--- In [email protected], "terry12622000" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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 marks one 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 11th 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.It Especially with NOTA it would give voters a chance to tell the damn politicans how important they are in their lifes, which for most people is not very much.--- In > [email protected], "Eric Dondero Rittberg" > <ericdondero@> 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/
