The official blog of the Libertarian Party
January 11, 2007
Democratic Copycats?
While Democrats were busy rubber-stamping Bush's proposals for the Patriot Act and the Iraq War, Libertarians led the way with their opposition to these plans. Now it seems that some Democrats (and even Republicans) are beginning to follow the Libertarian lead.
During the 2006 elections, much was written about how the Democrats captured a lot of libertarian votes in western and mountain states.
In December, the LP announced that we will be holding the 2008 Libertarian National Convention in Denver. According to this report, the Democratic Convention will be held in Denver, too.
It seems obvious that the Democrats hope to influence libertarian-minded people with this likely choice for their convention spot. However, both conventions being held in the same place will serve to highlight key differences between the two parties.
For starters, the Libertarian National Convention won't cost the taxpayer a dime. The Democratic Convention will cost all of us millions.
Democrats will have had two years in charge of Congress. By then, Americans will have had a taste of broken Democratic promises and bizarre Democratic economic policy and will probably already be looking for a new alternative.
It's hard to imagine a 2008 Democratic Convention without the very anti-libertarian Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi being featured speakers. The contrast between the two Denver conventions should be very interesting indeed.
Posted by Stephen Gordon at January 11, 2007 12:04 PM
Reader Comments:
From the Aspen Times:
The convention — which is expected to attract 35,000, including 4,950 delegates and alternates — will be held from Aug. 25-28 after the Summer Olympics in Beijing.
The Republican National Convention will start just 4 days later, on Sept. 1 in Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minn.
More here:
http://www.aspentimes.com/article/20070111/NEWS/70111005
To answer Stan's comment from the other thread.
As Blogman noted, there will be sufficient interval between the LP and Democratic conventions to prevent direct interference. The LP convention is in the last week of May and the Democratic convention is in the last week of August, so no problem on interference.
Mark B. -
That is a relief.
One other unfortunate difference - the Democratic convention will be covered on all the networks plus cable news while we will be lucky if anyone other than C-Span picks ours up.
Did the Dems even know where our convention is when they scheduled theirs? It is unfortunate that we have no media exposure.
It is one of those paradoxes. How do you get media exposure until you have people elected in Major offices and how do you get people elected to Major offices without media exposure?
One of our problems is that we run presidential campaigns with candidates with little or no government experience. While this is seen as a bonus in governor's races, state legislature races, and sometimes in congressional races no one feels comfortable with voting for a president who hasn't even been a dog-catcher.
We need to build candidates from the bottom up. Get them elected to the state legislature then either governor or congress then we could at least have candidates with experience for president.
We must publicize in the various mediums our cause. There is no time to lose.
In the event that Ron Paul, who is now running for President, receives the nomination of his party, I will unfortunately have to vote against the LP in 2008, no matter who you nominate at the convention. Sorry.
Can't he be on our ticket, too?
I'm sorry to say this, but Ronald Paul will not win the G.O.P.'s nomination for the Presidency. It's obvious that the only people who will be nominated by the G.O.P. are either from the social conservative/Religious Right faction, or the neocon faction.
The moderate and liberal factions of the G.O.P. will be represented in the primaries by guys such as John McCain and Rudy Giuliani, respectively.
The fiscal conservatives, states rights conservatives, paleo-conservatives, and libertarians that still exist in the G.O.P. have next-to-no influence at all. I would like to convince them, and the libertarians and conservatives in the Democratic Party, to break away and join in a coalition with the Libertarian Party and the Constitution Party. If that happens, then we would be able to hold serious influence in the united states.
The Constitution Party?! What an outrage - read their platform, in particular their Preamble. This is not a party dedicated to the well-being of Americans, it is a group of religious fanatics that smear the good name of the Constitution in the name of proselytization.
The very first sentence pronounces Jesus Christ Lord and savior. If this doesn't directly conflict with the 1st Amendment, I don't know what does.
Their second paragraph claims the country was founded by Christians on the gospel of Jesus Christ. I wonder who they mean; surely it is not George Washington (Deist), John Adams (Deist), Thomas Jefferson (Deist or Atheist), James Madison (Deist), James Monroe (Atheist), Ben Franklin (Atheist), etc. I believe our first Christian president was Franlin Pierce in 1853, over 75 years since the inception of the country. Don't forget, in 1776 Christians were still BURNING WITCHES.
I'd like to see all the libertarians, real conservatives, and moderates jump on the Ron Paul bandwagon. This is somewhere we can get the word out. Sure its a long shot and not very likely that he would win, but getting the message out (since we've had a lack of advertising and brand recognition from within) cannot hurt, but only help our long term goals which is elected office. If Ron Paul doesn't get the GOP nomination, how bout VP, or at the very least a speech at the Republican Convention to draw back fiscal responsibility to the policy decision making? Fiscal conservatism has an opportunity with this candidacy to at least make news, which unfortunately is more than this party has been able to muster on a larger scale. I'm sending every Republican I know info about Ron Paul's candidacy as it comes along so when the primary rolls around they think twice as opposed to not at all. I know he said he's in it to win it but if he doesn't win, some influence would be welcome.
I had no idea that Ron Paul was running again. Sweet! I have plenty of friends and family that would vote for him.
I'm voting for Dr. Paul all the way. I'm telling all to vote for Ron Paul if they want an America that stands for freedom. I encourage the LP to back him as well.
If Paul gets the Republican nom, we can vote NOTA at the convention. If he doesn't, which is more probably, he'll have created a large splinter from the GOP willing to vote Libertarian.
Coach Jim -
The Libertarian and Constitution Parties share a significant amount of ideas in common.
They both support a non-interventionist foreign policy.
They both support maintaining a military that is big and strong enough to protect this country only. They both support sharply cutting taxes, government spending, the size of government, subsidies, etc. In other words, they share everything in common in terms of economics (except for the CP's support of higher tariffs).
They both support states rights/local control, gun rights, property rights. They both oppose the War on Drugs. Although, the CP does believe that individual states should determine their own drug laws, abortion laws, mariage laws, etc.
The Constitution Party would be our most natural allies. Not the G.O.P.
Coach Jim -
By the way, both parties oppose the Patriot Act.
Coach Jim -
By the way, the Libertarian and Constitution Parties both oppose the war in Iraq. They oppose any future war in Iran, Syria, or anywhere else.
The Libertarian and Constitution Parties both oppose wars for reasons other then defense and retaliation.
Ron Paul was the best choice for the LP at the time given the selection but he had his problems then. They have only become worse. He hides many of his alleged libertarian credentials very well (if he has them) and has become more and more associated with the loony Right like the Birchers and the lunatics Minutemen and their anti-immigration campaign. I wouldn't vote for Ron Paul for anything anymore and I supported his nomination in Seattle.
I like the idea of building alliences with other third parties. Sure, no single party is going to be completely compatible with the LP, otherwise they would be the LP.
But, that doesn't mean there aren't aspects of other parties that aren't similar to the LP.
The Constitution Party is a good example. Although there are some defenite differences, like religious views, there are plenty of similarities that have already been pointed out.
Why can't we focus on those similarities alone, and build an allience? Likewise, The Green Party. There are hoards of differences between the GP and LP but there are similarities as well, namely decentralized government, anti-Patriot Act, pro-civil rights, voting reform (IRV), and a few other things.
Imagine if we built an allience with other third parties, all focused on what we have in common and forgetting about what we don't have in common, and created one, massive voting block! We could convince that block to vote Libertarian, since the LP is currently the largest.
The prevailing reasoning would be that if a Libertarian was elected, the chances for other party members to see many of their policies put into action would be higher.
Ronald Paul will not win the G.O.P. nomination simply because he belongs to the fiscal conservative/states rights conservative/paleo-conservative/libertarian factions.
The liberal and moderate factions of the G.O.P. will be represented in the primaries by Rudy Giuliani and John McCain, respectively.
The only way to win the G.O.P. nomination is to belong to the social conservative/Religious Right/neocon factions.
I'll go even further and say that Ronald Paul will be ignored, or ridiculed, or attacked by all other G.O.P. candidiates, neocon talk-show hosts, the mainstream media, etc.
Stan and Dennis, thanks for the comments. I didn't mean to imply the Constitution Party was diametrically opposed to Libertarian views. We will find common ground with all but the most STATIST parties. The objection I had was their MAIN principle was Religious in nature. That is the topic that has the most significance to me. In my view, religious intolerance has accounted for 99% of the blooshed in the history of the world. Their view of Christianity would subjugate 25% of the country's population. If that view were to somehow come to fruition, civil war would certain ensue. At that point, agreeing on the wrongness of the PATRIOT Act would be moot.
On the other hand, your view that we need to find common ground is a much more positive attitude than highlighting the differences. THAT is what being a good person is all about.
Lately, the opinions page of my local paper (The Macomb Daily) has had several comments that we need to admit we are a Christian country and adopt more Christian views in our government. I sent in a rebuttal that said religious rule is the cause of most war, we need only look to the middle east for glaring examples of religious-endorsed violence. I finished with the comment "those that want Christian ideals incorporated into government are good Christians, but lousy Americans."
Coach Jim -
I appreciate that alot. I understand your concern about the Constitution Party's religiosity (and, your concern about the integration of religion and state), but they are nothing like the social conservatives, the Religious Right, and the neocons from the Republican Party.
Coach Jim -
I don't understand people's obsession with organized religion, either. Recently, I've come to view myself as a believer in God, but not in organized religion. Another thing that I don't understand is the petty fighting that goes on between sects from the same religion. Islam, Christianity, and Judaism are perfect examples of this.
My 3 cents worth on Ron Paul:
The bad news about Paul is that a lot of LP members will change parties to support him in the primaries. The good news is that he may develop a charged-up libertarian block with nowhere else to go when he doesn't get the nomination.
If he actually DOES get the nomination (fat chance) I would actually condider voting for him. Mathematically, he would be the best chance of getting somebody even remotely libertarian into the white house. However, there are a few potential deal killers and no politiican, including (L)(l)ibertarian, can ever take my vote for granted again.
I spoke to Congressman Paul several months ago about his
proposed bill H.R. 1146, (The American Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2005). He did'nt let on at that time about any Presidential prospects. Now knowing this information I have begun spreading the word. I have contacted some very influential firearms manufacturers along with the NRA-ILA/NRA Chris Cox, Sandy Froman and Wayne LaPierre, ABC's John Stossel, Tom DeWeese, President of the APC and John F. McManus, President of the John Birch Society have all received notification of the "good news".
I will notifiy about 40 "conservative" newspapers this week of Congressman Paul's intentions as well.
Donald -
I'll bet that these "conservative" newspapers were not thrilled by Ron Paul's run for the Presidency.
I hope that the Libertarians take control of the government some day, preferably 2008. Once we go Libertarian for a few years, we won't be going back to the Mickey Mouse Parties.
If Ron Paul gets the nomination, I'm certain that he'd win the election in a historic landslide. The majority of people have enough sense to recognize all the broken promises that the liberals and conservatives have been making for decades. Every new idea they come up with is destined to flop even more miserably than the last.
Of course, when the Republicans ignore the popular support for Ron Paul, his supporters will be there for the taking, as long as the Libertarian Party can find a candidate able to make people aware that it exists. Maybe Clint Eastwood, Drew Carey, or John Stossel might want to run in 2008? Maybe some other famous Libertarian will campaign? That's what the Libertarian Party needs because the 3 aforementioned men are celebrities who can get airtime on the TV stations and articles in the newspapers. The Libertarian Party cannot run somebody whom the majority of America hasn't heard of and stand a chance of taking the White House.
The real question, who will have the courage to impeach the Bush-Cheney terrorist gang? The Democrats have already sold out the people who voted
them in by "ruling out" impeachment.
Will Ron Paul have the guts to introduce formal articles of impeachment? Unfortunately, despite the fact that the LP was proud to be the first party to call for impeaching Clinton in 1998, played a double standard and voted against an impeachment resolution for the even more impeachable Bush at the 2006 convention.
But, there is no reason local LPs and party caucuses can't call for impeachment.
Latest of many outrages from Dubai-ya: he says he
can escalate troop levels without Congressional approval. All spending is supposed to originate in Congress, which BTW is also supposed to declare wars - whatever happened to that? Basically, Bush is declaring himself dictator now, Congress and the courts may as well not exist - he can just ignore them!
http://lastfreevoice.wordpress.com/2007/01/15/dubai-ya-officially-declares-martial-law/
While they could get the votes to impeach in the House, there is very little chance of reaching a two thirds majority in the Senate. Pushing Articles of Impeachment with no hope of conviction would simply be a waste of time.
I have two words that further describe why impeachment may not be the wisest course:
President Pelosi.
I just took the time to read a LOT of what Ron Paul has to say. I don't remember where the link came from, but this archive has tons of his statement made to Congress.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul-arch.html
It's nice to read HIS point of view, not a journalist's interpretation. I have come to the conclusion he is in fact a Libertarian that is wearing a republican's suit. If he were to run as a Republican I would vote for him. The meager differences about how to handle immigration are nothing compared to 99% of topics his libertarian views espouse.
Pushing articles of impeachment is simply the right thing to do, given that Bush is guilty, despite the extremely low chance of conviction at this time. It would hold both Bush's and the Congressional Democratic leadership's feet to a well-deserved fire. It would also propel any Congress member into the news, a smart thing to do if he or she wants to run for President.
While Nancy Pelosi is certainly not my ideal president by any stretch, Bush and Cheney are at least as bad, so in the extremely unlikely event that conviction would result from impeachment, so what?
Taxes of evil:
http://lastfreevoice.wordpress.com/2007/01/17/taxes-of-evil/
| 
From the Aspen Times:
The convention — which is expected to attract 35,000, including 4,950 delegates and alternates — will be held from Aug. 25-28 after the Summer Olympics in Beijing.
The Republican National Convention will start just 4 days later, on Sept. 1 in Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minn.
More here:
http://www.aspentimes.com/article/20070111/NEWS/70111005
Posted by: Blogman at January 11, 2007 12:58 PM