At this juncture, I should mention something that just returned to my attention:
California’s Primary Election will be on Tuesday, March 7, 2000. This will be the first California Primary, since I’ve been alive, in which you don’t have to register with any political party to be able to vote for a Presidential candidate. The Presidential candidates from all parties will be on the ballot, and each California voter will get to vote for one (1) of them.
I intend to abuse this power by voting for the weaker candidate in the major party I oppose. Because if he wins the Primaries, the other party will have a better chance of winning.
I never did buy that argument. If you want to have a say in how the game is played, sit your butt down and ante up with the rest of us. Yeah, your odds of getting exactly what you want is just slightly better than winning a lottery, but when was the last time someone got the big prize by not buying the ticket?
I would think a wasted vote is one where you vote for somebody who makes the same broken promises every election. That’s not just wasteful, but foolish.
I do like Browne, though I feel that certain of his policies would lead to some serious problems – my apologies to Satan, Lib, Edlyn, and techchick, but my experience has been that in the absence of moderate regulation, human nature tends to show both its best and worst characteristics. Thank god for the best, but some control needs to be kept about the worst.
Prior to this year, I would have given him only a snowball’s chance in Hell, but Brian can back my statement that that is a very liberal estimate these days!
I like Bradley, and will probably vote for him in our primary. I don’t have a whole lot against Gore, but he evokes vehement ennui in me. McCain is an honest man – and may well win on the novelty of that.
Dubya is running a Tom Dewey campaign. And, like him, he will only win in the Chicago Tribune. (I was born the day after “Dewey was elected president,” the first of dozens of improbabilities that have dotted my life.)
Most of the other Republicans seem to be vying for the Immoral Minority vote, with Bauer most richly deserving it.
Reform might have been interesting, but they’ve done an outstandingly good job of wasting their chances. Donald Trump!?
I favor very severe regulation. I think coercion and fraud should be regulated out of existence. But rights should not be regulated. Regulating rights is what coercion is.
Have I mentioned lately how talented you are at turning a phrase, Poly?
Slythe, it’s hard to describe why I’m in favor of anyone without mentioning the other candidates. That is, I’m jaded enough that I can only say “I like X because he’s better than Y.”
Nevertheless, at this moment I think I’m for Bradley as well. He’s shown more candor and integrity in his political career than most pols, and I agree with his social platform. (before anyone starts in, no, I’m not a bleeding-heart. I’m a good, self-serving fence-sitter. Wanna make something of it?). I like some of Gore’s ideas, but I don’t trust him. I can’t stand Dubya, and I can’t get past the Keating scandal with McCain. Of the truly viable candidates, I support Bradley as the best man available.
While I strongly agree with many of Browne’s views, I strongly disagree many, and as such can’t vote for him. Ditto for some of the other “fringies” (no offense, Lib, but at this point, Harry’s still fringe in my mind). Nader’s become a self-parody, Trump’s a joke, and I would honestly expatriate if Buchannan were ever elected.
In retrospect, I see I violated slythe’s OP. Second shot:
"I support Bradley because he is the only candidate who seems to be backing some of the things I feel are right as a matter of principle, rather than of political expediency.
“OTOH, I respect McCain because he likewise seems to be speaking his mind honestly, without pandering for voter blocs. But I doubt I’ll vote for him.”
You did just fine the first time, Polywog. I’m just trying to find out why people vote for someone. There’s time enough in the future for the attack campaigns. Just try to limit criticisms on this thread to specific points someone else has made, without using them to prop up your own candidate.
a very interesting topic! i am not quite ready to select a candidate. i am listening very carefully to what each of them are saying.
i think the race will end up between george bush jr. and al gore. this may lead me to vote for mr. gore. i am uncomfortable with the thought of the house, the senate and the white house all under the control of either political party.
“don’t get strung out by the way that i look, don’t judge a book by it’s cover” (tim curry as dr. franknfurter in rhps)
my wife registered in her political party for precisely that reason. here in nebraska, the primary elections are only open to registered party members. i am a registered independent, so i have no vote in the primary elections.
“don’t get strung out by the way that i look, don’t judge a book by it’s cover” (tim curry as dr. franknfurter in rhps)
longhair75: California used to do its primaries that way, to prevent exactly what I’m trying to accomplish (mua ha ha ha!).
Libertarian: How do you feel about the other Libertarian Party candidates in this upcoming Primary election? My ballot says that in addition to Harry Browne, L. Neil Smith, Kip Lee, and Dave Lynn Hollist are also running for the Libertarian Party ticket.
The truth, as always, is more complicated than that.
I cannot speak for Andros, but I believe that:[ul][li]The maximum possible freedom is none too little. Any regulation that has no necessity should be immediately removed.No person is able to take care of all the vicissitudes that plague his life. Some means is needed to provide the help of the community when it is needed. In a civil society, the best source of such help is through a democratically chosen government.[/li][li]Human nature is a mixture of ape and angel. To emphasize the latter and control the former, laws are necessary. (You know the Jefferson quote far better than I.)[/ul][/li]
Your assertions seem founded on the economic programs (with a nod to the underlying philosophies) of the two men. Would you not concede that there are non-economic reasons why one might admire one and yet vote for the other – for much the same reasons?
Since I said I would be back, I am back. However the list is long and Lib did a good job of detailing why to vote for Harry Browne.
For anyone interested, Browne’s 1996 campaign platform is outlined at: http://www.lp.org/campplat/
I am sure little has changed if anything at all. He speaks where I speak and his policies are pretty cut and dry.
Many think it couldn’t work, but if done correctly, it will work.
===========
In a letter to James Madison (sorry I have to get back to Jefferson I have been reading up on him lately) in 1789 he wrote about the Constitutional Amendments:
“The inconveniences of the declaration are, that it may cramp the government in its useful exertions. But the evil of this is short-lived, moderate and repairable.” His reference was the fact that a few wanted to have a monarchy and was praising the amendments to the Constitution ensuring the rights were protected. The changes to the government would be hard to swallow for some but the outcome of those changes would be beneficial to the nation as a whole.
The “evils” he speaks of are similar issues we are dealing with today. If Harry Browne is elected, the downside of his changes would be short-lived, moderate and repairable.
BTW, did you know that today in 1789 George Washington was elected?
