PDA

View Full Version : Where Are The Libertarians When You Need Them?




angelatc
11-15-2013, 11:14 AM
Mike Rogers, in Michigan. One of the worst freaking Republicans in office as far as civil liberties and spending go. He's solid pro-life and pro-gun though, so that keeps him in office.

To date, no Democrat has shown any interest in running against him. He has no primary challenger that I'm aware of. He's considered pretty untouchable.

So, where is the Libertarian candidate here, where they possibly could really make a race out of it?

seapilot
11-15-2013, 11:17 AM
When are you running?

angelatc
11-15-2013, 11:22 AM
When are you running?

A - I don't live in the district

B - I'm not a Libertarian

C - I'm much too awkward and introverted to be a candidate. Not to mention that I genuinely don't like large groups of people.


The guy I would like to have seen run moved to Texas.

Ronin Truth
11-15-2013, 11:24 AM
If he's pretty much untouchable it's probably a better idea to commit scarce resources elsewhere.;)

FindLiberty
11-15-2013, 11:25 AM
IMO, the Rs and Ds are usually one and the same (enemy of Freedom). I've seen them make deals with each other to keep the Libertarian off of the ballot (or specifically, the ballots off of the table on election day!) just to maintain the status quo. In the case of the OP, those in power (R/D) are happy with the (terrible?) outcome produced by that rino so the LP candidate does not stand a chance in that two way race in MI.

FrankRep
11-15-2013, 11:30 AM
So, where is the Libertarian candidate here, where they possibly could really make a race out of it?

Libertarians don't win elections. You need a Justin Amash-type candidate to primary him out.

angelatc
11-15-2013, 11:31 AM
If he's pretty much untouchable it's probably a better idea to commit scarce resources elsewhere.;)


That statement might carry more weight if we weren't just coming out of the Virginia race.

Contumacious
11-15-2013, 11:32 AM
I'm much too awkward and introverted to be a candidate. Not to mention that I genuinely don't like large groups of people.

.

Don't give up because of that.

So was the Mayor of Toronto , but crack cocaine helped him get elected.

LOL

Natural Citizen
11-15-2013, 11:33 AM
IMO, the Rs and Ds are usually one and the same (enemy of Freedom). I've seen them make deals with each other to keep the Libertarian off of the ballot (or specifically, the ballots off of the table on election day!) just to maintain the status quo. In the case of the OP, those in power (R/D) are happy with the (terrible?) outcome produced by that rino so the LP candidate does not stand a chance in that two way race in MI.

Yep. Ohio voters just got disfranchised. I suppose they are suing but your point is well taken.


Update regarding voter disfranchisement in Ohio...
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?432725-Ohio-s-third-parties-face-higher-hurdles-Kasich-signs-rules-into-law-hours-before-deadline

angelatc
11-15-2013, 11:33 AM
Libertarians don't win elections. You need a Justin Amash-type candidate to primary him out.

Justin Amash didn't take on an incumbent in his House primary.

angelatc
11-15-2013, 11:35 AM
Don't give up because of that.

So was the Mayor of Toronto , but crack cocaine helped him get elected.

LOL


If I wanted to smoke crack, I'd definitely run Libertarian.

seapilot
11-15-2013, 11:35 AM
Libertarians don't win elections. You need a Justin Amash-type candidate to primary him out.

Independents sometimes do, why be associated with all the baggage of a party?

angelatc
11-15-2013, 11:37 AM
IMO, the Rs and Ds are usually one and the same (enemy of Freedom). I've seen them make deals with each other to keep the Libertarian off of the ballot (or specifically, the ballots off of the table on election day!) just to maintain the status quo. In the case of the OP, those in power (R/D) are happy with the (terrible?) outcome produced by that rino so the LP candidate does not stand a chance in that two way race in MI.

Right. In case you missed it, we're talking about Michigan. Not Ohio.

And if the LP doesn't stand a chance in a 2-way race, what chance does would their candidates have in a 3 (or more) way race?

Ronin Truth
11-15-2013, 11:40 AM
That statement might carry more weight if we weren't just coming out of the Virginia race.

And we have what to show for Virginia? Looks like squat to me.

angelatc
11-15-2013, 11:46 AM
And we have what to show for Virginia? Looks like squat to me.

So you would agree that those resources were wasted. I'm just debunking that talking point.

I started to type a different thought - but crap! Why doesn't a Libertarian file as a Democrat? Heck, one should file as a Democrat while one files as a Libertarian. That way the LP would still have a spot on the ballot if he/she lost the Democrat primary. (Sore loser laws.)

NewRightLibertarian
11-15-2013, 11:47 AM
Mike Rogers, in Michigan. One of the worst freaking Republicans in office as far as civil liberties and spending go. He's solid pro-life and pro-gun though, so that keeps him in office.

To date, no Democrat has shown any interest in running against him. He has no primary challenger that I'm aware of. He's considered pretty untouchable.

So, where is the Libertarian candidate here, where they possibly could really make a race out of it?

He's got so much $$$ and is virtually untouchable in his district IMO. We were protesting one of his fundraisers a couple months back. His supporters actually had 'Mike Rogers - No More Big Government' t-shirts on, LOL!

CaptLouAlbano
11-15-2013, 11:48 AM
Looks like the LP has fielded a candidate in that CD the last two times. I looked both of them up but in typical LP fashion they are unknowns. Can't really find any info on either of them, other than that they ran for Congress.

Anyway, Rogers flirted with running for Senate, so possibly there is a state rep or state senator, that has his eyes on the seat and can primary Rogers. It seems like a safe seat for the Republicans, so a primary challenge would be the best bet, and a lot less costly.

angelatc
11-15-2013, 11:48 AM
He's got so much $$$ and is virtually untouchable in his district IMO

Again - see Virginia governor's race. More money, more connections, more opposition.

EBounding
11-15-2013, 11:53 AM
Looks like the LP has fielded a candidate in that CD the last two times. I looked both of them up but in typical LP fashion they are unknowns. Can't really find any info on either of them, other than that they ran for Congress.

Anyway, Rogers flirted with running for Senate, so possibly there is a state rep or state senator, that has his eyes on the seat and can primary Rogers. It seems like a safe seat for the Republicans, so a primary challenge would be the best bet, and a lot less costly.

Tom McMillin (http://tommcmillin.com/issues/) would be the best candidate. He's a State Rep, but he's running for State Senate in 2014. Rogers is simply too well liked in his district though. He would have to do something spectacularly stupid to lose the seat in the next few years.

angelatc
11-15-2013, 11:53 AM
Looks like the LP has fielded a candidate in that CD the last two times. I looked both of them up but in typical LP fashion they are unknowns. Can't really find any info on either of them, other than that they ran for Congress.

Anyway, Rogers flirted with running for Senate, so possibly there is a state rep or state senator, that has his eyes on the seat and can primary Rogers. It seems like a safe seat for the Republicans, so a primary challenge would be the best bet, and a lot less costly.


I don't think he can be primaried by an unknown. There's a state Senator I'd support if and when he opts to try to primary Rogers, but he might not opt to take that path when he's term-limited out locally.

The last LP candidate, IIRC, was also a GOP delegate. :) He moved to Texas. He's actually a nice guy.

angelatc
11-15-2013, 11:54 AM
Tom McMillin (http://tommcmillin.com/issues/) would be the best candidate.

You think? I like Joe Hune.

CaptLouAlbano
11-15-2013, 11:55 AM
The last LP candidate, IIRC, was also a GOP delegate. :) He moved to Texas. He's actually a nice guy.

The dog breed handler?

CaptLouAlbano
11-15-2013, 11:56 AM
Tom McMillin (http://tommcmillin.com/issues/) would be the best candidate. He's a State Rep, but he's running for State Senate in 2014. Rogers is simply too well liked in his district though. He would have to do something spectacularly stupid to lose the seat in the next few years.

Sometimes you have to chip away at these guys. If a state rep/senator can run for the seat without giving up their own, its a good time to get their name out there. Usually two times and if you can't win it, then you pack it in.

Ronin Truth
11-15-2013, 12:01 PM
So you would agree that those resources were wasted. I'm just debunking that talking point.

I started to type a different thought - but crap! Why doesn't a Libertarian file as a Democrat? Heck, one should file as a Democrat while one files as a Libertarian. That way the LP would still have a spot on the ballot if he/she lost the Democrat primary. (Sore loser laws.)
Wasted? Yep, should have been deployed elsewhere. I guess I'm just missing your debunk. :confused:

I'll leave the advanced electoral calculus to you. ;)

LibForestPaul
11-15-2013, 01:01 PM
Libertarians need to stop deluding themselves that people WANT them. They don't. They wont free healthcare, free soc sec, free meds, free education, freedom from fear, freedom from thinking, freedom from risk, and put it on all those rich peoples tabs.

angelatc
11-15-2013, 01:15 PM
Libertarians need to stop deluding themselves that people WANT them. They don't. They wont free healthcare, free soc sec, free meds, free education, freedom from fear, freedom from thinking, freedom from risk, and put it on all those rich peoples tabs.

I don't think that's accurate either. Liberals want that, for sure. But the conservative midwest republican wants to earn a living, is pro-life, and pro-gun. They vote Republican even when the Democrats shriek that they're going to take away Social Security.

But they don't want hard drugs legalized, they don't want to maintain their own roads, and they want public schools.

Libertarians have a hard time winning partly because they're too busy telling people what they should want (and sarcastically mocking it) instead of listening to what they actually do want.

enhanced_deficit
11-15-2013, 01:22 PM
While Libertarian brand is still pretty strong, war pimps like Bill O Really, Glenn Beck and on-off-on neocons like Bill Maher/Drudge also call themselves "Libertarians".
Perhaps "Where are all the anti-war Libertarians/Conservatives/Liberals?" will get more traction to unseat this dumbell with very serious Qs about his position and conflict of interest:


According to following Fox news report, Republican politician from Michigan Mike Rogers is now concerned that there are too few drone attacks taking place currently:


Concerns raised about fewer US drone strikes amid continuing terror attacks
Published September 26, 2013
FoxNews.com

http://a57.foxnews.com/global.fncstatic.com/static/managed/img/fn2/video/876/493/092613_goler_drones3_640.jpg?ve=1 (http://video.foxnews.com/v/2697429081001/no-time-to-retreat-concerns-over-drop-in-drone-strikes)


The number of U.S. drone strikes appears to have dropped significantly over the past several months while terrorists have staged dozens of attacks, a trend raising concerns for the top House Republican on national intelligence.

New statistics from the West Point Counterterroism Center show more than 60 terror attacks across the world since July 1 -- most recently, the attack at a Kenya mall last weekend in which more than 60 people were killed.
Meanwhile, the number of U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan and Yemen – the hotbed for Al Qaeda and other terror groups -- appears to have decreased significantly over roughly the same period.

The publication The Long War Journal reports a total of 22 strikes since May in those countries.
The apparent trend of fewer strikes amid perceptions of a weakened Al Qaeda and diminished terror threats is drawing concern from Rep. Mike Rogers, chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

“It's not diminishing,” the Michigan Republican told Fox News on Tuesday. “There have been counterterrorism changes made by the administration that have concerned us all, things that we've been working on for a period of months that we're trying to work through that are very, very concerning. This is no time to retreat.”

The White House has not commented on the apparent decrease in drone strikes but has referred reporters to President Obama’s May 23 speech at the National Defense University in which he discussed the county’s evolving efforts to combat the war on terror.

The president said the United States will continue to “dismantle [terror] networks that pose a direct danger to us” but can no longer define its efforts as a “boundless global war on terror.”

He said the fight is entering a “new phase” in which legal and necessary drone strikes will be more narrowly focused to avoid civilian casualties and backlash in Pakistan and neighboring countries.

“By narrowly targeting our action against those who want to kill us and not the people they hide among, we are choosing the course of action least likely to result in the loss of innocent life,” Obama said.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/09/26/concerns-raised-about-fewer-us-drone-strikes-amid-continuing-terror-attacks/



Not clear if there is conflict of interest for Republican Mike Rogers here but he has been accused of indirectly benefiting from US policies he pushes:


Rep. Mike Rogers Wife Stands To Benefit Greatly From CISPA Passing

April 25, 2013
http://www.telepresenceoptions.com/images/Mike_Kristi_Rogers.jpg

Story and Images by Mike Masnick
It would appear that Rep. Mike Rogers, the main person in Congress pushing for CISPA, has kept rather quiet about a very direct conflict of interest that calls into serious question the entire bill. It would appear that Rogers' wife stands to benefit quite a lot from the passage of CISPA, and has helped in the push to get the bill passed. It's somewhat amazing that no one has really covered this part of the story, but it highlights, yet again, the kind of activities by folks in Congress that make the public trust Congress less and less.

It has seemed quite strange to see how strongly Rogers has been fighting for CISPA, refusing (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130417/09330122741/cispa-renders-online-privacy-agreements-meaningless-sponsor-sees-no-reason-to-fix-that.shtml) to even acknowledge the seriousness of the privacy concerns. At other times, he can't even keep his own story straight (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130410/11570822664/cispas-sponsor-cant-even-keep-his-story-straight-about-nsa-having-access-to-your-data.shtml) about whether or not CISPA is about giving information to the NSA (hint: it is). And then there was the recent ridiculousness with him insisting that the only opposition to CISPA came from 14-year-old kids in their basement (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130416/13354422728/cispa-sponsor-claims-opposition-is-14-year-olds-their-basement.shtml). Wrong and insulting.

Of course, as we've noted all along, all attempts at cybersecurity legislation have always been about money (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100302/1024048361.shtml). Mainly, money to big defense contractors (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100517/1141179445.shtml) aiming to provide the government with lots of very expensive "solutions" to the cybersecurity "problem" -- a problem that still has not been adequately defined beyond fake scare stories. Just last month, Rogers accidentally tweeted (and then deleted) a story about how CISPA supporters, like himself, had received 15 times more money from pro-CISPA group that the opposition had received from anti-CISPA groups.

So it seems rather interesting to note that Rogers' wife, Kristi Clemens Rogers, was, until recently, the president and CEO of Aegis LLC a "security" defense contractor company, whom she helped to secure a $10 billion (with a b) contract with the State Department. The company describes itself as "a leading private security company, provides government and corporate clients with a full spectrum of intelligence-led, culturally-sensitive security solutions to operational and development challenges around the world."


http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?428811-GOP-Politician-Concerned-Over-Too-Few-Drone-Attacks-Since-May-%28Post-April-15-Boston-Bombing-%29&p=5244097&viewfull=1#post5244097

kcchiefs6465
11-15-2013, 01:23 PM
I don't think that's accurate either. Liberals want that, for sure. But the conservative midwest republican wants to earn a living, is pro-life, and pro-gun. They vote Republican even when the Democrats shriek that they're going to take away Social Security.

But they don't want hard drugs legalized, they don't want to maintain their own roads, and they want public schools.

Libertarians have a hard time winning partly because they're too busy telling people what they should want (and sarcastically mocking it) instead of listening to what they actually do want.
Right but when what they actually want crosses the Rubicon into stealing someone else's shit, what do you suppose I do? Placate or appease them? Or explain the error in their thinking and propose a more honest, fair, and balanced system?

Obviously I know what "they" (generally) want. They want benefits [at the cost of others]. They all have their pet programs. I don't see much a way around this aside from education on what the proper role of government is, on what Natural Rights are, and on the inherent evil that a "majority rules" brings about (in other words, educating someone on the power of the individual).