just says it should be saved. Johnson proposes reforming the system. It’s true that he says that he wants to reform it as a way to save it rather than end it, but then what’s you have to say in mainstream politics. I’ll be optimistic and say it was a rhetorical ploy for getting the reform process started while reassuring people who have come to rely on that system, literally or conceptually, that he does not intend to cut them off. Once reforms take place, it may be more conceivable to more people to go further in that same direction and ultimately end those programs. Or not. Even if Johnson does fully and honestly intend to preserve those boondoggles forever, at least he wants to get us started in the right direction; Goode, not so much, at least as far as I know.
Me: “This threat went under my radar for a while.”
Haha, “threat” should be “thread.”
Sorry I’m so late in replying, Paulie. This threat went under my radar for a while.
Paulie: “You said Johnson’s view is not much different from Goode’s.”
Here’s what I said in post 74: “And I hate to say this, but I don’t know if Johnson’s view of Social Security & Medicare is fundamentally different from Goode’s. They might differ in the details of how to “save Social Security & Medicare,” but on Johnson’s web site he talks about merely reforming the programs using words like “fix” and “long-term solvency.””
In that quote, I say they might differ in the details about what to do to reform those two programs (I don’t know what Goode’s ideas are regarding them, so I can’t say whether they do or not).
However, they both agree that those programs *should be preserved.* Should Libertarian candidates state that Social Security & Medicare, two gigantic government wealth-transfer programs that harm young workers to benefit what are generally wealthier retirees, be “saved” for the “long-term”?? Both Johnson & Goode say “Yes.” Any Libertarian should say “No.” That was my point with saying that I don’t think their views are fundamentally different.
That said, Johnson is obviously a much better candidate than Goode from a libertarian perspective.
Reposting: who prepares/files Johnson’s FEC reports?
The following from Warren Redlich’s facebook page.
Ronald Nielson, a consultant working with the Johnson campaign, states that the GJ2012 campaign owes his firm $676K.
http://a3.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/477529_711044379231_3006413_34164556_2022643175_o.jpg
The Johnson campaign reported to the FEC total debts of $152K: http://query.nictusa.com/pres/2012/M4/C00495622.html
None of the reported debts were to Nielson’s company, NSON, Inc.
So did Nielson lie to a federal court, or did Johnson lie to the FEC?
As for the Barr / Baldwin debate, I just wanted to weight in.
In 2008 I lived in Virginia, and I had the option of choosing either. I was a Ron Paul supporter, and even though I was discouraged by Barr’s mishap regarding the press conference with all four third party candidates, and despite Paul’s endorsement of Baldwin, I still voted for Barr.
Why?
1. I know Baldwin was a good guy, but I am an agnostic, and the Constitution Party is mostly a bunch of religious fundamentalists. I could get behind Baldwin because he wasn’t like most in that party, but I wanted to try and grow the Libertarian Party. Hell I even voted for Redpath.
2. I believed that Barr truly did come around on a lot of the issues I cared about. Iraq, the Patriot Act, the war on drugs etc. If I can change my beliefs, I figured so could he. Not to mention he was in the party for several years at that point.
3. He was in more states. Clearly he had a better ‘chance’ then Baldwin. Obviously I somewhat bought into the idea that perhaps a third party could break through, mostly because he was getting some media coverage. I never heard a talk radio guy or a news show EVER mention Baldwin. I am not the sort of person who votes on who will win, but I wanted to help support the guy who could garner the maximum amount of votes and change the two party system.
In retrospect, I kind of regret voting for Barr, but I don’t really. What else would have been better? Baldwin, Nader or McKinny? Write in Ron Paul?
Like everyone else here, I’m pissed at Barr’s abandonment of the LP and his endorsement of Gingrich and Romney. He could have endorsed Paul in the Republican primary and then Johnson. Hell he could have campaigned with him and tried to help garner some of the right wingers to Johnsons cause.
Hindsight is 20/20, and at 2008, I made the best decision I could have made. I wanted to vote. I didn’t want to sit on my hands at home and complain after the fact. And at the time I thought Obama was the lesser of two evils over McCain (I still think that). But I would have felt so DIRTY if I did vote for him and see him do the terrible things he done. So I’m proud I didn’t vote for the two major parties.
There is no point in arguing over this whole Barr / Baldwin 08 thing because we are in 2012, and we need to focus on the here and now.
I’m not sure if this deserve to be linked on the front page, but here is an article regarding a debate between the two Green Party candidates.
http://ivn.us/2012/05/22/roseanne-barr-brings-attention-green-party-presidential-race/
+1
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lpsunshine
Thank you, Brian.
Hooray for sunshine-friendly LP officers like Alan and Starchild, who work to keep LP members informed about what their leaders are doing.
FYI, the California Libertarian Party Executive Committee has been considering moving its state office from Panorama City (in Los Angeles County) to Sacramento. Voting by email has already begun on a motion to lease an office space near the Capitol Building.
So far, there has been no concerted effort by the State LP to inform the general membership of the proposal, or gather any input from outside the Executive Committee. The only outreach effort of which I am aware was my announcement at the Region 67 meeting last night. However, after I raised the issue a second time with the Executive Committee, Northern Vice Chair C. Michael Pickens suggested that a notice be posted in the state’s electronic newsletter, and a poll be placed on the website.
I have prepared a brief article about the current proposal, and hopefully Jill will be able to post it later today.
Reform Party Disavows Endorsement of Larouche Candidate
The leadership of the Reform Party of New Jersey would like to emphasize that it is in no way supportive of Larouche PAC or any other extremist organization that seeks to propagate racial, religious or classist tension into the American political system. The recent endorsement of far-right Democratic contender Diane Sare by former RPNJ candidate Mark D. Quick is in no way reflective of the party’s official views.
Reform Party activists throughout the state believe that candidates for public office must be held to the highest ethical standards and that civility and respectful discourse should be returned to Washington DC. Diane Sare, who hopes to represent New Jersey’s 5th Congressional District, is a follower of self-proclaimed economist Lyndon Larouche, a far-right demagogue who has proven his diametric opposition to this principle on several occasions. Larouche’s movement is characterized by baseless conspiracy theories with racist undertones, a lack of respect for American cultural, ethnic and religious diversity, and a proposed authoritarian system that echoes the fascism of 1930s Europe.
Throughout the previous two decades Larouche operatives have sought to usurp the Democratic Party, the leadership of which has done an admirable job thwarting his advancement. The Reform Party of New Jersey will follow in this tradition and join all patriotic Americans in condemning racism and fascism in no uncertain terms. We believe in limited Constitutional government and individual liberty and vow to combat any effort to diminish America’s freedoms..
Mark D. Quick, a former Republican Committeeman who abandoned the GOP last year, does not speak on behalf of the Reform Party of New Jersey, the Reform Party of the United States, nor any of the elected officers of either organization. He is no longer a candidate on the party’s ticket nor will the party sanction any of his forthcoming announcements. Quick’s alliance with Sare has been officially rebuked by the party’s leadership and any online content pertaining to his previous Congressional bid hosted on Reform Party servers will be removed.
For further information please contact the Reform Party of NJ at [email protected]
That video circulated to attack Ernie in 2010. How is that not pro-Root? As the contest seemed between the two of them at the time.
No, some of us predicted that Hinkle would defeat Root. Anti-Hancock was not the same thing as pro-Root. I made no endorsement in the 2010 or 2012 Chair races. If you think I was a Root supporter, you should note that Hinkle and I are from the same county LP here in Silicon Valley.
One can legitimately dispute whether either Baldwin or Barr fit either description. I don’t think Barr is neocon, for instance.
Mostly me too. I don’t self-describe as a capitalist though because of the fact that the term has self-contradictory definitions to too many people.
It seemed that way to whom? Not me.
The same holds true for any one individual issue.
That is total BS.
Foreign policy – you are probably correct.
Civil liberties – depends on which ones
Taxes – both were bad; tariffs and sales tax are both bad, as is the status quo. Spending is more of an issue than taxes. Debt is more of an issue than taxes as well.
Which issues matter – there is no consensus on that, nor should there be.
Agreed. Johnson also appeals to many civil libertarians and some progressives.
I’d take libertarian leaning paleocon over neo-con libertarian lite as our messenger personally. And full disclosure I’m and AN-CAP, Voluntaryist, Agorist etc.
That video circulated to attack Ernie in 2010. How is that not pro-Root? As the contest seemed between the two of them at the time.
That being said Baldwin still supports RP whereas Barr supported Gingrich and now Romney.
Also your Barr more libertarian than RP link
1) Immigration you have a point
2) Abortion depends on which libertarians you ask
3) DOMA is federalism and better than big gov’t forcing its views on people. Gay Marriage should not be legal the Gov’t should be out of marriage. Any other position is NOT libertarian including Gary Johnson’s.
4) Baldwin opposed social security and wanted it to be voluntary.
On the issues that matter IMO; foreign policy, taxation, & civil liberties Baldwin was better than Barr.
I guess the 08 LP debacle is irrelevant? Especially since Johnson is such a better candidate for Libertarians & Paleoconservatives than Goode.
It would have been nice to see the ticket balanced with Wrights but at least Johnson is pulling him into the campaign.
“I voted for Barr cause Baldwin wasn’t on the ballot here in PA. Have regretted it ever since.”
Me too but I don’t regret it. A write-in for Ron Paul would not have been tallied. It was still a vote against Obama and McCain. I still believe that Baldwin was actually more libertarian than Barr.
Of course Barr was Better than Baldwin in 2008.
Brian,
If I had your video editing skills I might make a video of Barr
*Praising Jesse Helms
*Supporting Plan Colombia
*Saying he would not legalize hard drugs (he may have also said he would not legalize drugs at all in his state, I’d have to check)
*Continuing to support and defend parts of DOMA
*Justifying his “patriot act” vote by way of introducing its sunset provision
*Raising money for non-libertarian Republicans
*Not paying his book’s ghostwriter
That’s all during his LP tenure, not before or after, and off the top of my head, not utilizing your excellent research and information organizing skills that allows you to know where to pull this stuff up from past arguments.
To be fair, I’m not convinced that Baldwin was more libertarian than Barr. Baldwin has significant non-libertarian elements to his positions. I do believe he was significantly closer to libertarian positions than Virgil Goode is, however. I think ontheissues.org and wikipedia, among other sources, would bear this out.
@133:
It’s not? And here I was all ready to compliment you on the realistic Baldwin mask.
And for readers trying to convince potential voters why they should not support Republicans
http://img546.imageshack.us/img546/1195/demsv.jpg
This video was made by pro-Root people.
No, it was made by me. I’m pro-LP, not pro-Root. (I did support Root over Barr for the 2008 LP nomination, though.)
That’s not a pro-Root person in a Baldwin mask. That’s Baldwin himself in the video, making all those unlibertarian statements.
Your Issues2000.org images are based on Barr positions going back to 1994. In his 2008 campaign, Barr did a decent job of sticking to the LP platform — often better than Ron Paul himself. If you don’t like the facts in the Baldwin video, then here are some more videos and quotes you’ll find inconvenient:
Was Ron Paul’s 2008 campaign more radical than the 2008 LP Platform or nominee?
This video was made by pro-Root people.
His protectionist instincts are bad. However, opposition to CAFTA, GAT, WTO, UN etc is a libertarian position.
He on occasion has brought up how the Gov’t should stay out of marriage and only got involved to keep interracial marriage from happening. Baldwin has brought up how the founders didn’t get licenses they just did it.
I’ve also gotten emails from Baldwin telling off conservatives about wanting to regulate the internet and how it will only make things worse.
Baldwin
End the Fed
End the Wars
End Homeland security patriot act etc
End the IRS income tax
Leave drugs up to states
Barr
Never talked about the Fed
End the wars he supported?
Sorry about the Patriot Act?
For a flat tax maybe?
Leave drugs up the states
Also
Chuck Baldwin
http://www.ontheissues.org/images/s050_080.gif
Bob Barr
http://www.issues2000.org/images/s030_080.gif
Who is more libertarian in that picture?
No Baldwin isn’t perfect but between him and Barr if you were gonna vote in 08 Baldwin was clearly the liberty candidate.
Full disclosure I voted for Barr cause Baldwin wasn’t on the ballot here in PA. Have regretted it ever since.
Baldwin was so much more ‘libertarian’ than Barr its comical that people are mad at Paul for endorsing him over Barr.
Hah. Watch this whole video. I dare you.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE-
Contact:
Scotty Boman
(313) 247-2052
[email protected]
http://boman12.org
Tea Party Welcomes Boman. Hoekstra Snubs Tea Party.
May, 22st. 2012
Shelby Township, MI – United States Senate candidate, Pete Hoekstra backed out of a candidate forum after learning he would have to face Libertarian hopeful Scotty Boman. The forum was held by the Romeo Area Tea Party at the Palazzo Grande in Shelby Township and was moderated by WJR Radio Personality Frank Beckmann.
During introductory statements, Beckmann explained the absence of former Congressman Pete Hoekstra by saying that Hoekstra was uncomfortable with the format, and objected to the inclusion of Scotty Boman in the forum. Boman commented that he expected Hoekstra to have a “…thicker skin than that.” The following morning (May 22nd) Beckmann addressed the snub again during the first segment of his 9:00 AM to Noon radio program on WJR AM. He specifically cited comments made by Boman at a forum held on May 14th as making Hoekstra uncomfortable.
At the May 14th forum in Grandville, Boman speculated on who he would vote for in the Republican Primary if he didn’t qualify to be in it saying, “We’re still a little short and if these are the only candidates I have to choose from, I’m going with Clark Durant…He’s a person that really sticks to principle. He’s a man who has professional talent to get things done.” This forum, at Eternal Word Church, was only attended by Pete Hoekstra, Gary Glenn, Randy Hekman, Clark Durant, and Scotty Boman. Peter Konetchy (who qualified for the Republican primary) did not attend.
On his May 22nd radio broadcast, Beckmann said Hoekstra viewed Boman and Durant as “a slate,” due to Boman’s favorable remarks about Durant. When asked, Boman has clarified this as a comment about his Republican Primary preference and that he would be voting Libertarian in November.
In September of 2011 libertarian activist, Scotty Boman announced his effort to seek the Republican Party nomination for United States Senate, but fell short of the 15,000 signatures needed to file for the Republican Primary. As a result, Boman’s name cannot appear on the Republican Party’s Primary ballot.
In 2008 Boman was on the general election ballot as a Libertarian. He placed third in the election. Libertarians nominate their State-wide candidates by a self-funded convention rather than a tax-payer funded primary. As a result, Libertarians can select their candidates at conventions, while also voting in major party primaries.
The Libertarian Party will hold it’s convention on June 2nd at: Embassy Suites Livonia/Novi. 19525 Victor Parkway. Livonia, MI 48152
Another candidate, Erwin Haas, is also seeking that nomination.
-END-
Baldwin was so much more ‘libertarian’ than Barr its comical that people are mad at Paul for endorsing him over Barr. That being said Virgil Goode is literally the CP’s Bob Barr. Had they nominated Castle I might have gotten behind them. Gary Johnson will due I guess. Even if he is wrong about taxation and abortion.
Yeah Benton has basically self destructed Paul’s campaign since SC. It’s too bad Paul can’t see family member’s flaws…whether it be the incompetent sell-out Benton or his neo-con son.
Side note anyone know if Baldwin is supporting Goode? I would kinda be surprised. I haven’t heard much of his involvement in the CP since he went to Montana. He should have run again.
@127: It is the same Roger Stone. He made his bones as a Republican operative going back to Nixon and before, so that’s the reputation that’s going to get him interviews. That said, he does mention Gary Johnson in the interview.
Hey, look at this article I found on Facebook. Isn’t this the same Roger Stone who is involved with the Johnson campaign?
http://www.businessinsider.com/roger-stone-on-mitt-romney-marco-rubio-vice-president-2012-election-2012-5
Sir Donald, you may post almost anything on the Open Thread. No death threats or other threats of violence which are not obviously to everyone a joke; No material from anyone else that is supposed to be confidential or only viewed on their site; No writing by other people without giving them credit, and no crediting other people with writing that they did not do. No violations of other’s privacy. Simple stuff like that. Otherwise have at it. Try to make your posts relevant to alt parties and independent candidates for the most part, but not always necessarily. Share news tips, stuff that would make good IPR articles, and so on.
You may post LP related comments or non-LP related comments.
I hope that is clear.
Open thread is not nor ever was intended to be an LP-free zone. It is, however, a good place to discuss whatever is not directly related to a specific article elsewhere on IPR or to a conversation that is already happening on another article’s comment thread. We prefer to have such not obviously directed comments posted in the open threads instead.
We welcome non-LP writers to join IPR, or other LP writers to join who want to cover non-LP topics. We can’t control who is willing to sign up as an IPR writer or what these volunteers decide interests them most.
Jill
Thanks again!
As mentioned on the other post
I?m now 40 (grrrr) and IPR coincidentally turns 4 today. I was not there when it started so it has to be coincidence
See last year?s b-day post https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2011/05/ipr-3-years-on-the-intertubes/ for more details as well as https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2010/05/independent-political-report-turns-two-years-old/ and https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2009/05/west-virginia-libertarians-raising-funds-for-2010-2012-ballot-access-ipr-one-year-anniversary/
I?ll try to put up another one of those today?
Sir Paul, with lots Lib dedicated sites, may I post Lib stuff on open threads ?????? ah, um here on Libertarian Political Report ???????
Happy birthday to Paulie today!
Her sister is a state senator who has already been found guilty on similar charges and is now awaiting sentencing. Nice family!
#121, no, she is a fairly new justice and was not there in 2004 and 2006.
http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/news/politics-state/justice-joan-orie-melvin-to-step-away-from-state-supreme-court-to-fight-charges-636503/
Does anyone remember if this is one of the people who has created difficulty for third parties in Pennsylvania?
Yes, Lake, on open threads. You can still post whatever you want here too.
ah, on open threads ???????????
Goode makes immigration trade much more primary issues than Baldwin ever did. Issue positions and issue emphasis are two factors that should both be kept in mind when evaluating candidates. On SS, it is true that Paul flubbed it in a TV interview but both he and Baldwin are generally much better on it than Goode is.
Generally agreed. However, Johnson is much better than Barr, Barr provoked him severely, Goode is worse than Baldwin, and Baldwin was a Paul volunteer unlike Goode.
If we can just ROW together for the next six months much can be accomplished !
SPECIAL GUEST – Lee Wrights
Tuesday Night: Town Hall with Governor Gary Johnson & Special Guest Lee Wrights
Tuesday, May 22, 2012
… 6:00 p.m. PT/ 7:00 p.m. MT/ 8:00 p.m. CT/ 9:00 p.m. ET
Gov. Johnson’s next online Town Hall is set for Tuesday evening. Please join us online at 9 p.m. ET / 6 p.m. PT. To participate, go to http://www.garyjohnson2012.com.
Gov. Johnson will be joined by R. Lee Wrights, founder and editor of Liberty For All, America’s premier online libertarian newsletter and the new vice chair of the Libertarian National Committee.
Lee has been active in local, state and national Libertarian Party organizations since 2000 and is a lifetime member of the Libertarian Party. He served as an at-large member of the LNC and was the organization’s vice chair for two years.
These informal online video chats are an excellent opportunity to exchange ideas about important issues of the day, and we urge you to participate.
If you don’t have a web camera, you can still participate via text questions. If you have technical questions, please visit http://www.yowie.com/faq.
If you can’t join us Tuesday and would like to watch the video later, you can always go to Yowie.com to view my video archives.
Again, go to http://www.garyjohnson2012.com Tuesday evening and join what I am sure will be a great discussion.
Hope to see you online
Governor Gary Johnson
Please Share with everyone you know, Thanks !
I have to say… two libertarians that I used to shake my head over I now often find my self nodding to the affirmative too. These would be Brian Holtz and Stuart Flood.
You have to give WAR some credit. Despite me disliking him more in 2008 than Barr, he has remained in the party and has become more libertarian since 2008 for what its worth.
My guess is that Barr didn’t get the support he expected from libertarians so he is trying to go back into the GOP. I know Ron Paul did it but he waited 8 years before his return and NEVER endorsed statist candidates in his off years.
Bob Barr: “Pander Pander Pander! Look at me, I’m a conservative and I supported Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney! If I run for Congress in 2014 please vote for me!”
But, not exactly unexpected, sad to say.
@108-9 Yes ….first Gingrich now Romney. Shameful.
Not 1 vote for Barr or WAR from Nevada in 2008 🙂
Remember the losers who spent 2008 giving us this turkey.
Austin Battenberg // May 17, 2012:
“Chuckie Poo” is a flawed candidate.
Oh, like, ‘Remember the true blue all American heroes and patriots of the MEXICAN Alamo.’
I am assuming this really is his Twitter. http://twitter.com/#!/bobbarr
Speaking of Barr, can anyone confirm this?
http://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/547080_10100236385413804_27300743_40801915_510666036_n.jpg
AE has already taken down the Log-In option, but has left up the “Give” button. Classy.
@104
Despite Paul’s endorsement of Baldwin I still voted for Barr. You are right that Baldwin was a flawed candidate. But in 2008 we really didn’t have ANY decent choices.
Americans Elect bails and won’t run anyone. The following is their ridiculous, lie filled statement-
http://www.americanselect.org/news/5-2012/release
P@90: Baldwin was nowhere near as bad [as Goode]
Your comment @71 listed just immigration, trade, and Social Security as the reasons why Paul couldn’t endorse Goode. My videos @80 showed that Baldwin was at least as bad on immigration and trade, and that Paul himself was spineless when confronted about Social Security on national TV.
My first video @80 also demonstrated how bad Baldwin was on marriage equality, prosecuting employers of “illegal aliens”, abortion, drugs, and obscenity. Baldwin even advocated a U.S. military presence in Panama to counter China there.
Shame on Ron Paul for endorsing Baldwin, and shame on Ernest Hancock for calling Baldwin “a good hardcore libertarian”.
Pro-life libertarians have long been a part of the party http://l4l.org/
and
http://www.lp.org/platform
Those people of good faith views presumably include libertarians, otherwise, wouldn’t that just be a generic statement that applies to every issue in the public debate?
Not sure what you can say about Johnson specifically — he’s clearly pro choice. I think he’s probably against public funding of abortions. That’s better than what they can expect to actually get from the big two, all GOP BS (blowing smoke) aside.
I am turned off by it too and I don’t think it will be better than what we have now. However Ron Paul does appear to think it would be:
http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=news_presScorecard
RP: “I’m not a co-sponsor of that but I’d probably vote for it.”
Johnson campaign says he is “anti-war, non-interventionist” in the short snippet from Reason above.
The archives at http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/blog and http://twitter.com/#!/GovGaryJohnson/ contain numerous reiterations of that with some specifics.
Not so. He does seem to believe that due process can be had through military tribunals, a position I strongly disagree with, but he does say we need due process and an end to torture …
http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/issues/foreign-policy
Paulie: Good for you man, Team Johnson needs more dedicated activists such as yourself. I’m sure you will make a great contribution towards his efforts.
As I said in my earlier post however, the articles I linked to had the quote you posted. Like I said, many of the Ron Paul supporters are on board if Ron Paul isn’t on the November ballot. But the thing that turns them away is the misinformation regarding Johnsons supposed support for intervention in Uganda, keeping Gitmo open and supporting torture and indefinite detention.
@100 Good response by the Johnson folks —
BTW as of today I am also a Johnson volunteer…
Hey guys, I just wanted to let you know that I’m a regular over at the Daily Paul, and Paul supporters seem split 50/50 on whether or not they could support Johnson.
This is the article from Reason where Johnson responds to Jesse Bentons (Ron Paul’s campaign manager) claim that there is no chance that Ron Paul would endorse Johnson.
http://reason.com/blog/2012/05/16/gary-johnson-campaign-responds-to-jess-b
Here is the Daily Paul blog where many of the Paul supporters weigh in on the article and Johnsons candidacy.
http://www.dailypaul.com/234079/gary-johnson-campaign-responds-to-jesse-bentons-claim-that-theres-no-chance-of-a-ron-paul-endorsement
I’d say Johnson has work to do. Many of the Paul supporters are turned off by his pro-choice views. Nothing Johnson can do about that. Many are also turned off by the Fair Tax, but most are willing to swallow it as slightly better than the current system. The thing that seems to grind my gears is many Paul supporters are calling him an interventionist because of the DC article where they say he supports going into Uganda, even though he has stated many times that he would only go with a declaration of war from the congress. Apparently many also believes he supports torture and indefinite detention because of an interview where he said he wouldn’t close down Gitmo.
I am trying to convince them otherwise but us Ron Paul supporters are thick headed. Any links to refute these claims would be nice.
This new Johnson ad seems pretty solid though I think a 30 second version would possibly be more effective
http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/05/gary-johnson-blows-up-a-watermelon-123743.html
Yes to all the above and more.
Didn’t Bob Barr try to ban the practice of Wicca from the military? Didn’t he vote for the Patriot Act? Wasn’t he one of the leading proponents of the Drug War? Didn’t support a total federal ban on medical marijuana (including the bizarre refusal to release election results on the issue in DC)? Wasn’t it Barr who tried to pass a law that would prevent any future reduction in Marijuana related sentences? Wasn’t it Barr who championed the Defense of Marriage Act? Wasn’t it Barr who was vehemently pro-life when in Congress?
Sure, if you discount all the terrible crap he did at the same time and all the bad speeches and votes that did not affect the outcome. And if you prioritize some issues and not others. And if you are someone like yourself who thinks DOMA was a good thing.
750 vetoes (more than all the other 49 combined) and one of 4 balanced budgets out of 50 states is nothing? Private sector job growth is nothing? OK. You win. I can’t argue against logic like that.
As for pardons I need a little more info. How many pardons did Johnson actually make and how did compare to NM Govs before and after, and to other states? I’ve asked before and no one answered. Anyone know and care to share?
@62 –Barr had an anti-liberty record in office, unlike Johnson.
This is false. Barr’s role on the Juduciary Committee in the 90s made him the leader in the Congress striking down police-state legislation submitted by the Justice Department. Results-wise, he was the most pro-liberty legislator during his tenure in Congress.
Now, it is true Barr’s rhetorical record was often anti-liberty in that he usually prefaced his pro-liberty actions by pointing out that even such a big “drug warrior” as himself had to oppose the latest outrage on the Fourth Amendment.
In this aspect, he is almost the photonegative of Johnson, who often ran his yap while he was governor about cannabis rights, but never once in eight years used is power to free even one nonviolent drug prisoner. So with Johnson you have a pro-liberty rhetorical record, but a real-world record that did nothing.
+1
Sad but true.
You said Johnson’s view is not much different from Goode’s.
Goode’s position says nothing about
All he says is save SS/M.
Keep in mind Goode was a Democrat for a long time. He switched mostly due to social issues.
Johnson’s position is one to move entitlements incrementally in a libertarian direction – typical “beltway libertarian” stuff as the Auburn folks say.
Goode’s as far as I can tell is typical major party demagoguery when it comes to entitlements.
But maybe there is more to his position than what I have read? If so please point me in the right direction on that.
Fair enough, my apologies. But given past events Benton is a highly reliable source on what Ron Paul will or will not do.
Baldwin was nowhere near as bad.
Baldwin was much better on SS/Medicare than Goode.
Baldwin was much better on foreign policy than Goode.
Baldwin’s issue emphasis was much better than Goode’s.
Baldwin was a Ron Paul volunteer; Goode never was as far as I know.
Baldwin was only endorsed after Shane got in a major pissing match with Benton. By way of contrast Johnson has endorsed Ron Paul twice – in 2008 and for the Republican primary this year after Johnson was out of it.
Prior to that Paul’s plan was to group-endorse Baldwin, Barr, Nader and McKinney as better than the big two.
Johnson is better in many ways from the Paulist standpoint than Barr ever was. And he has been very respectful towards Ron Paul and Ron Paul supporters. Barr on the other hand dissed them big time by promising to be on the stage and then backing out even though he was there, and then asking Paul to step in and replace Root as VP. Then and only then did the Baldwin endorsement happen.
And it’s not like he endorsed McCain. Endorsing Romney would be at least as bad if not worse.
There is no way that is anything like easy to do that.
The tags are based on how many articles out of close to 10k in all of IPR history got tagged with a given tag.
So the only ways to manipulate those results
1) Put up a lot of new articles. That would change the results but very slowly.
2) Go through a lot – and I mean a lot – of old articles and change the tags. If that is how you want to spend your time have fun.
3) Delete the tag. That one is easy, unlike the other two, but would that really reflect historical or subject based accuracy?
One of the ways IPR can be useful is for people doing historical research, so I would hope that we wouldn’t rewrite history just because Barr relapsed.
What MHW and Jill said. Also Wes if you are up give me a call pls 415-690-6352
Good job, Wes! That’s the way to come back from a convention!
Outstanding Wes. Leading by example.
Good news. We have 15 Libertarian candidates on deck for our state primary here in Oregon!
We are only one congressional district away from having a full federal slate (and hopefully will pick that up via write-in/active recruitment).
Give them Peace! 🙂
FYI, Jesse Benton is married to Ron Paul’s granddaughter, Valori.
@ 82. Good post!
WHY not do something positive this week for LIBERTY ?! Please share this plan with friends and family who will help.
Call and Email Gallup, Rasmussen, and other national polling companies to tell them to include Gov. Gary Johnson in (ALL their POTUS) polling. (Afterall he will be eligible to compete for over 500 Electoral College Votes)
Gov. Johnson must reach 15% in 5 polls to be included in the discriminatory “Commission on Presidential Debates”.
Gallup: 202.715.3030 / http://www.gallup.com/poll/contactUs.aspx
Rasmussen: 732.776.9777 / [email protected]
Pew Research: 202.419.4300 / [email protected]
Zogby: 305.529.6280 / http://interactive.zogby.com/contact/
CNN: 404.827.1500 /
http:// w w w . c n n .com/feedback/show/?s=generalcomments&hdln=4
THANKS,
ANDREW J. MILLER
This email was sent to me (I shared it with you, PLEASE DO something TODAY for the LP!)
Here’s a request to REDO those “TAGS” over on the left. BOB BARR is WAY TOO BIG — and is back in a major party now. Every time I see his name here I want to puke. . . .
Paul endorsed Baldwin in 2008, and Baldwin was at least as bad:
And in one of his biggest media appearances of the 2008 cycle, Ron Paul wimped out on Social Security (and other parts of the nanny state):
Paulie: “Benton is campaign manager and family. He pretty much does speak for Ron Paul.”
If a campaign manager and/or family member and/or identical twin says something with regard to a candidate, I wouldn’t say that the candidate said it, either as a news reporter or just privately.
Paulie: “He also did not say Romney had to embrace Paul’s ideas to win his support, just treat them with respect.”
He said this:
“If our people are treated with respect, if our ideas, their ideas, are *embraced* and treated seriously and treated with respect, I think the Republican Party has a very good chance of picking up a substantial number of their votes.”
Also, what does your post 76 imply? I already said that Johnson has said he wants to make reforms in order to”fix” and “maintain long-term solvency” of the programs. You just gave a list of different reforms he has espoused.
I saw Doug in Fargo maybe a month or two ago, he mostly gave me shit about getting fat again and then he had something come up with work and he couldn’t hang out. Great commercials tho….someone should offer them to Johnson, you know?
@75 Paulie, Thanks for posting that! I got to see the Producer Kristin at the convention! Doug Scribner and I had a blast writing that and helping her with the shoot.
@74
Raise the retirement age; plus means testing. (Aug 2011)
Reform all entitlements, including Social Security. (Jul 2011)
Open to personal accounts for Social Security. (Jul 2011)
Change escalator from wage-based to inflation-based. (May 2011)
Maintain long-term solvency of Social Security and Medicare. (Aug 2001)
Benton is campaign manager and family. He pretty much does speak for Ron Paul. He also did not say Romney had to embrace Paul’s ideas to win his support, just treat them with respect. There’s a big difference between those two.
And I hate to say this, but I don’t know if Johnson’s view of Social Security & Medicare is fundamentally different from Goode’s. They might differ in the details of how to “save Social Security & Medicare,” but on Johnson’s web site he talks about merely reforming the programs using words like “fix” and “long-term solvency.”
http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/issues/spending-and-the-deficit
Paulie, with all due respect, that’s not the same thing as Ron Paul talking about endorsing Romney. First, it’s not even Ron Paul speaking. Second, Benton is saying that Republicans had better embrace Paul’s ideas if they want to pick up a lot of libertarian-leaning votes. He’s trying to be diplomatic.
Battered movement syndrome?
Far less likely this time.
http://www.goodeforpresident2012.com/
http://ontheissues.org/Virgil_Goode.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgil_Goode
Paulie,
In other words “Give us lip service, use Liberty and freedom rhetoric more, tell us what we want to hear, get our votes, then do your own thing.”
Benton kept the door open for Rmoney and shut it in Johnson’s face.
And the keys to the kindgom of nigh? Not changing Rmoney’s whole policies of militarism, profligacy and social repression but “our people are treated with respect” and “ideas, are embraced and treated seriously and treated with respect,” not adopted mind you, just taken seriously.
No one seems to have asked about the party Paul endorsed in 2008, the Constitution Party.
“While that’s good news for Romney, Benton said he does “not believe that that is likely” Paul will endorse Romney, though he kept the option open.”
http://news.yahoo.com/ron-paul-campaign-rules-endorsing-libertarian-party-nominee-161609359.html
http://dailycaller.com/2012/05/15/ron-paul-campaign-rules-out-endorsing-libertarian-party-nominee/
A top campaign official for Ron Paul’s presidential campaign says there’s “no chance” that the Texas Republican congressman will endorse Libertarian Party nominee Gary Johnson for president over presumptive GOP nominee Mitt Romney.
“No,” campaign chairman Jesse Benton said in a response to a question from The Daily Caller about whether Paul would discuss the possibility of an endorsement with Johnson during a conference call with reporters on Tuesday. “There’s no chance of that.”
Johnson, the former Republican governor of New Mexico, endorsed Paul for president in 2008.
While that’s good news for Romney, Benton said he does “not believe that that is likely” Paul will endorse Romney, though he kept the option open.
Benton said Romney will still have to work hard if he wants the votes of Paul’s supporters. “In a lot of ways, the ball is in the court of the Republican Party and in the court of Mitt Romney,” he said.
“If our people are treated with respect, if our ideas, their ideas, are embraced and treated seriously and treated with respect, I think the Republican Party has a very good chance of picking up a substantial number of their votes,” Benton said.
He added: “On the flip side, if they’re treated I guess largely like they were in 2008, I think a lot of people are going to stay home, a lot of people are going to sit on their hands.”
Paulie: “But Ron Paul isn’t talking about endorsing Goode even….he’s talking about endorsing Rmoney…..if that would not be a sellout what would?”
He is?? Where??
I’ll take either one over Bob Barr any day of the week and twice on Saturdays.
Paulie @62
I am very happy I can endorse Johnson and not have to spend a lot of time “ya I know” ing with Pauls history. No more racist newsletter spin, no Obama type gay marriage solutions, no listening to his homophobic son.
Sure, GJ is not perfect on the economy but I will take that over bad social issues anyday.
Barr had an anti-liberty record in office, unlike Johnson. Johnson endorsed Ron Paul in 2008 and urged anyone that stayed in the NSGOP to vote for Paul there this year. Barr endorsed Gingrich. Barr refused to be on stage with Ron Paul and alt party candidates after promising to be there. Johnson has not done anything like that.
And look who the other alt party candidates are. Virgil Goode is no Chuck Baldwin. One of his top issues is saving SS and medicare. The rest is mostly anti-immigrant stuff. You can’t even hold the fraudulent tax against Johnson in this case, Goode supports it as well.
But Ron Paul isn’t talking about endorsing Goode even….he’s talking about endorsing Rmoney…..if that would not be a sellout what would? And in exchange for what? “Being treated good”?
This is in no way the same situation as 2008 at all.
@60 Barr felt the same way.
Too bad that feeling isn’t mutual.
“You can’t suspend liberty. The Ron Paul revolution must continue, whether he is actively campaigning or not. His message must be a part of the conversation leading to November. Millions of Americans, particularly young Americans, are energized by Congressman Paul’s challenge to the status quo, and I am confident that energy will only build in the weeks and months ahead. And as much as the business-as-usual political elite would like to do so, you can’t put a lid on the enthusiasm and commitment Ron Paul and his supporters bring to the process. Whether it is at the Republican Convention or at the polls in November, the revolution Ron Paul has ignited will be seen and heard in the months ahead. I will continue the Ron Paul Revolution.” – Gary Johnson
Now up at https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2012/05/what-next-for-americans-elect/
Joe, I’m trying to write it now. Internet is super slow here.
Paulie and other editors — seems AE should have its own ongoing thread now . . . Should be lots of new stuff in the next few days.
Rocky Anderson sent out the following email yesterday —
“On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 7:18 PM, Rocky Anderson wrote:
AE is already suspect for its sources of funding and the lack of transparency regarding rule-making and financing. (I have taken a lot of heat for simply declaring as a candidate because of these issues.) Do any of you truly believe it would be fair to change the rules so radically at this late date?
I asked weeks ago if AE would consider changing the rules regarding qualifying for the first round of voting. (As you probably know, the qualifying requirements are five times for me what they are for Buddy Roemer.) I was told weeks ago by a staff member at AE that the rules were not going to be changed, even if it meant there wouldn’t be a nominee.
At that point, we stopped aggressively pushing for supporters on AE and have focused our efforts on ballot access and party-building across the nation.
I’m unclear as to how anyone could justify changing the rules so dramatically as to put together a ticket . . . Now is not the time to frantically seek media coverage through radically changing the rules and adding David Walker as a running mate to Buddy Roemer.
AE is not too big to fail. It should live by the rules its insiders set.
This is very disappointing, but the rules set long ago (as with the rule of law in this nation) should control.
Best, Rocky Anderson”
Both the dates and the requirements for supporters are subject to change by the board of directors. In fact they can choose a candidate without any supporters from any states, one that is neither a declared nor draft candidate, if they so wish.
See AE transparency link in upcoming post.
p money–they’d need to not only put one of those candidates into contention, but they’d have to push back their nominating process long enough for that candidate to meet the requirement (10,000 supporters, at least 1000 in 5 states) or at least long enough for them to catch up to, and pass, Roemer.
Deran – thanks for heads up
Trent At this point, it’s too late for AE to just put their own candidates in (Boren, Whitman, Walker)–so Roemer/Rocky is the choice.
Why do you say it’s too late?
@50 I wonder, Roemer and Anderson seem so much more populist than the core “centrist” values and world view that AE claims it wants to see in their candidate?
At this point, it’s too late for AE to just put their own candidates in (Boren, Whitman, Walker)–so Roemer/Rocky is the choice.
Here’s Americans Elect May 15 2012 announcement
http://www.americanselect.org/news/5-2012/statement-americans-elect-ceo-kahlil-byrd
They sound commited to getting someone on the ballot.
I wonder if they will announce a Pres/VP slate on the 17th. And have some sort of plebiscite?
On Facebook, Roemer’s campaign has said if he does not get the AE nomination his presidential campaign will essentially be over.
It’ll be interesting to see what AE can pull out of it’s hat.
http://www.infowars.com/video-advertises-internmentresettlement-specialist-jobs-at-fema-camps/
With a search of the April Quarterly pdf, you can view his residency status and view any other pertinent information.
Phil Liberatore does not live in the 8th [California] Congressional District.
He ran for the 42nd Congressional District seat in 2010 in LA County but lost to Gary Miller.
You see, the newly drawn 8th district has a much larger proportion of Republican voters than Democrat voters.
Mr. Liberatore chose to cross district lines to find a more favorable district in which to run. Ours!
“But Nigerians have even used fraud fighters to commit cons.
In a recent e-mail, scammers have tried to trick people who want to support the activities of anti-scam site 419legal.com.
“It has come to the attention of 419legal that a group of scammers have been using the name of 419legal and the South African Police Service (SAPS) in scam letters,” the site says.
Of course, the e-mail says the agency is trying to raise funds to fight … Nigerian scams.”
digital scammers are often not sub rosa. They often type at public PCs. Neighbors often know exactly what the perps are doing. Seldom caught, even if they are, the punishment is blown off …..
meaning?
little or no over sight
It’s just a part of the culture there.
Does anyone know if there is a specific reason why internet scams so often involve Nigeria?
paulie @38… he must have a good internet connection from his Nigerian hotel. He posted an article about gay marriage and the Arkansas state legislature on his blog on May 13.
This is a great opportunity for Dondero to start a campaign against our incompetent embassies in foreign countries. Maybe he can get the government to out source or privatize them.
WW36
I know. Only it’s Dondero….
Senator Rand Paul is a Republican Christian conservative. He’s always been entirely honest about this. He’s never pretended to be a libertarian. Indeed, at some point in his last election campaign at some point he said that ‘they tried to pin the libertarian label on me, and they didn’t’. (Not clear to me which ‘they’ was meant). What he said in that speech is by Republican Christian conservative standards fairly mild. I disagree with him, and am happy to call him out as a Republican, with all the unfortunate overtones. Note that he criticizes politicians who get their jollies from thinking about waging war.
Paulie @35
Very common email scam.
——– Original Message ——–
Subject: Sad journey to Africa
Date: Tue, 1 May 2012 23:45:21 -0700 (PDT)
From: Eric Dondero
Reply-To: Eric Dondero
To: ericdondero@…
Greetings to you! Hope you are well. I am in great pain to write this note, I just want to inform you about something very important, I could hardly think or write directly to this point, I hope you come to my aid. something terrible is happening to me now urgently need a favor, I had a trip to Nigeria for a seminar, unfortunately for me, all my money was stolen on my way to the hotel where I stayed with my cell phone, bag where was my passport, and since then I’ve been without money, I’m even here at the hotel. So they have limited access to emails for now, I urgently need your financial support. The total amount of money needed would be $1,500 to sort-my hotel bills so I can make arrangements and come back, I’m in a panic now, the police only asked me to write a statement about the incident and directed me to embassy, I spoke with the embassy here but they are not responding to the matter effectively, I will return the money to you as soon as I get home, I wasn’t injured because I complied immediately. I’ll be waiting to hear from you so you can send the information to Western Union to use in sending the money.
Best regards,
Eric Dondero, Author
“Worldwide Multilingual Phrase Book; Survival Skills for Over 40 Languages”
And:
http://aetransparency.blogspot.com/2012/05/with-failures-rapidly-mounting-what-is.html
Here is the Rand Paul speech-
Part1-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfx-7pexJ48&feature=relmfu
Part 2-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9tlQXbeL3s
http://aetransparency.blogspot.com/2012/05/this-weaks-voting-at-americans-elect.html
@29 Do you happen to have a link for those of us not in attendance?
Im more concerned with the rumor gaining legs that RP has cut some kind of deal , spoken or otherwise with Mitt Romney over the political success of his son Rand.
Rumor has it no way will he endorse Gary Johnson for Pres. if he doesnt get the GOP nod because of not wanting to alienate the players for his sons career
This would bother me greatly , some say duh its politics and we should be happy if he just doesnt endorse anyone…
I am very curious what the libertarian take on Rand Paul’s speech at the Iowa Faith and Freedom Coalition meeting. Struck me as shockingly un-libertarian (dripping with religiosity) from Ron Paul’s son. Wonder what others thought.
I am signed up for AE as well and haven’t gotten any e-mails, which strikes me as really odd for a group trying to establish itself.
@26
One I received today reads:
>>There is a decent chance that AE’s Board will shut down their initiative next week. I think the best chance of that not happening is if we all encourage all our supporters to click Support for all candidates they deem acceptable . . .<<
It seems clear they don't have any candidates who have met the minimum requirements, and no major candidates publicly stating they are running for the nomination, as far as I can tell. (Rocky Anderson being one possible exception, I suppose.)
That’s odd. I have been a delegate for months and I have received no such emails.
Anyone know what’s up with Americans Elect? I’ve received two emails suggesting the “board may shut this down next week,” but I cannot imagine they would spend the kind of money they have on ballot access and then walk away.
Lake, at the risk of getting Holtz going again here, you are misrepresenting his problem with the email. It wasn’t that his wife received a spam; it was how people entrusted with the lists leaked them selectively.
Same Kochs, yes.
New Main Threads // May 10, 2012:
Holtz on “who got my wife’s email address” ???????????
Lake: ever hear of a spam button ???????????
Knapp the loose cannon’s loose cannon …………..
Same Koch as b, b, b, billions in PBS donations / sponsorships ???????????????
I think McBride’s faithless elector vote for Hospers, followed by an infusion of Koch money in the next two cycles, is why the LP took off.
The BTP could have taken off after Barr-Root became the LP ticket in 2008. Ironically, BTP founder Tom Knapp convinced Steve Kubby to urge LP unity instead. There has been no similar opportunity for the BTP since then. LP radicals are much more supportive of this year’s LP ticket than the one we had last time, and BTP’s Duensing seems to me to be less likely to get ballot access than Charles Jay was last time.
It is possible that the BTP could still have a bigger future, depending on the outcome of the 2014 and 2016 LP national conventions, but it seems less likely after this last LP convention.
@Darryl,
So, under 22 people?
1978 convention had 225+ people. Likely more than that.
http://www.libertarianism.org/lr/LR7810.pdf
They will be coming up at some time today, I have a lot of things to post, still feel tired/sleep and need to eat, also need to work but it may be too late in the day by the time I am up to it.
on IPR to improve readability are urged:
Brian Holtz on “who got my wife’s email address”?
Stewart Flood on how the LNC was being run by the hooded keys.
After Edwards’ presidential run was clearly over, he talked about starting a foundation to fight poverty and would seek financial help from Rachel “Bunny” Mellon, several former aides testified.
Mellon was 97 at the time and enamored of Edwards.
She had already given him $725,000 for his hush fund and $6 million to his political action committee and a non-profit organization.
Young asked Mellon for $40 million to $50 million for the foundation and suggested she could mortgage her home to get the money.
When Mellon made it clear that she was hurt by the financial demands, Edwards called her to apologize.
According to Mellon’s confidante Bryan Huffman, Edwards told the woman he was unaware of any plans for a foundation or Young’s request for money.
Huffman also told the court, however, that Edwards had called him and offered Huffman a seat on the foundation’s board of directors.
When Mellon’s lawyer Alex Forger discovered all the checks that were funneled to Edwards through Huffman, the lawyer confronted Edwards and asked him if he knew Huffman. Edwards said, no, never heard of him.
Edwards later conceded to Forger the money was meant for his personal use.
@15
I don’t know how many delegates attended the 1978 LP convention.
There are currently 2292 members of the BTP, just under 1% of those members participated in the BTP convention.
And how many showed up for the on-line party? Was it as many as the LP had in 1978?
Was it even 5% as many?
A Tale of Two Conventions
Over the past several days, two political parties have been holding their national conventions. One party holds all conventions online, with online voting and no overhead (other than cost of getting online) for party members who wish to participate. The other party regularly holds conventions in upscale hotels and has recently adopted a mandatory fee for any party member who wishes to be a delegate. One of these parties has only been around for 6 years, the other for 40 and is proving that age does not always equal wisdom.
Sounds like LP trying to Liberate Self from Hinkle-Rutherford…. http://reason.com/blog/2012/05/05/anarchy-at-the-libertarian-party-convent So they put off the vote because Texas challenged it? Geez, shades of Oregon??? What goes around comes around???
Cinco de Mayo
Ruwart says Lee Wrights was “raised by a libertarian to be a libertarian” — ie a “natural-born libertarian”!
to makie big TIPS by bus ????????????
Phone call from Sir Paul McCartney any time now ……….
Happy birthday to me. I’m 64. But STILL gorgeous. Just too chubby and hypochondriacal to makie big trips by bus, even to exciting Las Vegas, not to mention leaving my dogs behind with a very irresponsible caretaker. Dang I need a rich husband and big commune and a lear jet FAST….
Regarding Buddy Roemer’s “proud” announcement that he polled 7% on a poll:
The single poll was done by a small, privately hired polling firm, which asked if the only choices were Buddy Roemer as the Americans Elect, independent nominee and Obama as Democrat, and Romney.as Republican, who would you vote for. Obviously this poll was paid for by Roemer and was set up to maximize his numbers.
Considering how many voters are unhappy with both Obama and Romney, Buddy Roemer should not crow about receiving only 7%. It is not something for Roemer to celebrate. It is a devastating rejection of him.
Roemer often claims that if he is on the ballot against Obama and Romney, he will receive 41% of the vote and win the election, because Obama and Romney will divide up the rest, each in the 20% -30% range. He argues that he will win some votes from both major parties, Democrat and Republican, and will win most independents. So for him to receive only 7% in this set-up poll shows that his BIG STRATEGY is a fantasy. Actually, with other independents in the race, such as Libertarian, Green Party, etc., Roemer’s 7% would almost disappear.
The Catholic Trotskyist Party is scheduled to make a critical and shocking announcement on IPR on August 1, as soon as the August open thread is posted. The next three months will be a busy time for the party as it gets ready for this important change in direction. God’s blessings to all the libertarians at the LP convention. Good luck to Ogle and Wrights tomorrow!
NPR had a fairly long segment on Americans Elect today.
http://www.npr.org/2012/05/04/152036770/group-aiming-to-bypass-party-politics-hits-bumps
The opinion is basically that it’s a campaign for president in search of a candaite.
I know the participation has been extended to May 15, but it is not clear to me that the powers that be begind AE would support Buddy Roemer. Or will he end up being their default?
I know I read on IPR that AE is expected to make some big announcement on May 15?
Vote Phillies ! Humility is the best policy. Learning to lose is good for caracter building.
Dag Nabit, that John Jay guy has won. What will I say now ?
Fairly typical for any alt party candidate in a three way poll in the spring. For a control try doing one with a name you make up for that purpose.
I got an email from buddy Roemer saying he’s polling @ 7% …