John Walsh gets some play at Counterpunch.
I wrote to him about his piece
http://www.counterpunch.org/walsh04012008.html
protesting his use of "only candidate".
His reply in part
"There is not yet a Libertarian candidate of significance - and I do not think Gravel is in physical shape to run."
His email
"john.endwar@gmail.com
Comments
This is not the first time
Submitted on April 3rd, 2008 by jflI've written to Walsh several times. He's oblivious
This is not the first time he's cut Mike short. He's so in hate with the Demoblican Party that he finds, or found it convenient to ignore Mike's run as a Democrat. All the "progressive" democrats ignored Mike, although they claimed to be anti-war.
I'm glad that Mike's still kickin'.
But I'm afraid the Libertarians are not at all interested in the NI4d. They like Representative government, "the Republic", and disdain "the masses". Libertarianism is a caricature of "free market" economics supported by the people most vested in the state, the military for instance. Many "libertarians" have spent their lives sucking at the teat of the greatest socialist enterprise on earth, the US DoD.
They've been brought up wearing the military's rose colored glasses. They work for the Department of War and are convinced they're on defense, for instance. The closest they ever get to anarchy is when they kill anarchists.
--
Times have changed. We are going to empower the American people. Let’s work together. I am tough. I’m not afraid. None of this politics as usual. Mike Gravel
jfl get a grip
Submitted on April 3rd, 2008 by redgar??? what the heck are you talking about. The free market embraced by libertarians is run by the masses. What libertarians have been working for the deptartment of war? Every Libertarian candidate I've ever seen running has been anti war.
Right-Wing Hippies
Submitted on April 3rd, 2008 by jflRight-Wing Hippies
' Many people in the military have libertarian leanings or at least sympathies. They're the rugged individualists, at least in their own mind: doing it their way... This is the individual libertarian's image of him- or herself: No excuses, "An Army of One." And this is the level at which it's so attractive to those in the military... let's check out this hatred of government that's so central to the libertarian mind-set. Um, the fact is that the military itself is part of the government libertarians rail against-though it's almost always left out of sermons against the evils of Big Brother. Look at the current budget proposal: everything for the military, nothing for anything else. The military is the government, folks. They pay your paycheck, and mine. And it all comes from taxes. And by the way, what's this hatred of "socialized medicine"? Does any medicine get any more socialized than military medicine? Choice of doctors? Hah. They tell you when to go, what shots to get, and where to get them... Many libertarians revere the competition of raw capitalism: may the best man win! But the military isn't raw capitalism. Quite the contrary. Two people don't compete for the same slot. The work is done by a single person, who does it well or ill... The military is by definition a monopoly: there aren't two competing U.S. Navies. And then, if you do your time, whether you've performed well or badly, you're guaranteed certain benefits... Most fundamentally, there's the fact that the military isn't about being Rambo. It's (no-duh) about doing what your superiors tell you to do, saying "Ma'am, yes, ma'am." Where is the rugged individualist in that?.. This suggests a contradiction between the reality of the military life, and the self-perception of many of the people who lead that life... It's bad when many people in the military persist in thinking of themselves as rugged individualists with control over their own destinies, completely unlike the people they look down on. I'd say: look in the mirror. '
This is the basic contradiction in libertarianism. The people who call themselves libertarians are snug in the belly of the beast, be it the military or the corporate world. It seems basically to be "I've got mine, Jack" at the center dressed up with a bunch of "and I deserve it because"... I'm a self-made man/woman. Which is not always (ever?) the truth.
Someone pointed out that the libertarian candidate is chosen at a convention by "representatives of the people". There's a strong streak of distrust of the masses, of respect for authority, of "republicanism" in libertarianism.
It's a free country. You all are welcome to become libertarians. It's not for me thenks.
My bet would be that libertarians will go for the NI4d about the same time hell freezes over.
--
Times have changed. We are going to empower the American people. Let’s work together. I am tough. I’m not afraid. None of this politics as usual. Mike Gravel
Military tendencies
Submitted on April 4th, 2008 by redgarThe fact that many in the military have libertarian tendencies does not mean that many libertarians have militaristic tendencies. You are jumping to false conclusions. Sort of like saying all birds fly, therefore anything that flies is a bird.
Libertarian candidates are not chosen by "representatives of the people", rather they are chosen by representatives of the libertarian movement. - just like every other party. Most states don't allow us to have a taxpayer paid for primary (some states do). The duopoly parties should be paying for their own primaries and their own conventions. I'm proud that the LP doesn't take tax money to choose their candidates.
I'm pretty sure Wayne Allan
Submitted on April 3rd, 2008 by rosslI'm pretty sure Wayne Allan Root is pro war.
Root
Submitted on April 3rd, 2008 by redgarThen there is no way the LP delegates will nominate him. There has never been a pro-war LP presidential candidate and our platform is certainly anti war.
Root's Position on Iraq & National Defense
Submitted on April 4th, 2008 by JaywinFrom Root's website: Let the critique begin!
STRONG on national defense and war on terror.
*Support our troops with the best weapons, protective body and vehicle armor.
*Illegal Immigration- I support securing our borders. We must first secure our borders to control the entry into our country of foreigners who pose a threat to the security, health, property or economic well-being of Americans. We must secure our bordersbefore we can deal with the issue of how to deal with illegal immigrants already in our country.
*I support making it easier for LEGAL immigrants with education & high tech skills to work legally in the USA.
*I oppose public funding and entitlements for illegal aliens.
*But I support providing a "Path to Citizenship" for 12 to 15 million illegal immigrants already here. Make it strict, difficult, and expensive- award citizenship only to those with no criminal record; who have proof of paid taxes; who learn mastery of the English language and American history; and who agree to pay a steep fine.
The WAR in Iraq:
*Republicans say "stay forever" (or 100 years as John McCain predicted). Wrong answer. Democrats say "Go right now." Wrong answer. It is a much more complicated issue than that. I believe the answer must involve a combination of nuance, compromise and common-sense.
*Admit the Iraq war is a disaster.
*Admit post-war planning was a disaster.
*Admit it's a civil war in Iraq- and our boys do not belong in the middle of a civil war. Our troops are not policeman.
*Use the success of the surge to declare victory and make plans to get out of Iraq as soon as reasonably possible.
*Learn the lesson that "Nation Building" is a failure of epic proportions- we are not the world's policeman. We do not have the right to stuff our beliefs of Democracy down the throats of other countries around the globe. Even if we did, Iraq proves we cannot afford it.
*One more lesson: Government wastes money. Government by its nature is corrupt. The military-industrial complex wants to expand government to increase its power and influence. We need strict oversight over defense contractors and private companies like Haliburton and Blackwater. Even during a time of war, I do not find it acceptable to allow our tax dollars to be wasted, or American taxpayers to be taken advantage of. Corporate welfare and waste is just as bad (and expensive) as welfare and entitlements for private citizens.
*Let's keep our military and national defense strong. One way to ensure this is to dramatically reduce foreign aid (especially to our enemies) and foreign military bases across the globe.
*It is time for South Korea, Japan and Western Europe to take responsibility (and pay) for their own national defense.
*Let's use the savings from these cuts in defense spending to increase the pay of our courageous U.S. military personnel.
--------------------------------
Jason
National Staff
Volunteer Moderator
Jason@Gravel2008.us
I had to chuckle at this...
Submitted on April 7th, 2008 by DebbieKat"*But I support providing a "Path to Citizenship" for 12 to 15 million illegal immigrants already here. Make it strict, difficult, and expensive- award citizenship only to those with no criminal record; who have proof of paid taxes; who learn mastery of the English language and American history; and who agree to pay a steep fine."
So... does this mean we can take away Bush's citizenship? He:
1) has a criminal record.
2) clearly has no mastery of the English language or American History
3) Jury is still out on proof of paid taxes, but since it hasn't come up yet, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.