Michael Badnarik, 2004 Libertarian Candidate - Whats his story...?


PDA






Diesle
July 19, 2003, 02:31 AM
Ref: http://www.badnarik.org


In the last couple of election cycles I've voted Republican pretty much down the line. You know how Republicans used to sort of run on the ole 'we're all about smaller government.... and we're all about personal responsibility and liberties...' That appealed to me. For the most part, I guess I feel that that has worked in my favor. Tax rates have been largely flat-lined over the years, gun laws have been loosened at the state level for the most part and national defense is in the front seat. However, MY government has no business legislating morality. So abortion and sexual preference are and will continue to take a beating under Republican rule. And it looks like my personal liberties will be eroded in the name of national defense and we (U.S.) will continue to police the world. Plus I can look forward to big businesses running my government well into the future. Very disturbing.

I’m ready for a shakedown. I want a shakedown.

What are you gathering on Michael Badnarik? Any interesting facts or information. Obviously there isn’t a chance that the LP will win the presidential election in 2004 but it sure would be nice to see a little "how's your father" sent to Republicans in the form of votes lost to a Libertarian candidate. That might help remind some of them who their working for….



Diesle

If you enjoyed reading about "Michael Badnarik, 2004 Libertarian Candidate - Whats his story...?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Jim March
July 19, 2003, 05:58 AM
I've met him. He was one of the guest speakers at Counterattack2003 in Texas; I would rate both his public speaking and "sanity level" as being very high.

He teaches a class in "deep Constitutional law", and gave a mini-lecture on the subject at the conference. Very good stuff; quite "hardcore" in regards issues like freedom of travel and taxation, but also very well thought out and presented.

Basically, he can be counted on to "shift the debate" in interesting directions, while not coming across as a loon and actually getting some people to think. Which is about all you can ask of an LP Presidential contender.

I hope this doesn't come across as too negative, as that's not my intent.
I think highly of the guy.

Cactus
July 20, 2003, 05:54 PM
Great idea Diesle! If enough Republicans and conservatives vote for Badnarik, we could end up with Howard Dean as President.:banghead: What a great "message" that will send!

Wonderful!:rolleyes:

David Park
July 20, 2003, 07:02 PM
Here's a web page with information about all the LP presidential candidates:
http://www.politics1.com/libt04.htm

It seems like a wide-open field. Currently, Badnarik and Gary Nolan seem to be the frontrunners, but Carla Howell hasn't announced if she's running yet.

MicroBalrog
July 20, 2003, 07:14 PM
If enough Republicans and conservatives vote for Badnarik, we could end up with Howard Dean as President

Still better than George "AWB" Bush and John "Patriot Act" Ashcroft.

Diesle
July 20, 2003, 07:16 PM
You know what Cactus, if Dean were elected as a reuslt of voter bleed, I think the message would be heard LOUD AND CLEAR! In fact, Im willing to sacrafice the next 4 years to send that message in no uncertain terms.



Diesle

bjengs
July 20, 2003, 09:42 PM
Amen, Diesle.

Republicans - the P. T. Barnum party ("there's a sucker born every minute")

Waitone
July 20, 2003, 10:16 PM
I can't stiffle this one.

Does this guy clean up real good? I mean, is he presentable, speak clearly with some sense of grammar? Is he interested in bringing voters over to his side or is he interested in beating them about the head and shoulders for being so stupid at to vote for other party members.

Reason I ask is the Libertarian party in my district twice fielded the same candidate who managed to alienate just about everyone he counted on to vote for him.

He dressed like a recent refugee from Oregon (I'm in the hot, humid south) and according to those who got close to him smelled like 3 day old boiled goat. His USP (unique sales proposition) was vote for him 'cause he was a gun totin', pagan, libertarian. He relished his role in sticking his thumb in the eye of the establishment, unfortunately, he made no headway in acquainting the great unwashed as to the benefits of the libertarian philosophy. He lost big time, twice, to a typical spinelessrepublican.

If Libertarians want to have an impact at the local level, they must learn the basics of human nature. No human likes his or her believe to be attacked or belittled.

Cactus
July 20, 2003, 10:29 PM
Originally posted by:Diesle
You know what Cactus, if Dean were elected as a reuslt of voter bleed, I think the message would be heard LOUD AND CLEAR! In fact, Im willing to sacrafice the next 4 years to send that message in no uncertain terms.

Maybe you can fill me in on what message all of the Ross Perot voters sent President George H.W. Bush in 1992. The only thing I got out of it was eight years of Bill Clinton; the AWB, ignoring terrorists, higher taxes, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, etc., etc.! :cuss:

But I'm sure Howard Dean will be much better than Bill Clinton, right? :barf:

As a wise man once said: "Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it".

Oracle
July 20, 2003, 11:10 PM
The Republicans have been leaning seriously left lately. With their sponsorship and passage of the Patriot Act, vast increases in government spending, especially on programs they had vowed to abolish as few as six years earlier (the education spending bill), and with President Bush supporting gun control in the form of the AWB, the Republicans are alienating the Libertarians and others who are supportive of less government, with less intrusiveness, less restrictions on rights, and more responsibility. These same Libertarians and others who have been voting for Republicans for a while now see that the Republicans don't care about the issues they care about. So, they won't vote for Republicans.

It's all about voting for those who support the issues you support. Howard Dean and George W. Bush have voiced basically the exact same positions on gun control, why would you expect one to be any worse than the other? George W. Bush has virtually abandoned any idea of smaller, less intrusive, more responsible government, he's co-opted much of the left's agenda. I truly don't think a Democrat, especially one like Howard Dean, would be much worse.

rock jock
July 20, 2003, 11:31 PM
He teaches a class in "deep Constitutional law", and gave a mini-lecture on the subject at the conference. Very good stuff; quite "hardcore" in regards issues like freedom of travel and taxation, but also very well thought out and presented.
I have to disagree. I too saw him at Counterattack and found many of his views to be shortsighted. I later confronted him on several subjects and all I got were a lot of "uh's". He cut our conversation short and then said he would love to talk with me later, but made no effort to continue where we left off. Basically, I found that he gets attention by making provocative statements, but then cannot defend them. I think that in any debate which asked the hard questions, he would get chewed up.

Diesle
July 20, 2003, 11:41 PM
Maybe you can fill me in on what message all of the Ross Perot voters sent President George H.W. Bush...

You know what, you right. I vow to never vote my conscience again. Further more, I reserve upon myself from this day forward to never hope.... or dream.

Signed this day (my day of emancipation),

Diesle

:neener:

Lone_Gunman
July 20, 2003, 11:41 PM
An ideology that cannot be implemented is the same as no ideology.

So goes the Libertarian Party.

Zundfolge
July 20, 2003, 11:46 PM
The only way Libertarians are ever going to win big is if they follow Ron Paul's lead and infiltrate the Republican party.

Like it or not this is a two party system ... Republicans or Democrats.

Third parties are only spoilers (we may be able to thank the Green party for Bushes ultra-thin victory).

"I am a Republican with a capital 'R,' and a libertarian with a small 'l.' I have a party membership as a Republican, not because they have any principles. But because that's the way I am the most useful and have the most influence. My philosophy is clearly libertarian."
--Milton Friedman

Oracle
July 21, 2003, 12:07 AM
Uh huh. Maybe it's just that a party's ideology takes longer to get implemented, and some of us are in for the long haul.

Regardless, many of us are not going to be voting Republican, and we're going to be doing whatever we can to get others to vote Libertarian as well. We're tired of voting for candidates that are supposed to stand for what we believe in, and then getting the shaft. If you guys want to continue voting for people who don't support your views, go right ahead. Republicans have brought about just as much gun control laws as Democrats have. I'm through with both of them.

rock jock
July 21, 2003, 12:37 AM
Oracle, I take you have never been a part of any organization comprised of more than, say, two or three people? If you had, you would realize that change only comes by working within the organization. Taking your marbles and playing elsewhere only serves to inflate your ego. It does nothing for changing hearts and minds, both of which, I might add, can in fact be swayed. Don't believe me? Look at the majority of states that now have a CCW system. Gun rights activists can make a difference in the Republican Party. Unless, of course, the changes you are looking for are the Libertarian Party platform planks - no taxes at all, no moral standards (errr, except for the standards of humanism, which are just fine), zero government regulation over anything, etc. If these are your goals, you're right, you're not going to find them in the Republican Party.

MicroBalrog
July 21, 2003, 05:50 AM
But I'm sure Howard Dean will be much better than Bill Clinton, right?

Right.

Oracle
July 21, 2003, 08:17 AM
Yes, Rock Jock, I've been a part of large organizations, and still am. One organization can get quite "political" at times, and there are problems that I have with it. But, I stay. Do you know why? Because they still do the things that I originally came to the organization for. Even though I might not like everything about them, I still like the vast majority of stuff that organization does.

I can't say that about the Republican party. They campaign on the promises of smaller government that has less involvement in people's lives, and then when they get in power, they expand both the size and power of government, make it far more intrusive, and completely ignore promises made just a few years before, promises that gave the party the kind of power they now have. The Republicans have now co-opted much of the left's agenda, the agenda that they should be working against. I'm simply not going to drink the Kool-Aid anymore.

I also do agree with the Libertarian party on nearly all of the planks of their platform. Government should not be involved in legislating morality, period (but tell that to the head of the Republican party in the State in which I live, who is the former head of the Christian Coalition). Government should not be taxing people's incomes, our government did quite well without taxing anyone's income for nearly 150 years, and that would force it to reduce it's size. I believe in some government regulation, but only as it applies to protecting people's rights and their ability to exercise those rights, government regulations that create victimless crimes only exist to give the government undue control over the people governed.

Also, need I say anything more about the abysmal gun rights record the Republican party has? Can you say Assault Weapons Ban? Find where in their platform that the Republican Party supports the absolute right to keep and bear arms. I can easily show you that in the Libertarian Party platform.

So, I'm going to continue to vote Libertarian, and continue to work to convince others to do the same. I may vote for a Republican on occasion, but only if a Libertarian isn't available to vote for in that position, and only if the Republican is one of the ever-shrinking minority whose record shows that he or she is truly dedicated to reducing the size, power, and intrusiveness of government.

seeker_two
July 21, 2003, 09:54 AM
Unless the GOP has changed the rules, Bush still has to win the Republican primary before he can run for reelection...

That would be the place to show our displeasure...

And a great opportunity for Libertarians (registered as Republicans) to have the greatest effect...

Bush has lost my primary vote...

Will a more capable candidate court it?...:confused:

Jim March
July 21, 2003, 04:45 PM
Getting back to Badnarik: yes, he "cleans up well". He dressed quite professionally, typical business haircut, etc. I think the only thing funky he had going on was an American flag tie :) and given the venue, that's no big deal.

I personally agreed with most of the points he talks about, and he seemed to present them fairly well. Didn't debate him privately though.

-----------

I'm also of the opinion that we have to infiltrate the GOP. A *golden* opportunity in that direction is coming up in California with the recall vote. It's going to be a free-for-all, with the winner picking up as little as 15% of the popular vote :eek:. Maybe *less*. IF a very, VERY good GOPer jumps in, such as McClintock or Ray Haynes, I hope to GOD the LP will see the value of kicking in behind them and not running their own candidate.

In that fashion, the "pro-freedom vote" would have the greatest possible effect and hence would be seen as a viable voting block that can be catered to. THAT is how we'll win.

sctman800
July 21, 2003, 08:47 PM
I have been a member of the Libertarian party for many years, and yes there are some things I don't agree with, but I will stay. This is the only party that REALLY wants to reduce the size of government, which would automatically make it less intrusive. Altho I am from Illinois, the congressman I admire most is the former Libertarian, Ron Paul, God bless Texas for reelecting him. The FIRST thing I look at when voting in any election is their stand on gun control, and I don't remember ever finding any Republican better than the Libertarian canidate. Jim.

Jim March
July 21, 2003, 09:07 PM
There are many Republicans "as good on guns" as most Libertarians, and even a few Dems. But these guys are MORE valuable than the LP candidates because they actually got into office!.

Ray Haynes and McClintock are as good on guns as anybody could hope.

Oracle
July 21, 2003, 09:40 PM
Jim, it would be nice to elect someone that agreed with my principles, but the Republicans that actually do so are getting fewer and fewer. Republicans instituted the AWB after being elected into office by gun owners opposed to it, and the current President Bush saying that he would sign it again if it reached his desk isn't politics, it's a slap in the face to all the gun owners in this country.

The Republicans in this country have been moving farther and farther to the left, not just on guns, but on everything. If that's what you mean by "able to be elected into office" I'm sorry, I'd rather not have it. I don't think that Libertarians of any stripe will be able to get the Republican party to do anything unless they take a major chunk of their votes away from them for an election or two. Unless that happens, the Republicans will just go on talking a good game but enacting the opposite agenda when they actually get into office, like they're doing now.

Jim March
July 21, 2003, 11:56 PM
I agree completely with your statements regarding the current GOP.

But it's 100% irrelevent.

You vote your concience in the final vote, but you register for the party you want to change by voting in the primaries.

Cactus
July 22, 2003, 12:04 AM
Originally posted by Oracle:
Republicans instituted the AWB after being elected into office by gun owners opposed to it...

The AWB was passed and signed into law in 1994 by Bill Clinton and a Democrat controlled House and Senate.

If your going to accuse a party of selling us out, at least get your facts straight!

And I couldn't care less that President Bush said he would re-sign the AWB bill. It was a cheap political line to appeal to the vast political middle knowing that Congress will never reauthorize it. I am much more concerned about actions than words or intentions.

Oracle
July 22, 2003, 09:28 AM
So, Cactus, you're saying that former Republican President George H.W. Bush and his executive orders had nothing to do with the Assault Weapons Ban? And, since it's been enacted, we've had Republicans gain control of the House, Senate, and Presidency. If the Republicans are truly pro gun, then why hasn't it been repealed? If the president is truly pro gun, then why has he stated that he would sign it again? It shows that votes are more important to the current President Bush than the protection of your rights.

And, Jim, it won't be irrelevant if the Libertarian Party starts taking significant elections away from the Republicans. Why should the Republicans stop their move to the left if it isn't going to cost them elections? Why buy the cow when you get the milk for free? I believe that the only way to stop the Republican Party's move to the left is if it actually costs them something, in terms of significant elections, and if they know that they lost those elections due to the more freedom-oriented members of their party moving to the Libertarian Party or voting for the Libertarian candidate. If we continue to vote for Republicans, even though they have stopped giving even the pretense of working for smaller, less intrusive, and more responsible government, then they will take those votes for granted and continue their move to the left. The only thing that matters to them is whether or not they can win an election. That's it.

The point is: even if a Libertarian candidate can't get elected, he or she can keep a Republican from getting elected. If the Republicans know this, and know that the only way to prevent this from happening in the future is to start working for smaller, less intrusive, and more responsible government, instead of working for the exact opposite as they have been doing, then that is a lot better incentive for them to change than simply a small part of their party going "come on guys, we really want you to change" and then voting for them anyway.

rock jock
July 22, 2003, 01:50 PM
Oracle,

Sorry if it seemed like I was personally attacking you. I was not. I would never try to dissuade anyone from following their convictions on this issue. In fact, you bring up many good points and I happen to agree with several of them. I would point out, however, two dramatic examples of how sending a political party a message has backfired. First, the 1992 election and Ross Perot. Surveys have indicated that most of Perots supporters were disenchanted Republicans. Their votes effectively put Clinton into office and while Bush 41 was not a stellar conservative, he was much better than Clinton. Arguably, many of our biggest concerns (e.g., AWB, WoT) would not have materialized had Bush been relected. The second example is on the other side of the fence - the Dems. A good number of the most liberal segment of the Democratic Party voted Green in 2000 and effectively handed the election to Bush 43.

Now, if you surveyed Perot supporters and Nader supporters today, I think both groups would tell you the same thing, that they made a mistake by following their heart rather than their head. I know all the Perot voters I have talked with admit the screwed the pooch on that one. The antis would LOVE for 2A Republicans to align ourselves with the LP in 2004, thus splitting the conservative vote and ensuring a Democratic gun-grabber becomes President. That is not a chance I am willing to take.

MicroBalrog
July 22, 2003, 02:03 PM
You're right - but Dean is not Clinton...

Jim March
July 22, 2003, 03:44 PM
Oracle: the LP has three practical problems that I can see:

1) The public has recieved too much "socialistic/altruistic brainwashing" to get any traction. This is largely a schooling/media issue.

2) Even among inherently pro-freedom folks, esp. outside the Internet where most of the pro-freedom folks are 50+ and largely offline, the LP doesn't have enough "name brand recognition".

3) Here's the evil part: if they hit 5% of the pop vote in any given election, they'll be eligible for $12+mil in matching Federal election funds. Granted, their bylaws say they won't take it, and that's good, but some moron is still liable to try and hijack them for access to that money. That's what Buchanan did to the Reform Party, and for exactly that reason. The twit then took the cash and spent it on racially divisive and incompetent TV ads in California...the PR effort was what it was REALLY about, so to fund it he destroyed the party.

That last item, the Federal matching funds, really has the net effect of killing off any 3rd party that gets big enough to be a threat.

With the game rigged that badly against the LP, infiltrating the GOP is the only viable choice.

atek3
July 22, 2003, 03:59 PM
I have one main issue w/ the whole 'vote for repubs because they are better than most democrats on the gun issue' idea.
Seems to me like the Repubs who are the best on the gun issue are the most JBT when it comes to the war on drugs.

atek3

rock jock
July 22, 2003, 07:33 PM
Jim,

Those issues are secondary to the one big difference between the LP and the Rebuplicans - moral issues. Especially things like abortion, prostitution, same-sex marriage, drugs to a lesser extent.

BTW, I'm not trying to hijack this thread or start a debate on religion, just stating a fact. Folks that think the LP is going to grow significantly because of disenchantment with the GOP are going to be sorely disappointed. You will see other, new political parties spring up before the LP ever gorws much.

Cactus
July 22, 2003, 09:11 PM
Originally posted by Oracle:
So, Cactus, you're saying that former Republican President George H.W. Bush and his executive orders had nothing to do with the Assault Weapons Ban?

The AWB is NOT an Executive Order! It is legislation passed by the Senate in 1994 under Majority Leader Robert Byrd and the House under Speaker Tom Foley. It was then signed into law by William Jefferson Clinton. This happened in 1994! George HW Bush had been out of office for over one year. George HW Bush had NOTHING to do with it. Zip. Zero. Nada!

Originally posted by Oracle:
And, since it's been enacted, we've had Republicans gain control of the House, Senate, and Presidency. If the Republicans are truly pro gun, then why hasn't it been repealed?

Because the Democrats in the Senate would filibuster any attempt to overturn it. Why go through a fight they can't win when the law sunsets in 2004?

Originally posted by Oracle:
If the president is truly pro gun, then why has he stated that he would sign it again?

It's called POLITICS! President Bush knows that the law will never be re-authorized in the House as it is written. If by some chance a NEW, more restrictive bill passes the House and Senate, he can veto it saying he would only sign a re-authorization of the ORIGINAL bill. It's smart politics.

Originally posted by Oracle:
The point is: even if a Libertarian candidate can't get elected, he or she can keep a Republican from getting elected. If the Republicans know this, and know that the only way to prevent this from happening in the future is to start working for smaller, less intrusive, and more responsible government, instead of working for the exact opposite as they have been doing, then that is a lot better incentive for them to change than simply a small part of their party going "come on guys, we really want you to change" and then voting for them anyway.

Why should the Republican Party make ANY effort to appease Libertarians? The Libertarians have made it very clear that if they can't have every thing THEIR way, they will pick up their marbles and go home. You want to make a difference? Then learn to play within the system we already have.

So the Republican Party is supposed to write off the 35% of people in the middle to appeal to 0.5% of the voters? Fat chance! Politics is the art of the possible. When Libertarians learn this, they will become something more than a foot note in the history books. Until then, they are just wasting their votes.



__________________

Oracle
July 22, 2003, 09:59 PM
Well, Cactus, then the Republicans will keep losing elections to the ever increasing number of Libertarian "spoiler" voters, and I'll be trying my best to make sure that happens, until the Republicans start to wake up and smell the coffee.

If they'd lose 35% of the "middle voters" through supporting a "less government, less intrusion, and more personal responsibility" platform, how did most of them get elected in '94 on basically that platform, then?

Jim March
July 23, 2003, 12:09 AM
I agree completely that the various GOP "moral issues" are sheer idiocy.

The moment Ashcroft ordered a blanket tossed over a marble tiittie at DOJ HQ, somebody should have called for the guys with nets and straightjackets.

This kind of crap, along with the "drug war", is the GOP's biggest flaw. So the place to fix it is in the primaries. Which you can only effect if you're REGISTERED REPUBLICAN!

:rolleyes:

Cactus
July 23, 2003, 12:13 AM
Originally posted by Oracle:
Well, Cactus, then the Republicans will keep losing elections to the ever increasing number of Libertarian "spoiler" voters, and I'll be trying my best to make sure that happens, until the Republicans start to wake up and smell the coffee.

Thank you for proving my point about taking your marbles and going home! You would obviously rather have a President Howard Dean sign the "Nancy Pelosi-Charles Schumer Assault Weapons Ban" than sacrifice your ideological purity.

That will sure teach all of those Republicans a lesson though! :banghead:

Oracle
July 23, 2003, 03:56 AM
This kind of crap, along with the "drug war", is the GOP's biggest flaw. So the place to fix it is in the primaries. Which you can only effect if you're REGISTERED REPUBLICAN!

Not so, if you live in GA, like I do. You can vote in any primary, as long as you only vote in the primary of one party for that election cycle. There is no party registration in GA.

The Libertarian candidates are usually hammered out way in advance of an election, so there is no primary for them, at least in my State. I usually vote in the Republican primary for this reason. Or, sometimes, in the Democrat primary, if there is need to get rid of a really bad Democrat candidate :evil: .

Oracle
July 23, 2003, 04:12 AM
Thank you for proving my point about taking your marbles and going home! You would obviously rather have a President Howard Dean sign the "Nancy Pelosi-Charles Schumer Assault Weapons Ban" than sacrifice your ideological purity.

First of all, Dean is not Clinton, and secondly, if it means having to suffer through having some Democrats elected as my representatives so that the Republicans start making good on their rhetoric, and stop expanding the size and intrusiveness of the Federal government, I'm willing to accept that. I'm not taking my marbles and going home, I'm throwing them at the heads of the Republican candidates until they wake up and get with the program. Truthfully, if the Republicans keep supporting their current "big, intrusive government" agenda, having a Democrat as a representative will be no worse than having a Republican as one. At least with the Democrat there is a chance that he or she doesn't support legislating morality and the idiotic "War on Drugs".

Jim March
July 23, 2003, 04:22 AM
Oracle: those Georgia primary rules are doomed, long term. One of the major parties (or just a candidate) will challenge that in court, and under "freedom of association" principles, will win.

That's what happened in California. It was a good decision.

Oracle
July 23, 2003, 08:23 AM
Jim,

You may well be right, but Georgia's primary system has been this way for a very long time, Republicans have challenged it in court for many years (until last year, it was very, very difficult to get elected to State office as a Republican in Georgia), because Democrats would always go to the Republican primaries and get the weaker Republican candidate put up for the governor's race, and he would always lose (until last year, first Republican governor in over 100 years). However, the primary system in GA survived all those challenges. The Republicans in GA turned the tables on the Democrats last year by getting Cynthia McKinney defeated in the primaries, and then the Democrats started making noise about challenging the primary system in GA. Nothing's come of that, either. Makes me feel that it's likely to stay the way it is, but, I could very well be wrong.

Regardless, that's the way it is now, and that's the way it is likely to be for the near future, so I don't have to be a registered Republican to vote in the primaries, as registration doesn't exist in this State at this time. As it stands, I can basically have my cake and eat it too (work for change within the Republican party by voting in primaries, and continue to vote for Libertarians when the time comes).

Waitone
July 23, 2003, 08:36 AM
<Stiffle mode off>

The moment Ashcroft ordered a blanket tossed over a marble tiittie at DOJ HQ, somebody should have called for the guys with nets and straightjackets. Let's get all the facts of that episode out in the open. Fact-Ashcroft did cover the statues.

What is not generally reported is the reason for draping the statues was because the visual media, still and video, "journalists" were going to incredible physical contortions to ensure a picture of Ashcroft with the offending statues in the background. It was only because of Ashcroft's religious beliefs that the problem occured. Why would "journalists" go to such extents to ensure a picture which had nothing to do with the subject matter at hand? What was the editorial reason for creation of visual record of the event that didn't reflect the content of the event? If Ashcroft was interested in maintaining the diginity of the time, why was the press interested in changing it to something which was inappropriate?

So if you intend to use one episode as an example of the dangers of a strong moral belief system in governmental officials. I strongly suggest you get all the facts out on the table. Ashcroft did what he did because the media present was acting unprofessionally and in a juvenile manner.

<Stiffle Mode On>

Glock Glockler
July 23, 2003, 10:41 AM
Why should the Republican Party make ANY effort to appease Libertarians?

Because their votes matter, that's why. After the 2000 election the bean counters in the Republican party figuered out that if they had gotten a decent portion of the Libertarian vote that they would have won certain key elections, some races were that close. They soon after strated putting together strategies that that would try to attract Libertarians without alienating their traditional Rebublican base. Depending on the circumstances, that small percentage of the vote becomes crucial.

The Libertarians have made it very clear that if they can't have every thing THEIR way, they will pick up their marbles and go home. You want to make a difference? Then learn to play within the system we already have.

You are partly right. One cannot be completely inflexable and expect to win, and this is a flaw of the LP: they don't bend. They would be more effective by exercising a combination of working with Ds & Rs while also telling them to get stuffed.

With the game rigged that badly against the LP, infiltrating the GOP is the only viable choice.

That certainly helps, but the threat of external pressure must also be present in order to provoke change. Let me ask you this, Jim: Why would a political party voluntarily change it's platform and favor less govt?

Those twits in the political party are going to be the ones in govt, so why would they want to reduce their own power? They don't. The leadership of both political parties is essentially the same as far as motives go, the only difference is that they cater to different markets. You don't really believe that the GOP is pro-RKBA, do you? The parties are all about govt control, so why would they want the people to have the ability to throw off their yolk by force of arms? Do you think any party that supports the Ges...I mean..Patriot Bill cares one iota about your freedom?

They will, OTOH, adapt their platform if it means that they can protect or increase their market share. If the Rs are in danger of losing market share to the Ds, they'll move closer to the D platform or try to attract 3rd party votes. It is only the external threat of getting the boot that will motivate them to change.

Which you can only effect if you're REGISTERED REPUBLICAN!

The why is it that I get twits from both parties, even though I'm a registered Independant (whatever that means), asking me about my voting habits and issues, etc. I am still part of their unobtained market share even though I'm not part of any party, so I still do matter.

So you would obviously rather have a President Howard Dean sign the "Nancy Pelosi-Charles Schumer Assault Weapons Ban" than sacrifice your ideological purity.

Does it really matter with the Ashcroft-Bush-Himmler Patriot Bills? If they suspect you're a terrorist it won't matter whether or not you have guns. A 3 AM no-knock entry and that'll be all she wrote. They'll spin it as a "crazed militia member was arrested after the govt discovered their terrorist plot. We found an entire stockpile of dangerous Assault-rifles and military weapons in the person's posession...". It's very easy, you surgically remove the potential trouble makers that actually might resist you, and the masses of gun owners won't suspect anything, and then you slowly start banning things, Patriot Billing the trouble makers along the way, and the media will be completely along for the ride. Once that is accomplished, the sheeple will quietly do whatever you want them to. Tell me again why we're better off with Rs than with Ds.

rock jock
July 23, 2003, 11:13 AM
I agree completely that the various GOP "moral issues" are sheer idiocy.
That is not what I was implying at all. Why do you call it idiocy? Because you disagree with it? There are a significant number of Republicans who are members of the GOP because the party adopts a conservative stance on moral issues. If the GOP drops these issues, these people will drop the GOP.

Oracle
July 23, 2003, 11:38 AM
Tell me, rock jock, why you think that the government should be involved in moral issues? The sole purpose of the government is to protect the rights of the governed from assault through force or fraud. Why should government be able to dictate what I must do concerning moral issues? Isn't that within the realm of personal choice?

rock jock
July 23, 2003, 12:03 PM
Oracle,

I hear this question all the time and it still amazes me that people have been so conditioned to not think this through. It is a logical fallacy that a government cannot be involved in moral issues. There is no such thing as a moral vacuum. On every moral issue, there is a position. In a representative government, the people elect representatives that reflect their moral beliefs. The people (and therefore the government) are taking a position no matter which way they turn. What people really mean when they say "the government should not be involved in moral issues" is "the government should adopt my position".

Look at this another way: can the government NOT take a position on national defense? No. They (again, meaning the people) can certainly choose not to provide for a national defense, but this is still a position, a position of weakness rather than strength.

Glock Glockler
July 23, 2003, 12:14 PM
Rock Jock,

The takes action on moral issues as they relate to the protection of rights, which is the purpose of govt. They have a moral obligation to protect me from harm via an aggressive nation, ensuring my right to life, but they don't have any place telling me if I'm allowed to eat meat on Friday, if I'm allowed to get a blood transfusion from a willing doner, or what my girlfriend and I do in our bedroom.

Big difference.

brookstexas
July 23, 2003, 12:15 PM
a president who actually carries. I've seen him at the range and he seems to be a pretty good shot too!

Say I'm wasting my vote or whatever by voting Libertarian, look what the last two elections got us. Voting my conscience from now on.
BT

Oracle
July 23, 2003, 02:55 PM
My thoughts exactly, Brooks.

bjengs
July 23, 2003, 05:40 PM
Seems to be the same old story every election cycle. "Yeah, there are some losers in the Republican presidential field, but so-and-so's got a good chance of winning the primary, and he's pretty pro-gun/pro-liberty/whatever."

(time passes)

"OK, so the best guy didn't win. But even this guy who DID win the primary, this guy who really doesn't stand up for gun rights, this guy who is willing to dish out sleazy favors like a Democrat, this guy who talks tax cuts and won't deliver, this antithesis to the conservative standard, oh he's so much better than his Democratic challenger. Don't talk 'principles' to me, the time for standing up for what you believe in is past. Just vote this guy in and avert the certain apocalypse that awaits us at the hands of a Democrat. This is a battle between good and evil!"

:rolleyes:

If you enjoyed reading about "Michael Badnarik, 2004 Libertarian Candidate - Whats his story...?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!