Comments on: Mass. LP elector won’t vote for Barr; speaks out

By: darolew

darolew — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 22:45:19 +0000

I think any attempt to sabotage the LP ticket (especially if successful) will make the LP look far worse than the Barr/Root campaign. Whatever credibility the LP has will be shot…

By: G.E.

G.E. — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 19:49:54 +0000

Matt – Actually, my proposal has nothing to do with winning. If Barr goes far off course, Libertarian electors could speak out in the media, saying they would be faithless if he won. Of course he’s highly unlikely to win, but I think the media could pick up on this — particularity if electors coordinated their efforts. The knowledge that electors could do this could help keep Barr stay on the message of liberty. That is my point.

By: MattSwartz

MattSwartz — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 19:18:49 +0000

GE,
Your proposed power play presupposes that Barr is in it to win. I doubt that he has serious expectations of winning any electoral votes, much less in MA, where Ted Kennedy’s brain surgeon could beat the state’s most visible republican without campaigning .

By: G.E.

G.E. — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 19:13:36 +0000

Again, I think radical libertarians should vie to be electors. This can help keep Barr on track and on message. However, if you automatically say “I will not vote for him” before he’s even done anything wrong (post-nomination), then you lose all of your power and leverage.

By: MattSwartz

MattSwartz — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 18:58:59 +0000

I think that Mr. Torrey is just doing what he thinks is right under the circumstances. I find it extreme and perhaps somewhat counterproductive, but his motivations resonate wtih me.

By: John P Slevin

John P Slevin — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 18:54:36 +0000

There is some irony in Mr. Torrey’s position.

Following the 1972 general election, Nixon elector Roger McBride cast a vote for Libertarians Hospers/Nathan. McBride’s “unfaithful” action set him up to gain the Libertarian presidential nomination in 1976.

In other words, the LP rewarded McBride for doing to the Republicans what Mr. Torrey suggests doing to the LP.

Of course, the other irony is that Libertarians long have advocated that unreasonable and crooked ballot access barriers be eliminated. For a state affiliate to attempt to remove the Barr/Root ticket from their ballot hardly is in keeping with advocacy of ballot access for all.

Mr. Torrey has the right to vote his conscience. Mr. Torrey and any Libertarians who seek to prevent the LP’s nominee from appearing on the ballot are no more in the right than the crooked legislators who have erected these onerous barriers to ballot access.

Mr. Torrey needs to rethink his intent to remove Barr/Root from ballots around the country. Doing so means taking advantage of the corrupt law to hurt legitimate ballot access.

By: Lance Brown

Lance Brown — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 18:45:02 +0000

BTW, does anyone know if Mr. Torrey has written an explanation of his reasons why he “clearly and distinctly stated” he could not cast a vote for Barr?

By: Andy Craig

Andy Craig — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 17:47:13 +0000

To Grover!

Though I’m partial to Jefferson, Cleveland actually probably governed closest to the ideal.

By: G.E.

G.E. — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 17:44:42 +0000

I will look into that book! You are correct. But one president between Johnson and McKinley is famous enough to libertarians — the best president we ever had, Grover Cleveland.

By: Andy Craig

Andy Craig — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 17:42:01 +0000

Lincoln didn’t establish a precedent, though. There’s a reason no one can name most of the presidents between Johnson and McKinley- they were just plain “boring” chief magistrates willing to preside over peace and prosperity.

The progressives really established the moder imperial presidency, and it’s been with us ever since.

I suggest Gene Healy’s excellent book “The Cult of the Presidency”.

By: G.E.

G.E. — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 17:18:24 +0000

The progressives were the ones who destroyed George Washingtonâ€™s â€œchief magistrateâ€ and replaced it with the Imperial Presidency. Yeah, thatâ€™s what we need now.

Actually, I think Lincoln did that.

By: Andy Craig

Andy Craig — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 17:17:08 +0000

The progressives were the ones who destroyed George Washington’s “chief magistrate” and replaced it with the Imperial Presidency. Yeah, that’s what we need now.

And the Greens may not be hardline socialists, but they are irreconcilably opposed to libertarian positions on most domestic issues.

By: Robert Milnes

Robert Milnes — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 16:50:16 +0000

Andy, Teddy Roosevelt & the progressives were not socialist. The greens are not hard line either. & maybe nobody ever heard of me but Miche thinks I’m cute!

By: Robert Milnes

Robert Milnes — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 16:47:55 +0000

G.E., G.E., G.E., come on. Aren’t we beyond this? You apologized. I accepted…long ago. I was not charged with rape or stalking or violence. The “police” was the FBI, who if they didn’t get me for federal communications (mail & phone) violations, they would’ve got me for something else. Or done something else. Dirty tricks & botched murder attempts etc. Domestic surveillance & covert operations. So, get over it, ok? You have actually turned out not so bad. Now, you see what they no doubt had something to do with at TPW? IPR could be next, especially with me hanging out here. So never mind me; worry about that.

By: Andy Craig

Andy Craig — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 16:37:48 +0000

A libertarian-socialist fusion ticket headed by a guy absolutely no one has heard of and a crazy ex-congressman.

Sounds like a winning plan to me!