CONN's Democrat US Senator and ex Gore running partner, pro war
Liberman is up against an antiwar Democrat who just might beat
Liberman in the primary. Liberman has hinted that if he loses the
party nomination he might run as an independent in the general
election.
Man, I really like that and I think it caulks up on more point
in favor of an open ballot primary with parties picking their chosen
runner before the primary those giving the loser or losers a chance
to run as an independent in the primiary along with other non party
independents and party picks. The two with the most votes in the
primary would compete in the general election no matter if they were
2 out of 200 on the primary ballot and the 2 with the higest vote
count only had 1% of the vote each. Of Course NOTA should be on the
primary ballot and the general ballot even if it doesn't offically
count. Or you could have an open ballot in the primary with approval
voting in the general election allowing for as many as 100 on the
general ballot and NOTA. If a voter wanted to rank in order of
approval all 100 and put NOTA at the top of the list they could, if
they did a write in they could put more on the list for example for
president- first choice NOTA, second choice- their mom, third choice,
their dad, fourth choice- their wife, fifth choice- themselves, 6th
7th and 8th choice their kids, 9th 10th 111th choice brother and
sister, 12th through 16th choice grandparents, 17th to 100 th choice,
friends, cousins, preacher and co-workers, 101st choice Badnarik,
102th Choice Ron Paul, 103rd Choice Gary Johnson.--- In
[email protected], "Eric Dondero Rittberg"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Stephen, very interesting article. Thanks for posting it.
>
> A couple quibles.
>
> Didn't Hackett leave the Democrats to run as an Independent in
Ohio,
> after the Dem leadership told him that he would not be supported by
> the Party for the US Senate?
>
> Webb in Virginia is quite good. Of the 4 he's the only one who
> could be listed as a "moderately libertarian-leaning Democrat."
> (Even Hackett is just a Moderate, not a libertarian).
>
> To call John Tester and Brian Schweitzer in Montana "libertarian"
is
> outright laughable. Tester was the Far-Left candidate in the
> Primary, who beat the reasonable guy, John Morrison. It was
> Democrat "Tester like" Thugs who sought to thwart our petition
> efforts in Montana for Property Rights and to Stop the Over
> Spending, in liberal bastions like Bozeman and Missoula.
>
> John Tester is the ENEMY OF FREEDOM, and doesn't have a libertarian
> bone in his body. It's downright insulting to even suggest he's
any
> sort of ally to libertarians. Schweitzer is almost as bad. Yeah,
> he's okay on Military issues; more Pro-War in Iraq/Pro-Troops than
> most. But besides that stance, there's nothing Pro-Liberty about
> him. Nice guy and all, (unlike Stalinist Tester). But definitely
> NOT A LIBERTARIAN.
>
> Amazing that the writer misses mentioning the tiny cadre of
> Democrats who actually do lean libertarian (besides Webb). Folks
> like CT Senator Joe Lieberman, Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson and NM
> Governor Bill Richardson.
>
> No, he chooses Tester, which completely shows he has absolutely NO
> UNDERSTANDING WHATSOEVER what libertarianism is all about.
>
>
>
>
> --- In [email protected], Richard Shepard
> <shepardelectionlaw@> wrote:
> >
> > This was in the Daily Kos last month.
> >
> > The Libertarian Dem
> > by kos Wed Jun 07, 2006 at 10:15:50 AM PDT It's no secret
> that I look to the Mountain West for the future of the Democratic
> Party, people like Brian Schweitzer and Jon Tester. But I also look
> to candidates like Jim Webb in Virginia and Paul Hackett in Ohio.
> > And what is the common thread amongst these candidates?
> > They are all Libertarian Democrats.
> > Ack, the "L" word! But hear me out.
> > Traditional "libertarianism" holds that government is evil and
> thus must be minimized. Any and all government intrusion is bad.
> While practical libertarians (as opposed to those who waste their
> votes on the Libertarian Party) have traditionally aligned
> themselves with the Republicans, it's clear that the modern GOP has
> no qualms about trampling on personal liberties. Heck, it's become
> their raison d' etre.
> > The problem with this form of libertarianism is that it assumes
> that only two forces can infringe on liberty -- the government and
> other individuals.
> > The Libertarian Democrat understands that there is a third
> danger to personal liberty -- the corporation. The Libertarian Dem
> understands that corporations, left unchecked, can be huge dangers
> to our personal liberties.
> > Libertarian Dems are not hostile to government like traditional
> libertarians. But unlike the liberal Democrats of old times (now
all
> but extinct), the Libertarian Dem doesn't believe government is the
> solution for everything. But it sure as heck is effective in
> checking the power of corporations.
> > In other words, government can protect our liberties from those
> who would infringe upon them -- corporations and other individuals.
> > So in practical terms, what does a Libertarian Dem look like? A
> Libertarian Dem rejects government efforts to intrude in our
> bedrooms and churches. A Libertarian Dem rejects government "Big
> Brother" efforts, such as the NSA spying of tens of millions of
> Americans. A Libertarian Dem rejects efforts to strip away rights
> enumerated in the Bill of Rights -- from the First Amendment to the
> 10th. And yes, that includes the 2nd Amendment and the right to
bear
> arms.
> > So far, this isn't much different than what a traditional
> libertarian believes. Here is where it begins to differ (and it
> shouldn't).
> > A Libertarian Dem believes that true liberty requires freedom
of
> movement -- we need roads and public transportation to give people
> freedom to travel wherever they might want. A Libertarian Dem
> believes that we should have the freedom to enjoy the outdoor
> without getting poisoned; that corporate polluters infringe on our
> rights and should be checked. A Libertarian Dem believes that
people
> should have the freedom to make a living without being unduly
> exploited by employers. A Libertarian Dem understands that no one
> enjoys true liberty if they constantly fear for their lives, so
> strong crime and poverty prevention programs can create a safe
> environment for the pursuit of happiness. A Libertarian Dem gets
> that no one is truly free if they fear for their health, so social
> net programs are important to allow individuals to continue to live
> happily into their old age. Same with health care. And so on.
> > The core Democratic values of fairness, opportunity, and
> investing in our nation and people very much speak to the concept
of
> personal liberties -- an open society where success is predicated
on
> the merit of our ideas and efforts, unduly burdened by the
> government, corporate America, or other individuals. And rather
than
> always get in the way, government can facilitate this.
> > Of course, this also means that government isn't always the
> solution to the nation's problems. There are times when business-
> government partnerships can be extremely effective (such as job
> retraining efforts for displaced workers). There are times when
> government really should butt out (like a great deal of small-
> business regulation). Our first proposed solution to a problem
> facing our nation shouldn't be more regulation, more government
> programs, more bureaucracy.
> > The key here isn't universal liberty from government intrusion,
> but policies that maximize individual freedom, and who can protect
> those individual freedoms best from those who would infringe.
> > I am very much a Libertarian Dem, and this is exactly what my
> next book will be about. It's progressivism for a new century. And
> that's what this new breed of Democrat is building in the Mountain
> West and Virginia and Ohio.
> > Update: Ha, framing... Yeah, "Lib Dem" reads just like "liberal
> democrat". So I edited.
> >
> >
> > steven linnabary <linnabary51@> wrote:
> > I certainly didn't write the following, but God I wish
I
> had!
> >
> > PEACE
> > Steven R. Linnabary, Treasurer
> > Franklin County Libertarian Party
> > (614) 891-8841
> > P.O.Box#115; Blacklick, OH 43004-0115
> >
> > "When you make peaceful revolution impossible, you make violent
> revolution
> > inevitable" John F. Kennedy
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "thetechnate" <lhferree@>
> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2006 2:28 PM
> > Subject: [LeftLibertarian] Why Not The GOP?
> >
> > (Note: What follows is an introductory essay I am working on for
my
> > blog, Freedom Democrats (http://www.freedomdemocrats.org/). I am
> > trying to have several essays explaining my reasons for not
working
> > within the Republican or Libertarian Party and why Democrats
ought
> to
> > open up to some form of moderate/pragmatic libertarianism. Your
> > mileage may vary in terms of your opinion on if any degree of
> > political involvement is desirable, and if so if a third party
like
> > the Libertarian Party is better than working within a major party
> like
> > the Democratic Party. Nevertheless, I at least want to provide
some
> > solid reasons for not working within the GOP. I encourage
everyone
> to
> > respond with their thoughts on how I could improve this work. Feel
> > free to distribute it as well, as long as my name is still linked
> to
> > it as my work.)
> >
> > Why Not The GOP?
> > by Logan Ferree
> >
> > The Republican Party of today is an unholy alliance of theocons
and
> > neocons that depends on majorities in Congress and control of the
> > White House to win the additional votes needed to stay in power
> > through fear-mongering and bribery. Control of the modern
> Republican
> > Party rests largely in the hands of the Religious Right, which has
> > grown to dominate the party since the late 1970s. Where once
social
> > conservatives hoped to use libertarian means to achieve their
> goals by
> > liberating families, churches, and schools from left-wing utopian
> > schemes, they now turn to the government as a weapon to wage a
> > cultural war against their enemies: feminists, gays, non-
> Christians,
> > and even fellow Christians that do not embrace their extremist
> > beliefs. The government is used to impose a top-down policy of
> > mandating school prayer and radical abstinence only sex education.
> > Federalism is ignored in intervening in personal medicinal
> decisions,
> > be it a woman's right to choose or the right to die with dignity.
> > However, the divide between libertarians and the Republican Party
> runs
> > even deeper.
> >
> > Since 9/11, a form of right-wing authoritarianism has developed
> among
> > the Republican ranks that values unquestionable loyalty to
> President
> > Bush and the party's leadership. The mindset of a never-ending
War
> on
> > Terror which can be used to justify any action is in many ways an
> > extension of the mindset of a never-ending culture war
> domestically.
> > This War on Terror has been used to justify unprecedented
executive
> > secrecy, an upset of our system of checks and balances,
preemptive
> war
> > with no probable cause, and the use of torture. Questioning the
> > President has become off-limits during this War on Terror, even on
> > domestic issues that to any sane observer would be unrelated. The
> > concentration of power in the hands of the Republican leadership
in
> > the House had accelerated in the past few years and has spread to
> the
> > Senate, with plans to use the 'nuclear option' to end the long
> > standing practice of filibustering in the chamber.
> >
> > Extreme social conservatism is not a message that resonates with
> the
> > majority of Americans, nor is the destruction of our venerable
> system
> > of democratic government. To maintain control, the Republican
Party
> > turns to two strategies, both antithetical to libertarians. First,
> > fear tactics that demonize opponents and intimidate voters.
> Rhetoric
> > that exaggerates the danger posed by international terrorism
fuels
> the
> > rise of loyal and unquestioning followers. Second, reckless and
> > irresponsible spending that treats voters as goods that are
> auctioned
> > off to the highest bidder. From strong-arm tactics to pass the
> > Medicare prescription drug package to Bush's flip-flops on steel
> > tariffs to the record-breaking rise of earmarks, Republicans have
> > abandoned any claim to the title of "small government
> conservatism."
> >
> > There is a growing gap between the libertarian rhetoric of the
> > Republican Party and the voting record of their members. I
> personally
> > began to notice this gap back during the debates over CAFTA
> > (http://freedomdemocrats.org/node/106), when Congressman Ron Paul
> and
> > his Liberty Committee urged libertarian activists to contact their
> > representatives to oppose the bill; few members of his Liberty
> Caucus
> > opposed the bill. A review of the key votes identified by the
> Liberty
> > Caucus in 2005 (http://freedomdemocrats.org/node/384), and then a
> > later one that incorporated votes from 2006
> > (http://freedomdemocrats.org/node/739), revealed that so-
> called "small
> > government conservatives" were MIA in standing up for civil
> liberties
> > and American sovereignty. Cynthia McKinney, a nutjob, and Bernie
> > Sanders, a socialist, were closer to Ron Paul's voting record.
> Such a
> > situation reveals how hollow the claims of the Republican party
to
> be
> > libertarian really are.
> >
> > Far from standing up to the creeping authoritarianism within the
> > Republican Party, many so-called libertarian Republican activists
> are
> > turning their guns on their supposed ideological brethren. Eric
> > Dondero, a founder of the Republican Liberty Caucus, has attacked
> > Congressman Ron Paul for his opposition to the Iraq War, which he
> > considers a success (http://freedomdemocrats.org/node/674).
Calling
> > Ron Paul a "a stooge" of the "Leftist Media", Dondero went so far
> as
> > to call for a pro-Iraq War candidate to take out Ron Paul. Such
> > demands for ideological purity on the right are a sign of the
rise
> of
> > authoritarianism within the Republican Party. The GOP is no
longer
> a
> > welcome home for libertarians.
> >
> > <><>
> > Logan Ferree
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail Beta.
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
