Showing posts with label Libertarian Party. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Libertarian Party. Show all posts

Thursday, October 24, 2013

George Will Endorses Sarvis Over Cuccinelli

You know the Republican Party is in deep trouble when they typically right wing George Will endorses a libertarian candidate over a Republican standard bearer.  Yet that is precisely what Will does in a column in the Washington Post.  True, Will holds no love for Democrat Terry McAuliffe, but the fact that he cannot support Ken Cuccinelli speaks volumes about just how extreme - frightening might be a better word - Cuccinelli and his agenda are in reality.  Like many, I feel that neither major party candidate is ideal, but in the last analysis, one sometimes votes for the lesser evil.  Hence my support (and the support of most leading newspapers in Virginia) for Terry McAuliffe.  Apparently, Will cannot hold his nose and vote for McAuliffe, so he is encouraging a vote for Robert Sarvis, the Libertarian Party candidate for governor of Virginia.  Here are column excerpts:

Equanimity is his [Robert Sarvis'] default position and almost his political platform: Why be agitated when your frenzied adversaries are splendidly making your case about the poverty of standard political choices?

In Sarvis, the man and the moment have met. He is running at a time of maximum distrust of established institutions, including the two major parties. He has little money, but McAuliffe and Cuccinelli have spent millions of dollars on broadcast ads making each other repulsive to many Virginians, who surely feel as Will Rogers did: “You got to admit that each party is worse than the other.” Furthermore, the partial shutdown of the government especially annoyed Sarvis’s state, which has the nation’s second highest per-capita federal spending (Alaska is first) — Northern Virginia is a dormitory for federal workers and southern Virginia’s military installations include the world’s largest naval complex

During an intermission in the telecast of a notably disagreeable McAuliffe-Cuccinelli debate, viewers heard from their television sets a woman’s voice asking, “Can’t vote for these guys?” Then Sarvis’s voice:  “Like you, I can’t vote for Ken Cuccinelli’s narrow-minded social agenda. I want a Virginia that’s open-minded and welcoming to all. And like you, I don’t want Terry McAuliffe’s cronyism either, where government picks winners and losers. Join me, and together we can build a Virginia that’s open-minded and open for business.”

Cuccinelli is a stern social conservative, an opponent of, among other things, gay marriage. Marriage equality interests Sarvis (whose mother is Chinese) because his wife is African American, so his marriage would have been illegal in Virginia before the exquisitely titled 1967 U.S. Supreme Court decision Loving v. Virginia

Sarvis, who is 37 and may look that old in a decade or so, graduated from Harvard with a mathematics degree, earned a law degree from New York University and clerked in Mississippi for a judge on the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. After a spell as a mathematics graduate student at Berkeley, Sarvis worked for a San Francisco tech startup, then earned a master’s degree in economics at George Mason University. In 2011, he ran as a Republican against the state Senate majority leader, a 31-year incumbent. Outspent 72-to-1, Sarvis got 36 percent of the vote.

He must scrounge for media attention because he fares poorly in polls that reinforce the judgment that he is not newsworthy. But he is.

Third-party candidacies are said to be like bees — they sting, then die. Still, Sarvis is enabling voters to register dissatisfaction with the prevailing political duopoly. Markets are information-generating mechanisms, and Virginia’s political market is sending, through Sarvis, signals to the two durable parties.

Thursday, March 15, 2012

Roman Catholic Bishops Extend Anti-Gay Jihad to North Carolina


Increasingly, the number one opponent to LGBT equality - indeed, to treatment of LGBT individuals as even fully human - is the Catholic Church hierarchy. Yep, those same men who are best known for aiding and abetting child rapists and seeking to regulate women's bodies. Now these men (many of whom, in my honest opinion, ought to rightly be behind bars as accessories to crimes against children) are taking their anti-gay rights campaign to North Carolina. My blogger friend Pam Spaulding looks at this development and rightly calls out the moral bankruptcy of these bitter, nasty, hubris filled men who I increasingly see as nothing less than a force for evil in the world. When will the Catholic laity wake up and stop funding these bastards? Likewise, when are legislators going to cease kissing the asses of these foul men? Here are highlights from Pam's post:

Bishops Peter Jugis of the Diocese of Charlotte and Michael Burbidge of the Diocese of Raleigh have continued to sell out principle, trying to confuse people that this is a vote about marriage equality — and thus the apparent end of civilization — but they really do love the gays. This is pure homophobia that continues to conflate church and state matters.

What”divinely revealed” moral standing does the Church have these days given its pedophile priest protection problem? The church should make better use of its resources on that front. But that doesn’t stop Bishops Peter Jugis and Michael Burbidge.

And the fact is that this amendment has nothing to do with procreation or religious marriage, but these are the only pitiful tricks in their bag of bigotry that they are selling. Pope Benedict sees marriage equality as a threat to the “future of humanity itself,” yet North Carolina isn’t even considering marriage equality, this is about stopping an amendment that prevents any legal recognition (civil unions or domestic partnerships) at all for same-sex couples at any point in the future.

Did I mention that Marriage Unique for a Reason is a project of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishop’s (USCCB)? Guess who heads that up — homophobe extraordinaire Cardinal Timothy Dolan of New York.

I see this intervention by the Catholic Church as a sign that the professional anti-LGBT crowd is worried we might defeat this ballot initiative.

As Pam has noted in a prior post, the North Carolina Libertarian Party has come out in opposition to Amendment 1. Pam also notes the real motivation of the bishops and professional Christian set:

[T]he primary reason for this ballot initiative on May 8 – it is specifically designed to demonize and hurt taxpaying, voting LGBT North Carolinians.

As for the bishops, what needs to be done is what has occurred in several dioceses in Europe: police officials need to start swooping into bishoprics with warrants and seizing diocese files on sexual predators and then issue indictments against bishops and cardinals who have obstructed justice and allowed crimes against children. These evil men need to be thoroughly discredited and revealed for what they really are.

Monday, September 29, 2008

Sarah Palin is No Libertarian

One reader continues to insist against all objective measurement that Sarah Palin is a Libertarian. Would that such were the case (not to mention, would that she were not an unqualified nutcase). While this reader has cited her attendance at libertarian functions during the run up to her bid for governor, the reality is that candidates for office attend all kinds of functions to meet and greet prospective voters. When I myself ran for local office (in a city with a population more than 2/3's the size of Alaska's population), I attended meetings of and forums sponsored by groups ranging from the local Republican and Democrat parties to a Christian Coalition meeting, a libertarian group's meeting, and numerous other forums. My presence at any one or more of those functions did NOT make me a member of the host organization/party. The clearest proof that Palin is NOT a libertarian is to look at her positions versus the platform of the Libertarian Party. Here are two Libertarian Party platform positions that are diametrically opposite of Palin's stated views:
*
1.3 Personal Relationships
Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the rights of individuals by government, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws
. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships. Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships.

*
1.4 Abortion
Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.

*
Palin wants a total ban on abortion in all cases and opposes any recognition of gay relationships whatsoever. These are NOT Libertarian positions. The sad truth is that Sarah Palin is a far right Christianist who reportedly even believes that humans and dinosaurs inhabited the earth at the same time. Readers can believe whatever they want to believe. However, pretending that so something is so does not make it so.