While Miro Weinberger added Gov. Peter Shumlin to his growing list of prominent Democratic endorsers last week in the race for Burlington mayor, Kurt Wright provided a deeper look at the unusual political alliance he is creating, and identified some players in a possible City Hall team…

Last week Wright added lawyer Sandra Baird, a former Green Party candidate, as a backer and prospective member of his transition team, and called opponent Wanda Hines a likely pick for a key role in his administration…

The Republican has acknowledged the potential political edge provided by Hines’ presence in the race, but says that he sincerely respects her work and has known her for years. Her candidacy is apt to attract more Progressive and independent voters than Republicans or Democrats, and a three-way race makes it easier for someone to win with little more than 40 percent of the vote.

In his 2009 race, Wright received 32 percent. In 1981 Bernie Sanders won with just over 40 percent and a 10-vote margin…

Burlington’s Progressive Party, which has chosen not to run a candidate for the first time since 1991, could also endorse. Steering Committee members, plus invited progressives notables, were slated to meet privately with the candidates this weekend. Public backing for Wright is unlikely, but Weinberger is also a long-shot given statements by Party officials. Not taking an official position is the most likely option.

Wright pledges to create a “tri-partisan administration.”

The U.S. war in Afghanistan is testing so much futuristic detect and destroy weaponry that it can be called the most advanced all-seeing invasion in military history. From blanket satellite surveillance to soldiers’ infra-red vision to the remotely guided photographing, killer drones to the latest fused ground-based imagery and electronic signal intercepts, the age of robotic land, sea, and air weaponry is at hand.

U.S. and NATO soldiers and contractors greatly outnumber the Taliban, whose sandals and weapons are from the past century. Still, with the most sophisticated arsenals ever deployed, why are U.S. generals saying that less than 30,000 Taliban fighters, for almost a decade, have fought the U.S. led forces to a draw?

Perhaps one answer can be drawn from a ceremony that could be happening in various places in that tormented country. That is, a Jirga of elders awarding a young fighter the Jirga medal of honor for courage on the battlefield, which often happens to be their village or valley.

The chief elder rose to address a wide circle of villagers. “Today we are presenting our beloved Mursi with the revered Jirga medal of honor for courage beyond the call of duty in rescuing seven of his brother defenders from almost certain destruction. The invaders had surrounded our young brothers at night in the great Helmand gully with their snipers, grenade-launchers and helicopter gunships.

It looked like the end. Until Mursi started a very smoky fire and diverted the enemy with a firebomb that startled several donkeys into braying loudly. In the few seconds absorbed by diverting the foreigners who directed their firepower in that direction, Mursi led his brothers, two of them wounded, through a large rock crevice and down an incline that was hidden from view and into a cave covered with bush. For some reason, the occupiers’ night vision equipment was not working, thanks be to Allah.

The next morning, the enemy had gone away, probably to start another deadly attack elsewhere on our people. Before the Jirga awards you this ancient symbol of resistance, Mursi, in the form of a sculptured shield made of a rare wood, will you say a few words to your tribe?”

Mursi, a thin as a rail twenty year old youth, rose.

“I accept this great honor on behalf of my brothers who escaped with their lives that terrible night in Helmand. I was very scared. The enemy has everything and we have nothing. They have planes, helicopters, artillery, many soldiers with equipment that resists bullets, sees in the dark and provides them with food, water and medicine. We only have our old rifles, some grenades and explosives. They can see us all the way from America on screens sitting in cool rooms where they can press buttons and wipe us out without our seeing or hearing anything coming at us. We are all so terrified. Especially the children.

We wonder why they are doing this to us? We never threatened them. They threaten everyone with their bases, ships, planes and missiles. I hear that the foreign soldiers ask themselves why are they here, what are they doing here and for what? But they are paid well to be here, destroying our country year after year, though they boast about building some bridges and digging some water wells. No thank you.”

“Go back to your families, you will never win because we are fighting to repel you invaders from our ancient tribal lands, our homes,. Fighting to expel the invaders is stronger and more righteous than your weapons and all your military wealth. Even if many of us lose our lives, we will prevail one day. For we will have heaven and they will have hell.”

A long knowing silence followed. A rooster crowed in the distance. The chief elder then slowly handed the medal to their brave hero.

Can the most militarily powerful country in the world, many of whose people and soldiers are opposed or have serious doubts about why we are continuing to pursue these senseless undeclared wars of aggression that create more hatred and enemies, look with empathy at what those people, whom we are pummeling, are going through? Will the Pentagon, which doesn’t estimate civilian casualties, let its officials speak publically about the millions of such casualties–deceased, injured and sick–that have afflicted innocent Iraqis, Afghanis and Pakistanis?

Will our current crop of political candidates for Congress and the Presidency ever reflect on the wise words of our past Generals–Dwight Eisenhower, George Marshall and earlier Smedley Butler–about the folly and gore, not the glory of war?

The eighteenth century words of the Scottish poet, Robert Burns, ring so true. He wrote:

And would some Power the small gift give us.
To see ourselves as others see us!
It would from many a blunder free us…

IPR note: Ralph Nader ran for president as an independent in 2008 and 2004, and as a Green in 2000 and 1996.

Rep. Frank Dela Cruz (R-Saipan) said he will seek re-election on Nov. 6 but will run as an independent candidate, joining three other incumbent Republican lawmakers who will also do the same. Others have yet to decide whether to run and under which party.

“As much as I respect the governor, I don’t believe I can work well with the existing Republican organization right now,” Dela Cruz, a House member from Precinct 3, told Saipan Tribune.

The Covenant Party is due to soon be combined with the Republican Party according to the party’s founder and the Governor of the Northern Marianas Island.

If one believes that the problem is out-of-control government trampling our Bill of Rights, Newt Gingrich is definitely not the solution. If one believes the problem is the lack of Christian morals among our civil magistrates, Newt Gingrich is definitely not the solution. If one believes the problem is the slaughtering of over 50 million innocent unborn babies, Newt Gingrich is definitely not the solution. If one believes that the problem is honesty and integrity in the White House, Newt Gingrich is definitely not the solution. If one believes that the problem is out-of-control federal spending, Newt Gingrich is definitely not the solution. If one believes the problem is the United States catering to the evil machinations of the Security Council of the United Nations, Newt Gingrich is definitely not the solution. If one believes the problem is more and more outsourcing of America’s manufacturing jobs and products, Newt Gingrich is definitely not the solution. If one believes that the problem is ever-burgeoning deficit spending, Newt Gingrich is definitely not the solution. If one believes the problem is the banksters at the Federal Reserve, Newt Gingrich is definitely not the solution. If one believes the problem is illegal immigration, Newt Gingrich is definitely not the solution. If one believes the United States gives away far too much foreign aid, Newt Gingrich is definitely not the solution.

Newt Gingrich? Really?

Baldwin goes on to further detail his case against Gingrich, as well as Santorum and Romney, and to elaborate on why he supports Ron Paul.

Paul, who was the 1988 Presidential candidate of the Libertarian Party, is seeking the Republican presidential nomination this year, as he did in 2008. Baldwin actively supported Paul in 2008 and is doing so again this year, and in return Ron Paul endorsed Baldwin in the 2008 general election.

Meanwhile, 2008 Libertarian presidential nominee Bob Barr, who famously backed out of Ron Paul’s joint appearance with Baldwin, independent Ralph Nader and Green Party candidate Cynthia McKinney because he would not appear on stage with “people like Cynthia McKinney,” has endorsed Newt Gingrich.

Recent Barr columns include The bizarro world of Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum (published yesterday), and several previous columns expressing his support for Gingrich.

Barr, Gingrich and McKinney all represented Georgia in Congress.

More of Baldwin’s article here.

A West Palm Beach businessman defrauded investors of $2.5 million and used some of the cash to pay for his presidential campaign, the Securities and Exchange Commission said this week.

The SEC’s civil suit says Daniel Imperato, 53, schemed to portray his company, Imperiali of West Palm Beach, as a thriving organization “when in fact it was nothing more than a shell corporation.”

Imperato hired telephone salesmen and found 60 investors to buy stock in his company. The pitch sounded promising: Imperiali claimed to own a stable of television and telecommunications companies poised to generate $350 million in profits on $500 million in revenue in 2009.

“In reality, Imperiali’s portfolio companies had no operations, no products or services, and no revenue,” the SEC’s suit says.

H/T George Phillies

The same neocons who persuaded George W. Bush and crew to, in Ron Paul’s inimitable words, “lie their way into invading Iraq” in 2003, are beating the drums of war more loudly these days to attack Iran. It is remarkable how many of these war-mongers are former draft dodgers who wanted other Americans to fight the war in Vietnam.

With the exception of Ron Paul, who actually knows the history of U.S.-Iranian relations, the Republican presidential contenders have declared their belligerency toward Iranian officials who they accuse of moving toward nuclear weapons.

The Iranian regime disputes that charge, claiming they are developing the technology for nuclear power and nuclear medicine.

Nader goes on to examine the historical and geopolitical basis for the developing conflict, and concludes that Congress and the American people should stand up to stop the war before it starts. Read the whole thing.

Nader was an independent presidential candidate in 2008 and 2004, and was the 2000 and 1996 presidential candidate of the Green Party, although he never joined that party himself.

Those who want to build the strongest electoral challenge to the two parties of the 1% need to act urgently. Socialists, left Greens, trade unionists, community groups, and other activists that want to fight back: We all need to organize public debates early this year. We need public debates with strong voices for independent electoral politics against the agenda of the 1%. We should initiate local community forums across the country inviting “left” Democratic Party supporters to debate with activists about independent working-class politics.

While the Republicans are having their primaries, we need to boldly call for discussion and debates on the left about strategies for the elections. Coalitions need to be rapidly built to run independent candidates that really represent the movement against corporate domination.

Already an “Occupation Party” has been formed by activists in Ohio. This is a clear sign that many in the Occupy movement are thinking along these lines. Likewise, a “Justice Party” has been formed by former Salt Lake City Mayor, Rocky Anderson, who is running for President on its ticket. Jill Stein is also running for President on the Green Party ticket.

At this stage, it is too early to say which of these candidates will get the biggest echo from ordinary working people or if a stronger, unforeseen candidate will emerge. But it’s clear that the vacuum exists across the country, and we need candidates at the local, state, congressional and presidential levels to build the left, the labor movement and the overall struggle against corporate domination.

Dear President Obama:

Ralph Nader

The column Nader mentions, also posted separately at Nader.org:

The editor of The Hill, a newspaper exclusively covering Congress, said that Congress was not going to do very much in 2012, except for “the big bill” which is extending the payroll tax cut and unemployment compensation, which expire in late February. That two month extension will likely reignite the fight between Democrats and Republicans that flared last month.

By the way, the Congressional switchboard number is 202-224-3121.

Ralph Nader ran for President as an independent in 2008 and 2004, and as a Green in 2000 and 1996. Other alternative parties will no doubt be responding to Obama and the Republicans’ speeches tonight, but I have yet to see their plans for doing so, other than the Green Party and Jill Stein, the leading candidate for the Green Party presidential nomination.

As expected, President Barack Obama came in first place, far ahead of several lesser-known candidates.  He finished with 49,080 votes or 81%, which was three percentage points shy of incumbent President Bill Clinton’s 1996 showing, and one point higher than President George W. Bush’s 2004 result.

However, turnout was low and Obama received about 4,000 fewer votes than Bush in 2004, and nearly 30,000 fewer than Clinton in 1996.

Despite this, at least one of the lesser-known candidates exceeded expectations. Discounting the write-in votes, which Republican congressman Ron Paul won with 2,289 or 3.77%, Ed Cowan of Vermont came in second with 945 votes or 1.56%.  In contrast, the second place finisher in the 2004 Republican race, Richard Bosa finished with 1.2%; comedian Pat Paulsen, the runner-up in the 1996 Democratic contest,  won only 1.1%.

Cowan is taking the result as a kind of victory and now hints at an Independent run.  He posted the following statement after the race:

I sincerely thank the voters of New Hampshire for their very positive response to my campaign for president.  Most of the people I met, shook hands with, looked in the eye, and asked to read my introduction and stump speech obviously read it, and passed it or my Web site on to others.  More people voted for me than I actually met, and I will be grateful to New Hampshire voters for the rest of my days.

I passed out about 500 copies of my stump speech, 550 at the most.  Officially (based on my receipts) I spent $580, but it might have been as much as $650 tops.  That resulted in 1.5 votes per dollar spent, which was an eye-opener to politicians around the country.  Romney, if he spent $2 million in New Hampshire, paid about a $1,000 for just 23 votes.

I believe that I received such solid support from the people I met because of my ideas. I’m the idea candidate with a can-do spirit, and the people of your great state liked the idea of getting organized in the USA and solving our most vexing problem with determination, intelligence, and a spirit of cooperation.

Please remember that money is the life blood of politics.  Right now, I’m running on empty, and your contribution of $20-50 would be greatly appreciated.

And remember that I don’t have the answers; we do!  Also, I don’t have a national organization–yet.  We don’t need one right now, for I’m the candidate of the people. For those who have heard about the excellent response of New Hampshire voters to my ideas, if you like what you read and see on my website, organize your own clubs, groups, and local activities in each state.  I will be adding short position papers on important issues in the weeks and months ahead.  My candidacy is alive and well coming out of our first primary, and I will enter as many contests in the coming months as possible.  The only vote that matters in the long run is the one on 11/7/12, and I hope to be on most if not all ballots.

According to Cowan’s campaign manager, he will run as long as donations continue.

IPR’s Darcy Richardson was also listed on the New Hampshire primary ballot, and finished in ninth place with 264 votes or  0.44%.

The full results can be viewed here.

How unbecoming it is for the self-styled freedom-loving Wall Street Journal (“Ron Paul Nader?” Dec. 21) to use the politically bigoted word “spoiler” to describe a hypothetical Ron Paul-Libertarian party presidential run.

Why is a third-party candidate called a “spoiler” when the nominees of the Republican and Democratic parties, that have given us a spoiled political system (corrupted by the highest bidder) are never referred to in such a pejorative way? These two decaying parties do not own the voters in this country, though they act that way through their many state laws obstructing outside competition.

Since all candidates are supposed to have the equal right to run for election, then they are either all spoilers of one another in seeking votes or none of them deserve to be called “spoilers.” Candidates from smaller parties are not second-class citizens. After all, either of the major party candidates “takes away” far more votes from the other than any third party candidate does.

IPR Notes:

Ron Paul was the Libertarian Party presidential candidate in 1988, and is seeking the Republican presidential nomination this year, as he did in 1988. There has been media speculation that he might go Libertarian again, and Paul has not ruled it out, although his goal remains to win the Republican nomination. Another former contender for the Republican presidential nomination this year, former NM Governor Gary Johnson, has already jumped over to the Libertarians.

Ralph Nader sought the presidency as a Green in 1996 and 2000 and as an independent in 2004 and 2008. He is not running this year.

In the last 27 years, 1992 was the only presidential election year when neither Paul nor Nader was an independent or alternative (“third”) party presidential candidate in the general election.

2012 Republican Presidential candidate Ron Paul was endorsed today by Louisiana State Representative Joel Robideaux (R-Lafayette) and former Deputy Chairman of the Louisiana State GOP Charlie Davis.

Rep. Robideaux and Mr. Davis will serve as Louisiana co-chairs for the Ron Paul 2012 Presidential campaign.  In making his endorsement and assuming campaign co-chair responsibility for Louisiana, Rep. Robideaux offered the following statement:

“Ron Paul is the only Republican running for President who has the credibility to actually follow through on his commitment to stop the runaway train of federal bureaucracy and spending.

“None of the other Republican candidates have offered a plan to make any meaningful cuts in federal spending.  In fact, the other candidates only seem interested in wearing the conductor’s hat and tooting the horn a few times as the train goes over the cliff.

“Only Dr. Paul has actually offered a plan to cut spending in real terms rather than just trimming the planned increases.  Dr. Paul has proven he has no interest in wearing the conductor’s hat or tooting the horn.  He is only interested in pulling hard on the brake to keep the train from going over the cliff and taking all of us down with it.

“As a CPA, and Chairman of the Ways & Means Committee with responsibility for taxation and revenue, Dr. Paul is the only candidate I trust to deal with this immense problem and restore fiscal sanity to America’s budget process.  Only Dr. Paul has consistently proven his commitment to limited government and less spending over the last 35 years.”

A former Deputy Chairman of the Republican Party of Louisiana, Charlie Davis has held many positions in the Party since 1995, and was recently elected unopposed to a new term on the Republican State Central Committee.  A chief organizer of the “Pro-Life, Pro-Family” delegate slate that won the majority of the state’s 2008 Republican delegates, he also served as a delegate to the 2004 Republican National Convention and was a member of the 2008 Electoral College.

Mr. Davis also currently serves on the board of the Louisiana Family Forum and is married to Ellen Wray Davis with one son and two daughters.  Mrs. Davis is former Political Director of GOPAC, former Executive Director of the Republican Party of Louisiana, and 2008 Republican National Convention delegate.

“Ron Paul best addresses the core problems that face America—the bloated federal bureaucracy, an ever-growing national debt, and a systemic loss of personal liberties that are threatening the very foundation of our Republic,” said Mr. Davis in his endorsement as he joined Rep. Robideaux for the Louisiana campaign co-chairmanship.

Ron Paul 2012 campaign Louisiana State Director Pete Chamberlain welcomed the endorsements as well as the intensity the co-chair structure will bring to the Bayou State effort.

“We are excited to announce Charlie Davis’ and Rep. Joel Robideaux’ leadership in the Louisiana campaign.  The support of such highly esteemed Republican leaders, both of whom are on the vanguard of the conservative movement in Louisiana, speaks highly of the work already in progress and forthcoming efforts.  It’s clear that the Ron Paul campaign is building the momentum and organization it will take to win Louisiana,” said Mr. Chamberlain.

Artz is a self-proclaimed “world leader in the field of social and organizational transformation, specializing in linguistics and contextual activism.” He is writer, filmmaker, and performance artist with such works as “That’s Mister Faggot To You!” and “Oh Jesus! Oh Jesus! I’m Coming… Again!”

Further information can be found on his campaign website.

IPR: Do you plan to appear on the ballot in any states?

ARTZ: I plan to appear on the ballot in New York.

ARTZ: My campaign for President isn’t a campaign to promote how I am better than the other candidates at solving the problems of our country and our world.

My campaign is part of a larger campaign to step back and examine the issues of the day from a contextual perspective. More important than offering more, better or different solutions is to identify the underlying condition that keeps the cyclical and predictable problem/solution dynamic in place.  Getting at the core of what is determining how we currently are addressing the issues will provide an opportunity for new ways of relating to the issues, and new thinking, strategies and outcomes that were previously unavailable.

To get out of the mess we’re in, we don’t need better solutions; we need more powerful questions.

My campaign won’t focus on specific issues; rather, it will examine and explore our current relationships with all issues which obscure what might actually, have an impact.  It is the way in which we relate to our world which leaves us as citizens and lawmakers fundamentally powerless.

ARTZ: I consider the campaign successful every time someone gets on board and at least considers the alternative of addressing what matters to him or her from a contextual perspective.  In the Presidential race, I am committed to getting on the New York ballot and getting at least one million votes – one million individuals casting a vote for context as an alternative for addressing and impacting the current condition of humanity and the world.

“Nonpartisan” — sometimes called “independent” in other states — voters have reached their highest share since 1985, which is as far back as available voter registration data goes.

As of last month, about 16 percent of active Nevada voters — 171,000 people — were nonpartisan, up from about 14 percent in 2000. In 1985, just 7 percent of Nevada voters were registered nonpartisan.

The article also suggests that many members of the Independent American Party of Nevada, a far-right political party aligned with the national Constitution Party, are people who were intending to register as non-partisan.

From the Socialist Party Socialism 2010 Conference: Anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan speaking about the co-option of the early 21st century US peace movement by the Democratic Party.

Sheehan ran for Congress as an independent in 2008 against Nancy Pelosi (In a seven-way race, Sheehan came in second with 46,118 votes (16.14%) to Pelosi’s 71.56%), and later switched her registration to the Peace and Freedom Party, which is the only ballot-qualified socialist party in California. She agreed to run as the Socialist Party USA’s vice-presidential nominee for the 2012 elections, but the party’s national convention voted on October 15th, 2011, to block her candidacy, because she isn’t a member of the party.

H/T Punk Patriot.

Gatewood Galbraith, a perennial candidate for public office who advocated the legalization of marijuana and was one of the most colorful characters on Kentucky’s political landscape for three decades, died at his home in Lexington, the Fayette County coroner’s office said Wednesday. He was 64.

The cause of death was listed as complications from chronic emphysema.

Family members found Galbraith unresponsive in his bed Wednesday morning, the coroner’s office said in a statement.

“He had been sick for several days with congestion in his lungs (and) … had been suffering from cold-like symptoms which had been complicated by chronic asthma and emphysema,” the statement said.

Gatewood Galbraith ran for Governor of Kentucky five times: as a Democrat in 1991, 1995, and 2007, as a Reform Party candidate in 1999, and as an independent in 2011.  He earned 15% of the vote in his 1999 bid and 9% in 2011.

Students of California, arise, you have nothing to lose but a crushing debt!

The corporate state of California, ever ready to seize its ideological and commercial hour during a recession, has a chokehold on California’s public universities. With its tax-coddled plutocracy and a nod to further corporatization, the state government has taken the lid off tuition increases big time.

Students of the University of California at Berkeley may pay a proposed $23,000 in tuition by the 2015-2016 school year, up from $11,160 this year (2011) that in turn is up from $2,716 in the academic year 2001-2002. In short, tuition for resident undergraduates has more than quadrupled in ten years.

Before and right after World War II the idea of a public university included a then-called “educational fee” close to zero, from city college of New York to UC Berkeley.

Old timers now look back at those days as economic life-savers toward a degree and a productive life for them and the American economy.

No more. Those gates of opportunity are crumbling at an accelerating pace.

Ralph Nader has run for President numerous times as a third party candidate, most recently as an Independent in 2008.

Last Friday afternoon, December 23, 2011, Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry were notified that they had not turned in enough valid signatures to qualify their names for Virginia’s Republican primary ballot. Predictably, this has caused feathers to fly, complete with threats of lawsuits against Virginia petitioning requirements.

Gentlemen, welcome to the world where adherents of the Libertarian Party, the Greens, or the Constitution Party live: where their exhausting effort and huge expense meets bureaucracy, unending paperwork and needless legal hurdles — before we are even allowed our place at the starting line.

Virginia’s primary petition requirements were copied from the laws originally written to keep independents and third parties off the ballot. For a century, Democrats and Republicans colluded to establish and tighten ballot-access standards so much that voter choice has become practically nonexistent. This makes it difficult for us in the alternative & independent candidate sector to feel much sympathy for the ‘major’ candidates when their own laws snare them.

One would hope that the Republicans would take this as an educational opportunity. Rick Perry, especially. In 2003, Perry vetoed Texas bill # HB 1274 (which had passed both houses of the legislature unanimously). The measure would have deleted a Texas law that required petition circulators to read a 93-word statement to every voter they approach. The statement, which is still in the Texas law, thanks to Perry’s veto, said:

“I know that the purpose of this petition is to entitle the ___________ Party to have its nominees placed on the ballot in the general election for state and county officers. I have not voted in a primary election or participated in a convention of another party during this voting year, and I understand that I become ineligible to do so by signing this petition. I understand that signing more than one petition to entitle a party to have its nominees placed on the general election ballot in the same election is prohibited.”

Forcing people who wish to petition their government to read such a long statement makes it a lot harder to obtain signatures — which was the original intent of the requirement. It was designed to make political expression via new parties and alternative candidates harder to engage in.

Perry’s veto indicated he had no interest in fair ballot access in 2003. In the last 60 years, only one other Governor — besides Perry — vetoed any bill that would have improved ballot access. Maybe his failure in Virginia will improve his attitude.

Petitioning laws were originally built — the strictest of them by majority-Democratic legislatures between 1910 and 1970 — to shut out third parties like the Libertarian Party. The laws did the job, too — in some states, third parties have not been allowed on the ballot for over half a century, and counting.

Petitioning requirements force new, upstart third parties to exhaust themselves asking several hundred thousand voters to help them qualify for the ballot. Unless those new parties have the money and activist backing of the wealthy and political elite already, just getting on the ballot so they can then present their ideas to voters is an expensive, time-consuming task.

Republicans should be wary of restrictive ballot access. Some states in the past century could have been regarded as one-party Democratic Party oligarchies. Think of Massachusetts, where the Democrats are so dominant that Republicans sometimes are the political ‘afterthought’. Do Republicans really wish to help set up the system that could hamstring them in the future?

Nor should the Democrats, in their glee about the Republicans’ difficulties, forget how restrictive ballot laws sometimes snare them as well. For instance, Indiana Democrats were worried enough about getting Obama and Clinton onto the state primary ballot in 2008 that they felt compelled to falsify their petitions.[1]

Democrats and Republicans alike have forgotten that elections are for voters. When voters can’t vote for the candidate they wish to vote for, they are being hurt and our political discussion is being disrupted.

Perhaps the Republicans who now control the state legislature should take this as a message that Virginia’s restrictive ballot-access laws are overdue for some overhaul.

The Libertarian Party’s position is that primaries are essentially state subsidies for political parties. Therefore, the only real reform needed to the “primary process” is to eliminate government-run primaries altogether, and allow political party members to determine who they wish to represent them during the general election – at their own expense.

Failing that, then reform can be easily accomplished by simply reducing the petition requirement (for all candidates and parties, primary or general) to 1/10th of the current number, rounded up to the next nearest 10. This would reduce statewide petitions to 1,000 signatures for president, governor, US Senate, etc; and congress to 100 signatures; Delegate to 20 signatures.

One of the more disturbing aspects of the reaction to the Republicans’ failure to make the primary ballot is the opinion of some that a candidate doesn’t “deserve” to be able to appeal to voters unless they’re organized enough to get __________ volunteers to waste several of their weekends collecting signatures. This attitude plays to the power of the media to spoon-feed candidates to the American public, because the candidates the media choose to publicize are the ones who will find all the volunteers they need. So Republicans especially: Do we *really* want the media to decide not only who wins, but even who gets to compete?

I have personally collected thousands of petition signatures for dozens of candidates at different levels. Anyone who thinks requiring thousands of signatures to get on the ballot is compatible with a free society needs to research the history and justifications for these oppressive laws a bit more.

Forcing alternative candidates — who haven’t been given the chance to appear in the modern “public square” that is the media — to utterly exhaust themselves collecting signatures is a reprehensible practice in a “free” society.

Governments should not have any ability to control ballots at all. Open ballots not printed or controlled by government [2]gave us men like Thomas Jefferson and George Washington. Compare them — even with all of their faults — to the modern crop of corruptocrats.

Making Virginia’s Ballot Laws Better

Reform of Virginia’s ballot access laws should begin with the following:

1. Reduce signature requirements for all offices and all candidates — Democratic, Republican, Libertarian, Green, or independent — by 90 % (rounding to next 10). A statewide candidate petition (Governor, president, etc) would then require 1,000 signatures; a candidate for congress would need to collect 150, a state delegate candidate, 20.
2. Introduce a full-party access petition, 10,000 signatures to place a new party on the general election ballot for two statewide cycles.
3. Eliminate the witnessing requirement for petition signatures.
4. Eliminate the residency requirement for petitioners.
5. Eliminate petition sheets, and move to a postcard petition — where individual voters would fill out a post card stating they wish a candidate (or party) to be placed on the ballot.
6. Get with the last decade and allow petitions to be ‘signed’ by voters online.

************************************************************

Marc Montoni serves as the Secretary of the Libertarian Party of Virginia and he is a resident of Rockingham County, VA.

To request more information about Libertarian ideas, call 800-ELECT-US or visit http://www.LP.org

************************************************************

The 2nd district’s Republican incumbent, Jean Schmidt, has held the seat since 2005. Schmidt and Krikorian have a disputatious history, with Krikorian accusing Schmidt of accepting “blood money” from the Turkish government and Schmidt filing a defamation suit against Krikorian. A local website has referred to Krikorian as Schmidt’s “arch-enemy”. In 2010, Krikorian ran for the same seat as a Democrat but lost in the primary to Surya Yalamanchili.

While it was previously known that Krikorian was considering running in the 2nd district, it was not clear what ballot line he would choose to run on. He stated that he would run as an independent if the Democratic Party did not support him. The prospect of running against both Schmidt and Krikorian in the general election was a factor in State Rep. Connie Pillich’s decision to run for re-election in the State House instead of the U.S. Congress.

A few weeks ago, I declared my intention to run for the office of the President of the United States. I sent out press releases. Some of you saw the headline article posted by WND.com and other sites. I knew I was starting as a total outsider, non-lawyer, non-politician and non-millionaire. However, I knew I was a patriot, a visionary, a veteran talk show host who had always represented the cutting edge issues of the American people, and most importantly I was called to do this by God. Some of you immediately think “religious kook” or “fringe” at the notion of me even saying that.

The truth is, I have never fantasized or imagined being President of the United States. This hasn’t been a career move or positioning for my ego. Instead, God asked me to run — a commoner, a survivor, a mom, and a patriot with REAL ideas of service for a time such as this. I said yes, knowing how it would sound. He has asked me to simply trust Him through the long process, running as an Independent conservative, not a Republican or Democrat.

Ms. Roth goes on to say that she has already received a guarantee from the American Independent Party of California, formerly the state affiliate of the national Constitution Party. Her campaign website can be found here.

Like so many Americans, I have come to distrust my government, and I have grown cynical about the election process.  My campaigns for President and for Congress made me realize how corrupt the process has become.  Until recently, I had very little hope of restoring Liberty in this country without the use of violence.  I am pleased to report that my hope has been restored.  I have discovered Tisha Casida.

Tisha is a successful business woman from Pueblo, Colorado, who has taken it upon herself to run for Congress in Colorado’s 3rd District.  That seat was occupied for six years by a Democrat who was unseated by a Republican in the last election.  The people from the Western Slope of Colorado are already planning to unseat the Republican in the next election.

Tisha has wisely decided to run as an Independent to avoid the negative perceptions associated with running as a major party candidate.  I recently spent a week in Colorado touring the district and listening to Tisha present herself to the voters.  I found her to be intelligent, articulate, passionate, and personable.  The people she spoke to were impressed by her integrity and delighted with her charm.  I was impressed by her strict adherence to the principles documented in the Constitution.  She was able to answer difficult questions with wisdom and poise.  I consider her a very electable candidate.

I cannot predict the future, but I am certain that Americans will restore Liberty eventually.  I don’t know where it will happen, but sooner or later a patriotic candidate of integrity will defeat the two major party candidates, beginning the much anticipated revolution to restore our freedoms.

It is well known that I hesitate to endorse even Libertarian candidates, however I enthusiastically endorse Tisha Casida for Congress in 2012.  I sincerely believe that her campaign may be the first domino to fall in a long chain reaction that will eventually restore our cherished republic.  I also plan to dedicate as much of my time and energy to her campaign as possible, and I hope that you will make the same commitment after you take the time to learn about her platform.  Together, we can make this happen.

The Congressional candidate’s website can be found here.