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

[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? 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 If the Republicans are truly pro gun, then why hasn't it been repealed?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]

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]

You're right - but Dean is not Clinton...

 

[Jim March]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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!

 

[Cactus]

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]

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 .

 

[Oracle]

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]

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]

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]

<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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

It would be nice to have

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]

My thoughts exactly, Brooks.

 

[bjengs]

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!"