That is why I say that the Libs are the closest to me philosophically but they still don't really represent me. That is why I want to create the Middle Party for real people who think about policy rather than being beholden to one or the other party.
i understand what you're saying...and i'm not trying to pick on you...but i think, from your posts here, you're far closer to the democrat's platform than the libertarians' platform. i'm not a communist because me and marx don't like fascism.
Smokey, for your favorite, you may want to look into Peter Camejo, who ran for CA governor in the recall fiasco, or Matt Gonzalez, who just ran a strong campaign for major in San Francisco. Either of those guys could eventually pop up in the national scene. I just despise Nadir. Those other two guys can actually talk about more than one topic per year -- amazing.
Of course. That is why I supported the war in Afghanistan and also why I did not support the war in Iraq.
I think that T_J has rubbed his opinion of me off on some of you. I am closer to the Libs (IMO) because they are fiscal conservatives who are on the right side of the drug war and campaign finance. I disagree with many of the Libs points, but the Dems are much worse IMO. That is not to say that Democrats are bad, just the politicians who represent them. They are just as beholden to special interests as the Republicans, it is just that they are beholden to a much less frightening group of special interests.
IIRC he refused to join the Green Party. His naive belief is that partisan politics does not make our system of government run, and he actually collaborates more with Grover Nordquist than anyone on the left.
Speaking of the Texas governor's race, how about Kinky Friedman? http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/1103/29kinky.html Kinky Friedman for Texas governor? MEDINA, Texas -- As a campaign slogan, it leaves something to be desired: "Why the hell not?" But Kinky Friedman, the irreverent Texas author, songwriter and salsa maker, and self-described "Gandhi-like figure" at the animal rescue ranch he runs here in the hill country west of San Antonio, says the message could propel him into the governor's mansion in Austin. The election is not until 2006, when Gov. Rick Perry, the Republican incumbent, will presumably run again. But that has not kept Friedman from dreaming of a grass-roots army to collect the 45,000 signatures that an independent candidate needs to run, or from printing bumper stickers reading, "He Ain't Kinky, He's My Governor." Anyway, the job -- heavy on ceremony in Texas, where the real power lies in the lieutenant governor's authority to control the Senate agenda -- does not daunt the curly-mopped Friedman, whose real name is Robert and who gives his age as 59, though adding, "I read at the 61-year level." Given those who have come before him, he said, "how hard could it be?" Still, garbed in cowboy black, bearing a large silver Star of David on a chain and tooling around in an old white Nissan pickup with a Don Quixote statuette on the dashboard and chewed stubs of Cuban cigars in the ashtray, Friedman does acknowledge some ambivalence about his quest. This is his second run for elected office: in the first, in 1986, he campaigned for justice of the peace in nearby Kerrville, where "my fellow Kerrverts returned me to the private sector." This is a man who, once he makes up his mind, is riven by indecision. So, he is often asked, is he serious? "Serious is not a word I would use, because I'm never serious," he said. "Some things are too important to be taken seriously." But, he said, "an alarming number of people think I could win." (snip) His new campaign, he said, has won some encouragement from President Bush, a previous occupant of the Statehouse, whom Friedman calls a great admirer of his books, mostly comic mysteries with titles like "The Love Song of J. Edgar Hoover." He quoted the president as calling Friedman his favorite fiction writer. "'Course," he said, "George is not all that voracious a reader." He said Bush had also volunteered to be his "one-man focus group" for the campaign. A White House official confirmed that the president had read the Friedman oeuvre, but declined to say whether Bush had gone so far as to offer his services as a campaign sounding board. At a recent White House dinner, Friedman indeed told the president that he was running, the official said, but Bush replied that he could not endorse him until he knew Friedman's platform. That, Friedman said, is an easy one. He wants to make the declawing of cats illegal. ------ The rest of the article is great... There's more at http://www.kinkyfriedman.com Now THAT would put some fun back in Texas politics, n'est-ce pas?
Labels are really scary -- use (and apply them) with extreme caution. I make no qualms about where I stand on the political spectrum, but pinning down a person with a one-word definition is specious at best, dangerous at worst. I know you're not busting andymoon's chops (you're obviously a smart guy with a lot of integrity), but wrangling for labels makes me a little uncomfortable. I'm not excluding myself, though. Sometimes, I make judgements based on what's "liberal" or "conservative," instead of what's right or wrong. I try my best to be honest with myself about it, but labels make it easier to say "Oh, that's a conservative idea, so I must be agi'n it." If you take each idea on their own value and merit, labels like "liberal" and "conservative" become useless.
i totally agree...but i think there are certain posters here who, more times than not, share a conservative viewpoint...and the same is true of those with viewpoints traditionally associated with liberals. i wasn't trying to label him and say, "oh, you must be a jackass because you are of this certain label" as has been done to me here many times before...i was simply saying that, after reading his posts on many topics, the ideas of libertarians didn't dance in my head like sugar plums. (did you enjoy that seasonal similie??)
