wherefore art thou, libertarian?
- 8
- Add a Comment
Last Saturday there was a nationally televised event at a Saddleback Church featuring Obama and McCain. Each got an hour to speak.
The Libertarian Party sued to be allowed in the event. They were denied. Here are excerpts from the Judge Carter’s ruling:
“Plaintiffs will lose out on a fair amount of exposure and the opportunity to express their views in a popular forum. On the other hand, halting this event would deny the other candidates the opportunity to be heard and would deprive the public of an opportunity to see the candidates and hear their views.
“Forcing Saddleback to include another candidate at the last moment could cause serious logistical problems and take away from the presentations of other candidate. This might well disrupt the planned presentation.”
Judge Carter closed by saying:
Barr and Root “will have many other opportunities in the coming months to express their views and make their candidacy known.”
What a crock of crap. There was no legal reason to keep the libertarians out of the event. Even the ruling makes no sense. What kind of idiots does he think we are?
Well, he may be right.
Regardless of how you feel about Libertarians, Republicans, or Democrats, you need to pay attention to this. Why? Because today it’s Libertarians. Next time it may be Greens. Or Democrats. Or Republicans. Fair access for all parties.
Of course I can’t close without stating that there’s not a bit of difference between Republicans and Democrats. You’re gonna get it in the end, in the end. They both represent the party of Greed, which doesn’t represent you or me. They have a vested interest in the status quo. Third parties cannot be allowed to participated. Or second parties, as it were.
8 Comments
Jason Friesen
August 18th, 2008
at 2:01pm
Wherefore am I libertarian? A passionate desire for freedom, combined with an overwhelming distrust of authority!
http://www.google.ca/search?q=define%3Awherefore
Neal Babcock
August 18th, 2008
at 3:11pm
I think that believing the Democratic and Republican parties as a whole are identical takes some massive blinders to reality. Yes, there has been corruption with members of both of these parties. Yes, certain members of both parties have been in the pocket of big corporations. No, these things alone do not support the theory that “there’s not a bit of difference between Republicans and Democrats.” That’s like saying “there’s not a bit of difference between weight-lifting and swimming.”
jimn lagnese
August 19th, 2008
at 7:08am
I have to wonder if Bob Barr approached Rick Warren about this. If he did, I can understand taking him to court, if he didn’t, I would admonish Barr for not trying that first. As far as the ruling goes, it was lame form the logic standpoint. There really are no logistical issues other than time. And to Neal: while there are philosophical differences between the parties, in reality, they have it pretty much locked up. It’s like saying the MLB has only two teams, the Yankees and the Red Sox, and they fix the games.
Jim
http://www.the-right-guy.com
Mel Minitor
August 19th, 2008
at 8:10pm
Dr. Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party, who opened for Ron Paul at the recent march in Washington was not invited either.
“Baldwin, a pastor, writer and conservative talk show host won the nomination from a field of eight prospective nominees, including former U.N. Ambassador and Asst. Secretary of State in the Reagan administration, Dr. Alan Keyes.
“Baldwin, who founded the Crossroad Baptist Church in Pensacola, Florida, addressed the Constitution Party delegates in a passionate speech that outlined his concern that elected officials from both the Republican and Democrat parties had abandoned the principles of limited government.”
Please check him out!! http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com
leftystrat
August 19th, 2008
at 9:13pm
Mel: I’m putting my money where my mouth is. People with religious titles running for office scare me but I support his right to run.
Jim: I like your blog. Well done.
Neal: the results speak for themselves.
Jason: Indeed.
Thanks, everyone.
Mel Minitor
August 20th, 2008
at 7:48am
Leftystrat, I agree with you about religious titles, they tend to get in the way. I do not agree with Chuck on every issue…. with that being said, he is as Libertarian as you can get!!
A few polls show Chuck stronger that Bob Barr. As long has our votes are diluted, the same old crowd will control Washington
Alex
August 20th, 2008
at 11:52am
I watched the forum. My take on it was this: Obama knew what the forum was about. That was to answer specific questions and express his ideas about them. He was quite eloquent and specific. McCain, on the other hand, didn’t understand what a forum was for. He was campaigning. It was a loaded audience for McCain and his tales of his living in the past is what they wanted to hear…and that’s basically all they got. Every time McCain began to answer a question he started in with one of his anecdotes. Then he faced the audience and started campaigning. I thought there was an equal time law? What ever happened to it? Today, if anyone wants to find out about the other parties in this country and their platform they have to go to the Internet. Face it, most of the voting public think there are only two parties —- and it doesn’t matter which one gets elected it will be politics as usual. Personally, I don’t like either of them and unfortunately Ron Paul was not given the air-time he deserved. I’ll probably go Green again this time —- unless Ron Paul is actually on the ballot.
Politics: No More Republicrats! : Beyond Mom
September 8th, 2008
at 5:57am
[...] My best case scenario in voting for Bob Barr? The Libertarian party might get equal time. They didn’t this time. Mostly because letting them into Saddleback would have inconvenienced the other candidates. [...]