Posted on 06/26/2002 3:18:57 PM PDT by BillyBoy
Freeper Question of the Day:
If there is an effort to throw a legitimate statewide candidate off the ballot because of minor technicalities in the number of signatures they collected, is this good or bad? If ANOTHER's party's candidate for the same office says they support removing the other candidate because he could take votes away from him, is this good or bad?
According to many Libertarians, it seems, this is:
*Good during the 2000 Massachusetts Senate race...and Carla Howell was absolutely right to support it.
*Absolutely wrong and tyrannical during the 2002 Illinois Governor's race...and Jim Ryan must be a idiotic scumbag to support it.
Anyone else see a double standard here?
Compare Illinois to Massachusetts:
MCHENRY -- The Illinois Libertarian Party will be filing petitions on Monday for the slate of statewide candidates in Fall 2002 elections. The Illinois Republican Party is concerned about the effect Libertarian Party candidate for Governor former State Rep. Cal Skinner may have on the Governor's race. Cook County Republicans are now asking for assistance in challenging the Libertarian Party slate's petitions.
"I'm not surprised at all about this," said Skinner of Crystal Lake. "As a matter of fact, a challenge just like this took place in 1998, and the Secretary of State's staff was allegedly involved in going through those petitions. We know we have enough signatures. We're not concerned about their challenge -- but I just wonder who's payroll the signature checkers will be on?"
Illinois law prohibits working on campaigns while on taxpayer time. The offense is considered a misdemeanor, punishable by up to six months in jail for a first offense.
The Illinois Libertarian Party filed documents in 1998, after their petitions were thrown out four days before the general election. The documents stated that state employees, including many from then-Secretary of State George Ryan's office, worked on the nominating petition challenge while on state time, according to a November 8, 1998 Chicago Tribune article.
The GOP's recent notice for help from the 14th Ward appears to be a call for volunteer help in going through the signatures. The notice said that the Libertarian candidate "means trouble for the GOP" and "could take 100,000 votes from Jim Ryan."
"I encourage anyone who is for tollways rather than freeways, Sarah Brady's position on gun control and a lukewarm opponent of abortion to volunteer to help with this effort," Skinner said today.
August 2000
Massachusetts Libertarian Carla Howell appears to be heading for a showdown with Ted Kennedy in the race for U.S. Senate ... now that the REPUBLICAN candidate has been KNOCKED OFF THE BALLOT.
"A great opportunity is before us -- a TWO-WAY RACE against big government Ted Kennedy!" said Howell. [My NOTE: There were actually SEVERAL additional candidates on the ballot at that time -- most notable Constitution Party candidate Philip Lawler. Of course, it makes sense that the LP officials would want to make voters BELIEVE Howell was the "only" alternative to Teddy Kennedy -- that way Republicans in favor of less government would think they'd HAVE to vote for her -- as opposed to voting for Lawler, who's views were closer to their own] "This is the U.S. Senate race Americans have been waiting for."
On June 30, the State Ballot Law Commission ruled that GOP candidate Jack E. Robinson had fallen short of the 10,000 petition signatures required to put his name on the ballot.
The Commission said Robinson filed 153 "false and fraudulent" signatures, leaving him 14 short of the number needed to qualify. Robinson said he would appeal to the state's Supreme Court, and a decision is expected by mid-August. [ NOTE: The MA Supreme Court ruled mere weeks before the election that Robinson's candidacy was legit and that he had been thrown off because of technicalities. Of course, this put him at a huge disadvantage to Howell, who had been campaigning for months]
If the appeal fails, it will mark the first time since 1916 that a Massachusetts Democratic Senate candidate has no Republican opponent -- and would apparently set up Howell as Kennedy's only challenger in November. Howell said she definitely PLANS TO TAKE ADVANTAGE of the situation.
"Having NO REPUBLICAN GIVES US A CHANCE to focus on what libertarianism is all about -- small government -- and to contrast it to the diametrically opposed Big Government policies of Ted Kennedy," she said. "THIS HAS BEEN OUR STRATEGY ALL ALONG, but a Libertarian/Kennedy race will be even more focused."
Following the Robinson announcement, Howell said her campaign was "flooded with e-mails, requests for donations, increased fundraising, new volunteers, and media requests" -- including Fox TV, Reuters, the Larry Elder show, the Pittsfield Gazette, Congressional Quarterly, and the Washington Times.
In the interviews, "we're selling this as a David versus Goliath campaign -- a long shot but a possibility," she said.
However, her biggest challenge may be getting "Goliath" to notice her, acknowledged Howell.
"Ted Kennedy has informed the media in Massachusetts that he doesn't even intend to start campaigning until late September," she said -- a plan her campaign hopes to scuttle with a blast of advertising.
Already, the campaign is planning to spend $300,000 on television advertisements, and $20,000 in radio ads in August, she said.
The campaign will also challenge Kennedy to a series of debates, said Howell.
"We'll exploit the media relations we've developed over recent years in Massachusetts, many of whom support our challenging Ted Kennedy," she said.
In addition, the campaign will seek "endorsements from Massachusetts VIPs from THOSE WHO MAY HAVE OTHERWISE GONE REPUBLICAN, and will aggressively fundraiser from small-government Republicans," she said.
One possible wrinkle in the one-on-one plan: "A COUPLE OF FRINGE PARTIES ARE ATTEMPTING TO MAKE THE BALLOT [ NOTE: The Constitution Party is no more a "fringe" party than the Libertarians -- the CP is well- recognized 3rd party organization has been around since 1992 and is a national party that runs candidates at all levels, including for President. It is the nation's 5th largest party] , but they won't be ruled on until late August," she noted.
If the race remains a showdown between Howell and Kennedy, it could have significant national benefits for the Libertarian Party, said Howell.
"For the first time in Libertarian Party history, a Libertarian U.S. Senate candidate is in a two-way race," she said. "National [media] coverage will boost party membership and recognition of the Libertarian Party as a viable alternative.
"The Small Government is Beautiful message will help to firmly identify the LP as the only political party willing to propose and vote for small government. Every issue. Every time. No exceptions. No excuses."
I find the parallel circumstances fairly interesting. It should be important to note that I don't support throwing legit candidates off the ballot in any circumstance. Go back to threads about the 2000 election, and you can find me complaining that it unethical to kick Robinson off. In fact, I found myself arguing with several 3rd party Buchanan brigagers who were gloating the "RINO" had been removed (odd that Buchanan supporters always yapped about how Bush wasn't pro-life enough, but they were happy to see an admitted pro-life candidate removed so it could help a pro-choice candidate) In this election, I have NOT supported the efforts of SOME Republicans to get Skinner off the ballot. I wrote the Chairman of the Cook County Republican telling her this was making the GOP look bad and that a much better stradegy would be to simply remind voters of some of the left-wing stances the LP has on a few social issues, thus ensuring Skinner would take some disgruntled liberal votes since there is no "Green" Party candidate running. As for this 14th WARD GOP guy (who shall go unnamed), I spoke with him in the primary about support O'Malley and I came with the impression that he is a hard-core "Jim Ryan is a flawless candidate who must win at any cost" type that does represent most Republicans (remember, Jim Ryan got 45% of the primary vote)
This seems to be a clear case of hypocrisy to me:
* Libertarians have complained to me about painting all members with the same brush, saying things like "your HERO must be George Ryan...Oh wait, is George Ryan not your hero? See how that works, putting lies into other people's mouths." Of course, I didn't say all LPs are alike, just that the MAJORITY of them fawn over what Harry Browne says (this should be obvious, he ran lousy campaigns but they overwhelmingly nominated him TWICE). But the LP is being hypocritical by claiming some loudmouth email from the 14th WARD Republicans (extremely heavy 'RAT area..they're desperate) must mean a massive plot from ALL "the Republicans" in Illinois to stop Cal Skinner.
*Several Libertarians are trying to pin this on Jim Ryan (and some Republicans even agree with them at Jim Ryan's behind it!) But there is no evidence at all that Jim Ryan came up with and ordered the Illinois GOP to go through Skinner's signatures. CERTAINLY, I would concede, that Jim Ryan seems to SUPPORT the effort and will be really happy in Skinner is removed. So gee whiz...that would mean he's doing EXACTLY what Carla Howell did in MA, now isn't it?
*Notice how Carla Howell referred to other "third" parties as fringe candidates. Now, whenever someone refers to the LIBERTARIANS as 'fringe candidates", they get outraged and accuse you of smearing "America's 3rd largest political party" Yet, they have no problem smearing OTHER legitimate parties. If some turkey farmer from North Dakota decided to run as a write-in candidate for President on his self-created "Female Circumcision" Party (with only himself as a member), that would be a "fringe"candidate. Neither the LP, or the Constitution Party (or the Greens for that matter) are "fringe"parties. They are ALL nationwide, well-organized, large movements. I never referred to the LP as a "fringe" party, although I have certainly argued several of their party planks are fringe beliefs.
* Many Libertarians insist they don't ever "blamed anyone for our low vote totals for statewide office? Nope. You use a ten year olds' arguments BillyBoy." Yet, here we are again, with LPs arguing the bad Republicans are trying to kill their efforts to run a serious campaign. (They'll complain about not being allowed in the debates too, although in my congressional district, for instance, I talked the GOP candidate into INVITING the LP candidate to a debate and she probably won't show) Most of this stems from the political party leaders overestimating crossover appeal. Howell tried to dictate that Republicans HAVE to vote for her because she'd be the "other" alternative to Ted Kennedy. But a lot of Republicans in MA were socially conservative folks like Catholics who don't want to support her because she's far left on social issues. Jim Ryan THINKS if he kicks Skinner of the ballot, his supporters will HAVE to vote for Jim Ryan. But in my observations, I've noticed most Skinner supporters are the single-issue crybaby types who only support candidates who agree with them on everything. Most skinner supporters would just skip the Governor's race if they can't have a "yes man" as their governor.
The hypocrisy of the LP is always rushing out to attack the GOP for doing something "unethical" that they themselves do. Their candidate for governor is running a huge campaign based around the idea of "term limits." This from a guy who served 16 years in the same office (and wanted to be elected to even more until he was thrown out!) Their candidate for governor complains the GOP candidate is "lukewarm opponent of abortion". Anyone want to guess what the LP candidate for Governor's website says about the rights of the unborn? If you guessed ABSOLUTELY NOTHING (like most LP sites!) you are correct. He's pro-life when other pro-lifers are around, not when he's out campaigning to general audiences. Say, isn't that what he's trying to attack JIM RYAN for doing? And, of course, the LP says they are removing ballot restrictions and "free elections"-- not to mention they are for "local control...locals always know better than national and state referendums we all know how devoted they were to "free elections" in MA and how much they think of Cal Skinner's "hometown" constituents who threw him out of office.
It is too much to ask of ALL parties to run some DECENT candidates and have an HONEST election for a CHANGE?
How about, Republican and LP freepers? Why is it GOOD when Howell supports this but bad when Jim Ryan does?
BTW, sometimes it's not even a party vs. party issue. Here in Illinois' 18th Senate District, the Chicago machine in the 19th ward almost got Mary Nolan, a fellow DEMOCRAT, kicked off the primary ballot. They wanted a Chicago machine loyalist to AUTOMATICALLY "inherit" O'Malley's seat and vote the way Mike Madigan tells him too. But the local Dems wanted someone who would be loyal to the suburbs first, so they ran a regional candidate from Oak Lawn. Much to our dismay, the local Democrat "leaders" put the loyality of the big city bosses over loyality to their towns, and backed Maloney. But Nolan managed to withstand a huge party beating, got back on the ballot by election day...but lost to Maloney.
Please update your lexicon.
So what do you think of Carla Howell? I know it's not a state issue but she's very popular within the LP and likely to be their candidate for President in 2004 (ideologically, she's aligned with Harry Browne) There's no disputing that Howell was out gloating and holding pep rallies after the MA election boards did what the LP CLAIMS to be against (use bureaucratic laws to restrict ballot choices) Not only that, she tried to INSIST she was the ONLY alternative to Ted Kennedy and wanted to undermine other actively campaigning 3rd party candidates (which the LP also CLAIMS they are against)
Everything I've heard about Carla Howell has been positive. She seems to be an advocate of sharp reduction in size and power of gov't. I've even thought of sending her a contribution.
Do you have any examples of non-Libertarian actions on her part?
How so?
I am not sure but I think, from what I could read of your post, that the difference is that in the governers race the Republican canadate is behind the effort to check signatures where in the Senate race it was the MA. election board which was behind the effort. Its bad publicity for the Republicans in that respect.
Gee, I wonder...
LIBERTARIAN PLATFORM: We urge repeal of ... compelling taxpayers to subsidize politicians and political views which many do not wish to support...Elections at all levels should be in the control of those who wish to participate in or support them voluntarily. We therefore call for an end to any tax-financed subsidies to candidates or parties and the repeal of all laws which restrict voluntary financing of election campaigns...Many state legislatures have established prohibitively restrictive laws which in effect exclude alternative candidates and parties from their rightful place on election ballots. Such laws wrongfully deny ballot access to political candidates and groups and further deny the voters their right to consider all legitimate alternatives. We hold that no state has an interest to protect in this area except for the fair and efficient conduct of elections. In order to grant voters a full range of choice in federal, state, and local elections, we propose the addition of the alternative 'None of the above is acceptable' to all ballots. We further propose that in the event that 'none of the above is acceptable' receives a plurality of votes in any election, either the elective office for that term should remain unfilled and unfunded, or there shall be a new election in which none of the losing candidates shall be eligible."
CARAL "I MUST GET DOUBLE-DIGIT MARGINS AT ANY COST" HOWELL: "The Republican candidate has been knocked off the ballot...a great opportunity is before us -- a two-way against big government Ted Kennedy! This is the U.S. Senate race Americans have been waiting for...having no Republican gives us a chance to focus on what libertarianism is all about -- small government -- and to contrast it to the diametrically opposed Big Government policies of Ted Kenned...This has been our straregy all along, but a Libertarian/Kennedy race will be even more focused. The campaign will seek endorsements from Massachusetts VIPs from those who may have otherwide gone Republican, and will aggressively fundraiser from small-government Republicans...a couple of fringe parties [The Green & Constiution Parties are not legit, according to her] are attemping to make the ballot...but they won't be ruled on until late August. A Libertarian U.S. Senate candidate is in a two-way race-- national [media] coverage will boost party membership and recognition of the Libertarian Party... help to firmly identify the LP as the only political party willing to propose and vote for small government."
Locate the section where any evidence shows Jim Ryan himself was "behind" the effort to throw Skinner off the ballot. Indeed, SOME supporters of Jim Ryan were shown to be actively working to get Skinner of the ballot (mainly, the 14th WARD GOP, which is a very small Republican organizaiton in Illinois). But Jim Ryan himself seems to merely turn him back and quitely SUPPORT using state laws to kick Skinner off. And I like, the Libertarians were ALL FOR IT when Carla Howell supporting the efforts to kick Jack Robinson off.
In fact, it seems Howell was even a lot MORE vocal in her glee when Robinson was removed. Jim Ryan is not the type to run around gloating.
What is being attempted against Cal Skinner is perfectly in line with what fearful Republicans in Illinois have been trying to do for at least the last 15 years -- prevent any viable third party from becoming established in Illinois.
I also, however, disagree thoroughly with the outlook and tactics of Carla Howell. She is a principled Libertarian, but she -- and her highly questionable campaign manager, Michael Emerling Cloud -- were not respecting fundamental justice in gloating over the Republicans' (temporary) failure to make the Massachusetts senatorial ballot.
Although the "established" parties have wangled themselves vastly lower signature requirements to petition for the (usually) primary ballots, those requirements still are not legitimate.
The only proper rules end up reinstating what was true in most jurisdictions in the 19th Century: allowing parties full autonomy in creating their "slates," AND in printing the ballots with those slates, AND allowing any legally qualified individual to be included on the ballot with reasonable notice to the election authorities.
Almost all Libertarians detest having these laws used against anyone, of any or no party. I have, personally, always signed the petition for ANY candidate to qualify him- or herself for the ballot in my area, no matter what party. Carla Howell, whatever her other considerable Libertarian virtues, does not agree with this, and that is why I and many other LP activists did (and do) not support her.
We definitely had a hypocracy during the Clinton administration, or was that hippocracy, rule by hippos?
Nonsense. The two major parties created the bureaucratic maze, and it's perfectly legitimate to snicker when they get hoist on their own petard. The rules should be changed, yes -- but until then they should apply across the board.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.