Harriet Miers
Frank Reichert
I wasn't originally a huge fan of Harriet Miers. Maybe, I'm
finally becoming one right now just based upon the horrendous
corruption and ineptitude of American politics! Honestly!
I can't believe that the normal 'Joe Six-Pack' American doesn't
find some problem in the way all of this was handled. Perhaps
she was more honest, and even qualified, to serve on the bench,
than all of the left and right winged politicians, special
interest groups, and self-serving bureaucratic sleaze bags that
control such major events in our own time.
This is a sorry, sorry time in our own history folks. How could
such things come to this?
I have to conclude that we actually live in a society that stands
for nothing other than our own parochial ideals anymore. We
don't believe in words, or that words have any meaning. We have
no standards to judge anything other than obtuse soundbites.
This is indeed sad.
Kindest regards,
Frank
Bill Calvo
required qualifications, however, I agree that her brutalization was
shameful!!! Another decent person thrown on her own sword by a terrible
president.
"Frank Reichert" <ad...@liberty-northwest.org> wrote in message
news:4361DF4E...@liberty-northwest.org...
SJ Doc
>Her nomination was poorly thought out and I do not believe
>she had the required qualifications, however, I agree that her
>brutalization was shameful!!! Another decent person thrown
>on her own sword by a terrible president.
Oh, good grief. She's a *lawyer* - and a government lawyer
in the bargain. Anything she gets (short of being drawn and
quartered a la *Braveheart*) is nothing more than she deserves.
------------------------
[T]hroughout its long, dismal history, the Republican Party has,
time after time, promised to support individual liberty, and
promptly betrayed it. There wouldn't be a Libertarian Party if
that wasn't true. On that account, if no other, we're not buddies,
friends, allies, or fellow travelers. We're enemies, as surely as
we're enemies to Democrats. We've always been enemies, but
it was on an almost friendly basis until ...
Until when, exactly?
For me, it may have been until then-Senator Robert Dole, with no
discernible motivation except his longstanding and utterly Nixonian
loathing of freedom, helped the Clinton Administration ram the Brady
Bill through, and with it (just as it was becoming clear that armed
individuals were reducing crime by double digits) an unconstitutional
prohibition on efficient personal weaponry and magazines of adequate
capacity.
Or it might have been until "revolutionary" Republicans tucked their
tails between their legs and slunk away, instead of seeking truth and
justice in the matters of Ruby Ridge, Waco, and Oklahoma City.
Or it may have been until the same "revolutionaries" failed, like the
Eisenhower and Reagan Administrations before them, to stamp out every
remnant of the New Deal and run government on a constitutional basis.
Or it might have been ... to hell with that. The Republican Party was
born for no other purpose than to oppress Americans. It has done
nothing but that since the War between the States. The GOP is the
party of conscription, the income tax, the loyalty oath, fiat money
inflation, political censorship, and the midnight knock on the door.
The only reason they got away with it is that Democrats were so
much worse.
That's all over now. Doing exactly opposite of what's really needed to
ensure "homeland security", Republicans have turned this country's
airports into rape zones where, if you protest at what they do to you,
you're guaranteed a thorough anal probing as punishment for exercising
your First Amendment rights. In the past year, Republicans have
trampled the Bill of Rights at home until it's unrecognizable, while
bombing, shooting, and otherwise terrorizing helpless peasants all
over the planet in a bald attempt to corner the world supply of
petroleum.
As hard as it may once have been to conceive, from the standpoint of
individual liberty, Republicans are vastly worse than Democrats.
George Junior has managed to make Bill Clinton look like a statesman.
The only strategy libertarians ought to follow -- the only one that
works for us, apparently -- is to prevent the election of as many of
these goose-stepping imbeciles as possible. If it were up to me, I'd
dedicate all of the Libertarian Party's resources to that and nothing
else.
The truly silly thing is that all the Republicans have to do to
eliminate the terrible threat that we libertarians represent is to be
better than we are on the issues that count. Put a stop to the current
War on Everything. Call the troops home for good. End the evil War on
Drugs. Outlaw "civil forfeiture". Repeal 25,000 gun laws. Seriously
reconsider taxation -- extortion and theft -- as a means of funding
government.
The ball is in their court and always has been.
-- L. Neil Smith,
"Why Michael Medved Needs Glasses"
Frank Reichert
SJ Doc wrote in response to Frank Reichert...
> Oh, good grief. She's a *lawyer* - and a government lawyer
> in the bargain. Anything she gets (short of being drawn and
> quartered a la *Braveheart*) is nothing more than she deserves.
Well, as this seems to have become 'water under the bridge'... we
now have yet another lawyer, and perhaps even one who is
intrenched largely upon right-wing causes on steroids! Ya want
to bet this one doesn't get nominated? Nevertheless, I predict
this one will make it through the hoops, although at a tremendous
bloody cost, at least in terms of the false right versus left
controversy which everyone seems to still be focused upon.
I suspect, my point in all of this boils down to this: I do not
see how liberty causes will be forthcoming in the near future
under the so-called redefined new court? Tell me just how THAT
is going to happen!
Kindest regards,
Frank
Frank Reichert
Robert Goodman wrote to Douglas Friedman...
In part, I believe, or at least think I wrote as follows:
>>>Mostly, it doesn't
>>>honestly matter when politicians run for office when the expediency of
>>>knowing
>>>that they live in a largely Democrat or Republican State. For those
>>>seriously
>>>wishing to win a race, they most likely will shift at a moments notice to
>>>the
>>>Party that would most likely win, and spend a lot of corporate big bucks
Responding to Doug Friedman, you wrote:
> But there are sometimes other ways to game the system. Michael Bloomberg,
> a rich guy, changed enrollment to Republican to run for mayor of NYC. That
> was so he could avoid a Democratic primary and put his money directly to
> use with the same message all the way thru the general election. (He got
> the GOP nomination uncontested.) He's running for re-election as nominee
> of the Republican and Independence parties, and in addition got a Liberal
> ballot label via petition. (The Liberals were for a half century an
> official party, but now it's an independent label.) This time he faces the
> very weak winner of the Democratic primary, Ferrer, who is being enormously
> outspent and trailing about 2-1 in the polls.
I suspect, anyway, that is what I was originally trying to allude
to in the first place.
Maybe perhaps, we need to address how principles, versus Party
labels, fit into this mix in terms of American politics. And, in
such a context, just how can principles, or at least individuals
in principle, run for public office when Parties (in and of
themselves) most often reflect expediency in terms of 'getting
elected'?
As I wrote before, if you happened to be a REALLY principled
'Conservative' residing in Hawaii -- you would most certainly
list yourself as a Democrat if you really had any hope of ever
being considered electable! In Idaho, the reverse is most often
the case: If you are a socialist, liberal, you will find a way
to make it onto the GOP ticket if you hope to get elected at all.
To be fair here, that is not always the case. Occasionally,
some doctrinaire Democrats in Idaho actually do get elected as
Democrats, but that is rare.
Now the question. If you are a Libertarian in Hawaii, or in
Idaho, what do you do?
Kindest regards,
Frank
Frank Gilliland
<ad...@liberty-northwest.org> wrote in
<436979F2...@liberty-northwest.org>:
<snip>
>Now the question. If you are a Libertarian in Hawaii, or in
>Idaho, what do you do?
You enter the game of partisan politics and lie like the rest of them.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Frank Reichert
Frank Gilliland wrote to Frank Reichert...
I previously wrote:
>>Now the question. If you are a Libertarian in Hawaii, or in
>>Idaho, what do you do?
To which, you replied:
> You enter the game of partisan politics and lie like the rest of them.
Now, ain't this a son of a gun!
Actually, probably a point that I was hoping to make might have
been somewhat different. Since there are dominant Party labels
in various states, such as Idaho and Hawaii (conversely GOP and
Democrat), and such labels rarely express the real political
ideology of a candidate, lying isn't probably even necessary.
If you happen to live in Hawaii, and you are a Libertarian, then
you enter a given race as a Democrat candidate and spew a radical
Libertarian platform agenda. Conversely, in Idaho, you enter a
given race as a Republican candidate and spew the same
Libertarian-driven agenda. Most of the "sheep-herd" populace
won't see anything other than perhaps the Democrat or GOP label
as attached to the candidate.
I guess I'm suggesting this because this happens in both Idaho
and Hawaii all the time. The so-called GOP control over the
State of Idaho isn't as awesome as it appears. The state
legislature is turning heavily to the left even under the GOP
label, which is why the GOP in Idaho is heavily divided. I
imagine it is somewhat the case in Hawaii (Democrat controlled)
today as well, although I am not so certain it has the same depth
as it does in Idaho.
Kindest regards,
Frank
Frank Gilliland
<ad...@liberty-northwest.org> wrote in
<436AF0BB...@liberty-northwest.org>:
>Good evening again, Frank!
>
>Frank Gilliland wrote to Frank Reichert...
>
>I previously wrote:
>>>Now the question. If you are a Libertarian in Hawaii, or in
>>>Idaho, what do you do?
>
>To which, you replied:
>> You enter the game of partisan politics and lie like the rest of them.
>
>Now, ain't this a son of a gun!
>
>Actually, probably a point that I was hoping to make might have
>been somewhat different. Since there are dominant Party labels
>in various states, such as Idaho and Hawaii (conversely GOP and
>Democrat), and such labels rarely express the real political
>ideology of a candidate, lying isn't probably even necessary.
Don't look now but you just contradicted yourself.
>If you happen to live in Hawaii, and you are a Libertarian, then
>you enter a given race as a Democrat candidate and spew a radical
>Libertarian platform agenda. Conversely, in Idaho, you enter a
>given race as a Republican candidate and spew the same
>Libertarian-driven agenda. Most of the "sheep-herd" populace
>won't see anything other than perhaps the Democrat or GOP label
>as attached to the candidate.
That tactic only works if the imposter can sneak through the
primaries. After that, some votes are automatic since many voters
punch a party-line ballot.
>I guess I'm suggesting this because this happens in both Idaho
>and Hawaii all the time. The so-called GOP control over the
>State of Idaho isn't as awesome as it appears. The state
>legislature is turning heavily to the left even under the GOP
>label, which is why the GOP in Idaho is heavily divided. I
>imagine it is somewhat the case in Hawaii (Democrat controlled)
>today as well, although I am not so certain it has the same depth
>as it does in Idaho.
People aren't born Democrats or Republicans, and people don't change
political ideology based on their state of residence. The fact is that
people are pretty much the same wherever you go. The source of the
political differences between Idaho and Hawaii are pretty obvious;
economics. Hawaii has been politically 'stable' because income from
both tourism and the military has been stable. Idaho, OTOH, has a
history of political trends that closely follows the many variations
of it's economic history. Right now the tourism industry is booming
and the Republican party is losing its base (the state income has
become less dependent upon agricultural subsidies, the traditional
"buy-your-vote" tactic of the GOP).
So, as far as a Libertarian riding into office on the back of a donkey
or an elephant, the key thing to remember is economics: people will
vote for anyone who can bring home the pork and against anyone who
will take it away. People would vote for Hitler if they thought he
could put more cash in their wallets. After all, the tactic worked for
Ronald "It worked in Califonia" Reagan, George "Read my lips" Bush,
and George "Rebate checks for everyone" Bush, didn't it?
Frank Reichert
Frank Gilliland wrote to Frank Reichert...
I previously wrote:
>>If you happen to live in Hawaii, and you are a Libertarian, then
>>you enter a given race as a Democrat candidate and spew a radical
>>Libertarian platform agenda. Conversely, in Idaho, you enter a
>>given race as a Republican candidate and spew the same
>>Libertarian-driven agenda. Most of the "sheep-herd" populace
>>won't see anything other than perhaps the Democrat or GOP label
>>as attached to the candidate.
To which, you replied:
> That tactic only works if the imposter can sneak through the
> primaries. After that, some votes are automatic since many voters
> punch a party-line ballot.
Actually, the point that I was attempting to make, was that there
are an awful lot of 'imposers' in Idaho. I can name a handful of
'em right here in Region I, beginning of course with our three
State Legislators!
When you take a look at the Legislative races last time, I ran
for State Representative for Region I, as a Libertarian. One of
my two opponents naturally got elected, Mr. Eric Anderson (the
GOP candidate). He virtually copied my entire campaign line, and
made it his own. I was even conned insofar as I called him up
the next day after the election, and offered him my own support.
However, once elected, he showed his true colours, that he was
the preferred PAID FOR candidate for his special interest group
donors. His voting record was dismal, and reflected nothing
whatsoever in a manner in which I would have voted, if by chance
the people had had enough and actually voted for a third party
candidate who might honestly represent their own interests.
The point I am trying to make here should be rather obvious. I
guess it revolves around the question pertaining to whether or
not Libertarians ought to be so inclined to run under major Party
banners, as in Hawaii (Democrat) or Idaho (GOP) for the sake of
getting elected, or at least having a snowballs chance in hell of
getting elected? On a practical matter, to get elected that is,
it might have some merit for consideration certainly.
On a moral matter, if one believes in such these days, is it
really the right thing to do?
Another way to look at this might be to consider things that
really are an aversion to a Candidate such as myself. I hate the
Democrat Party in all and virtually everything the Democratic
Party platform enforces. Qualifying this somewhat: NOT
everything, but just about everything!
You seem to have suggested: Go ahead. Lie between your teeth and
do it anyway! At least in this instance when Hawaii is obviously
controlled entirely by the Democrats! I probably would not have
such a messy problem running in Idaho under the GOP banner, since
historically there are a great many Republicans who might be
considered as a tremendous reservoir of champions for Libertarian
causes, such as the late Barry Goldwater and the present Dr. Ron
Paul.
You replied last time:
> People aren't born Democrats or Republicans, and people don't change
> political ideology based on their state of residence. The fact is that
> people are pretty much the same wherever you go. The source of the
> political differences between Idaho and Hawaii are pretty obvious;
> economics. Hawaii has been politically 'stable' because income from
> both tourism and the military has been stable. Idaho, OTOH, has a
> history of political trends that closely follows the many variations
> of it's economic history. Right now the tourism industry is booming
> and the Republican party is losing its base (the state income has
> become less dependent upon agricultural subsidies, the traditional
> "buy-your-vote" tactic of the GOP).
Maybe you see the picture in Idaho, but probably this isn't
really it. It likely has a lot more to do with in-migration of a
vast horde of disenfranched migrants from California and
elsewhere that find a way to move up here and VOTE!
Unfortunately, they bring their baggage with them, and often they
call themselves Republicans! Sometimes they call themselves
Democrats, but they seem to quickly notice that label doesn't
work here as well as it might have back 'home' in California, so
they shift Party labels and support Phsydo Republicans who give
them the satisfaction at least, that their previous morphed
'California' lifestyle will be protected here in Idaho!
> So, as far as a Libertarian riding into office on the back of a donkey
> or an elephant, the key thing to remember is economics: people will
> vote for anyone who can bring home the pork and against anyone who
> will take it away. People would vote for Hitler if they thought he
> could put more cash in their wallets. After all, the tactic worked for
> Ronald "It worked in Califonia" Reagan, George "Read my lips" Bush,
> and George "Rebate checks for everyone" Bush, didn't it?
Yes it did. But at least one qualification might be in order
here. Ronald Reagan started out on the right plane of thought
into his first term, and was large sabotaged in short order when
the rubber met the road. You might wish to scroll back in this
message to my mention of Ron Paul, however, since he has a rather
long history in the US Congress, and he also once abandoned the
GOP in favour of running for US President under the Libertarian
Party label. He seems to be the best example, so far, of anyone
actually doing what you originally suggested. He went back and
ran again under the GOP banner and was elected again to represent
his District.
This example is probably the ONLY current example where a
principled Libertarian has actually pulled off something like
this honestly in the national Legislature! There are other
examples, of course, such as the late Barry Goldwater who were
always within the GOP orbit (and normally associated with the
radical right wing of that Party), and Phillip Crane (God only
knows what happened to him), and then there was (and probably
still is somewhere) the likes of Idaho's former Senator and
Congressman Steve Symms.
The point is, at least in a practical matter, where are any of
these guys today? Barry Goldwater is dead. Where, other than
Ron Paul do we find a viable Libertarian presence in the US
Congress today? Is there anyone else these days really doing any
of this and making a physical presence for Libertarian causes
today (other than the exception, Dr. Ron Paul)? I would suggest
that there isn't anyone, other than the above exception to this
rule, doing that today.
I would honestly like to hear more from you on a couple of
things. First, namely, why do you believe that lying is the best
way to get elected for expediency's sake to get elected to a
Party label for the purpose of really promoting Libertarian
causes? Second, should the Libertarian Party resign itself, on
principle of surrendering 'principle' on the bases of such lies
and deceit? And, third, is there any forward movement possible
to get Libertarian candidates elected based upon a sure principle
that is transparent and open to the public?
I believe these questions need to be examined and answered by
those of us who still claim that Libertarian idealism offers the
best opportunity for everyone to have any standing on deciding
what is ultimately the best for ourselves as individuals, and the
tremendous opportunities that are inherent within the overall
context of individual self-government.
I want to thank you for your spirited and obviously reasoned
reply. I hope to hear a lot more from you in the not so distant
future.
Kindest regards,
Frank