libertarian candidates

[dretceterini]

Who was it that said kill all the politicians? Realistically, we have a choice between 2 morons...

 

[subgenius]

There is always a lesser of two evils, even if its hard to discern.

 

[michaellee]

originally posted by Art Vandelay

Is anyone frozen out of debates during the primaries?

Why YES. You will never see the Libertarian candidate for president up on the podium debating the Republican and Democratic nominees. I recall last election, that most if not all of the invited candidates to the debate stated they would not show up if the Libertarian candidate was included. I wonder why?

Is anyone prohibited from engaging in fund raising?

Prohibited, no. Restricted, yes. Ever heard of campaign finance reform? Just which candidates do you think these laws, written and passed by Dems and Reps, affect the most concerning the ability to raise enough money to truly compete?

Are the media not allowed to talk about certain candidates?

What difference does it make if the media is allowed to do something or not? The only thing that matters is what and who they DO talk about. Third Party candidates, if mentioned at all by the media, are referred to as 'others', and sometimes may get 1 or 2 minutes of national air time, but only to defend their minority stance on an buzz saw issue. This is when the commentator, and most of the audience shrug and think "What a wacko for having that stance on the war on drugs" et al.

Wouldn't it be refreshing to see a third party candidate, like a Libertarian or Constitution party candidate, debate with GWB and John Kerry? It will never happen, and not because the third parties don't want it to.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I caught parts of the debate on cspan. General impression of candidates: light weights, bordering on clown act. The nominee, Aaron Russo, is a movie producer. He joked that the notion of him as president was drug induced -- I give him credit for honesty. Is this the best the libertarians can do? What about a general, or a former congressman, ok, maybe a state assemblyman, anyone with ANY credentials?

Yes, that is the best they can do. If you know you have no chance of winning, all you're going to get to run are clowns and loonies.

 

[Snide]

You will never see the Libertarian candidate for president up on the podium debating the Republican and Democratic nominees.

I wouldn't say never. But I agree with some of the thoughts above that the Libertarian Party would serve itself better to establish itself at the local levels first, before pushing for presidency. Not that they shouldn't be on Governor tickets, Senate, and others. I just think the (undeserved or not) image that only loonies are running is something they need to better address.

I want less government and more liberties. I'm socially liberal and fiscally conservative, just as my former governor, Mr. Ventura, described himself. Our state has a great many people in that same general philosophical area. But neither of the big two represents us as well as a libertarian (small "L" intended) might.

 

[Art Vandelay]

originally posted by Art Vandelay

Is anyone frozen out of debates during the primaries?

Why YES. You will never see the Libertarian candidate for president up on the podium debating the Republican and Democratic nominees.

Emphasis added. I've been talking about the primaries for several posts now.

Prohibited, no. Restricted, yes. Ever heard of campaign finance reform? Just which candidates do you think these laws, written and passed by Dems and Reps, affect the most concerning the ability to raise enough money to truly compete?

I don't see that the laws significantly favor one candidate over the another in the primaries.

What difference does it make if the media is allowed to do something or not? The only thing that matters is what and who they DO talk about. Third Party candidates, if mentioned at all by the media, are referred to as 'others', and sometimes may get 1 or 2 minutes of national air time, but only to defend their minority stance on an buzz saw issue. This is when the commentator, and most of the audience shrug and think "What a wacko for having that stance on the war on drugs" et al.

So if most of the audience agrees with them, aren't they expressing the will of the people?

 

[rastamonte]

I usually vote for all of the libertarian candidates at the local election level. My vote at the presidential level is always wasted, because my state always votes Republican (and I never have.)
So I figure I might as well vote Libertarian or Third Party at the presidential level too. I'm glad there is a Libertarian candidate for President, otherwise I wouldn't have anyone to vote for.

 

[shanek]

Michael Badnarik, who is the nominee, NOT Russo, teaches Constitutional Law. I'd put his knowledge of the Constitution up over Bush or Kerry any day of the week and twice on Sundays.

Besides, even the diehard Nolan and Russo supporters admitted that Badnarik won that debate hands down. If you didn't see a skilled debator in him, then I really have to wonder what debate you were watching. He was the way-way-behind candidate, the dark horse, and the debates propelled him to victory.

If we can only get him into the debates this year, he'll make waves.

 

[shanek]

This is part of the problem with minor parties in the U.S. (blah blah blah) What the Libertarians should do to break it is focus exclusively on local offices for now

What you (and so many others) fail to realize that it is necessary to have candidates for President, Governor, etc. to lend credibility to the local offices. The local offices ARE where we focus, and ARE where we WIN.

 

[shanek]

Re: Re: Re: libertarian candidates

The problem is, voting Libertarian for president under the current system really is throwing your vote away. There's no way in hell it'll happen, and everyone knows it. Electoral reform (instant-runoff voting, etc.) is necessary before any third party candidate has a realistic shot at a national office.

What you fail to realize is all of the benefits for voting Libertarian even outside getting elected. Electing a President is just the brass ring. Even without being elected, enough votes (sometimes as high as 10-15%) means in many states that we get to keep ballot access, and we won't have to spend $5-10 MILLION dollars getting back on the ballot in all 50 states again. How much more do you think we could do with that money? Even below that, if we cost Bush the election by drawing a greater number of votes than what separates him and the victor, we'll set a fire under a LOT of asses.

That's why they need to start with local offices, where they can go door to door and actually meet their potential voters and convince them individually that they're not a crackpot. Of course, actually not being a crackpot would be an asset in that area.

The over 600 elected Libertarians in this country would say we are already doing that.

Shooting for the moon contributes to the public perception of third party candidates as extremists and weirdos

No, it doesn't. We need the higher level candidates to give us credibility. That's absolutely vital for all the victories we do have.

 

[shanek]

Re: Re: Re: libertarian candidates

That said... hey, many people are highly accomplished. Not to be president though! Badmarik may well be a bright chap. I'd be glad to consider him for city council, maybe even state assembly.

Why would you NOT want a highly respected Constitutional Law instructor in the White House? Bush has trouble even SAYING "Constitution"!

 

[shanek]

"Third party" (in the 4th would be a better description) always claim that the major parties are all the same.

Fine. Name ONE clear, substantive, fundamental differences between Democrats and Republicans. And I'm not talking about their rhetoric, I'm talking about what they actually do in office.

 

[LostAngeles]

I caught parts of the debate on cspan. General impression of candidates: light weights, bordering on clown act. The nominee, Aaron Russo, is a movie producer. He joked that the notion of him as president was drug induced -- I give him credit for honesty. Is this the best the libertarians can do? What about a general, or a former congressman, ok, maybe a state assemblyman, anyone with ANY credentials?

The Libertarian Party is very disjointed. In general, they'd like to have the government off people's back. This attracts people of Ken Lay's type to people of Lyndon LaRouche's type and everywhere in between. You can't really make a stance out of that.

That's why I'm a closet Libertarian and won't touch the party with a ten-AU pole. If I can't find a candidate from the Big Two, I actually tend to go Green or Independant (which sounds like another party that could never have a consistance stance to me).

 

[shanek]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: libertarian candidates

That depends. Who is the alternative? You know and I know that, in 2004, either a Democrat or a Republican will be elected president. Pretending otherwise is just rhetoric and posturing.

This isn't a horse race, where you have to bet on the winner.

Here's the way Badnarik puts it (from memory, so I'm probably mangling it):

Let's say you're on death row for a crime you didn't commit. You have a 50% chance of being hanged, a 49% chance of lethal injection, and a 1% chance of escape. Are you really saying you'd go for lethal injection just because it's the lesser of the two evils? You're not going to take a chance on escape, no matter how remote it is?

No, but under the current system, there is a punishment for voting for a candidate you are absolutely certain will lose: you increase the risk that the Big Two candidate you like the least will get into office.

Which is why we need Instant Runoff voting, as you mentioned.

It's a problem with our electoral system. If we had instant-runoff voting, I'd be 100% on your side, and I would love to see that happen. But as things stand today, where a split vote can elect a diametrically opposed candidate, it makes no sense to vote for someone who has no chance of winning. You might as well not vote.

A lot of people choose that route. And the politicians choose to see that as apathy instead of a rejection of their policies. By voting Libertarian, you take away that excuse from them. Then they get angry and have to start passing more tyrannical ballot access and campaign finance laws. The more they do that, the more people see them for what they are.

You're arguing against a straw man, here. I never said voting for a candidate who loses is a waste. I said that voting for a candidate that can't possibly win is a waste, under our current system.

Even if it means we don't have to spend millions of dollars just to stay on the ballot if our candidate gets enough votes in enough states?

It's called "grass roots" for a reason -- you have to start at the bottom.

As I keep pointing out, we have and we do.

Here's the results of the Rasmussen survey Aaron Russo commissioned before the convention:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Russo.htm

19% said they'd vote for him if he took a stance against the war (which he and Badnarik both do). 19%! That's enough for ballot access in every state! That's $5-10 million we wouldn't have to spend just getting back on the ballot—freeing up money and volunteer time to work more on those local campaigns you keep screaming for us to focus on.

Meanwhile, third parties are spending millions on campaigns that can't possibly win,

I'd like to know which third parties you're talking about, because it AIN'T the LP. We're broke after we spend our millions getting back on the ballot.

No party represents my beliefs. Should I write a name in, then?

They won't count it; not in NC, anyway. NC ignored Constitutionally-valid write-in votes for Ralph Nader in 2000.

 

[shanek]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: libertarian candidates

Libertarians run candidates at all levels of government and hold more than 3000 formally elected offices - everything from water commissioners to state senates.

Correction #1: It's over 600, not 3000. But give us time.

They have won more elected offices than any other third party and have had significant influence over many races of national significance.

Correction #2: We have won more elected offices than ALL the other third parties COMBINED.

 

[shanek]

The two party system is a result of choices by the American people,

No, it isn't. It's a result of tyrannical election-rigging by the Demopublicans, through ballot access laws, campaign finance "reform" laws, running the debates themselves, etc.

 

[shanek]

originally posted by Art VandelayWhy YES. You will never see the Libertarian candidate for president up on the podium debating the Republican and Democratic nominees. I recall last election, that most if not all of the invited candidates to the debate stated they would not show up if the Libertarian candidate was included. I wonder why?

In NC in 2002, the League of Women Voters invited the Senate candidates to a debate to be televised statewide. Elisabeth Dole and Erskine Bowles both confirmed. They invited Sean Haugh, the Libertarian candidate, and pretty much right after he accepted both Dole and Bowles backed out.

Ever heard of campaign finance reform? Just which candidates do you think these laws, written and passed by Dems and Reps, affect the most concerning the ability to raise enough money to truly compete?

Exactly. We get hit with more and more roadblocks to fundraising, while the major candidates get $75 million of YOUR taxpayer dollars to spend on their campaigns.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: libertarian candidates

Correction #1: It's over 600, not 3000. But give us time.



Correction #2: We have won more elected offices than ALL the other third parties COMBINED.

Of course, 99.9% of those "elected offices" are dog catcher, county water commisioner and mayor of Podunk, USA, population 281.

 

[Art Vandelay]

No, it isn't. It's a result of tyrannical election-rigging by the Demopublicans, through ballot access laws, campaign finance "reform" laws, running the debates themselves, etc.

The big 2 can tilt the table in their favor, but the ultimate decision is in the hands of the American people. If people really wanted to have a different system, they could get it.

You could arrange things anyway you want, the fact is people don't want to vote for someone who wants to blow up the UN.

 

[a_unique_person]

I caught parts of the debate on cspan. General impression of candidates: light weights, bordering on clown act. The nominee, Aaron Russo, is a movie producer. He joked that the notion of him as president was drug induced -- I give him credit for honesty. Is this the best the libertarians can do? What about a general, or a former congressman, ok, maybe a state assemblyman, anyone with ANY credentials?

Just as an aside, the idea of a General running for office in Australia is entirely unknown. Seperation of Church and State kind of thing. Seperation of the Military and the Democratic Process. You can be ex-military as an MP, but only if you were relatively low in the military pecking order.

Ex Generals can take part in the political world only as appointees for ceremonial jobs. The appointment of Generals to the job of Governor General, (a mostly ceremonial position) as about as good as it gets.