Posted on 06/26/2002 3:18:57 PM PDT by BillyBoy
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.