If you’re not crazy about either Mark Warner or Jim Gilmore for Senate, there’s always William Redpath. A press release from the Libertarian Party says he’s now qualified for the ballot.

Here endeth today’s public-service announcement on behalf of third parties.

I am sad to say that I have not had any confidence in the LP for the last several years.  I have little hope that this will change anytime in the near future.

The LP can’t field a practical candidate to save their lives. 

They have had some great ideas, but were very naive (my opinion) regarding practical matters. 

They can’t find a few simple, palatable planks to get people into the tent (or to get themselves into the tent), they have to promote every issue all at once, no compromise, including the rather idiotic or radical ones.  All or nothing, and the result usually is… nothing. 

The several very good substantive planks that the LP could have used to build a successful bridge into politics have been coopted by the other parties and any linkage to the LP has been successfully obliterated.

There is no compromise.  In some ways, they are similar to the rabid gun-banners… “if everybody gives up their guns, we’ll all be safe”—an a priori argument that is deadly to test.  “If we just leave everybody else alone and throw our borders open, we’ll all be safe”.  Both only work if everyone is willing to play fair, or if you can force everyone to comply, and the consequences are deadly if you are wrong. 

Unfortunately, there are those who are not as concerned about fair play, and they will take advantage.  Not admitting this and having contingencies is naive.

In terms of platform and candidates, the LP has seldom been able to offer a practical candidate without the platform being hijacked by loonies pushing for social extremes that almost force “normal” people to reject both the candidate and the platform.  Alternately, there are fringe candidates who are pretty much jokes before they run, and push their own private issues, never getting anywhere near common-ground, practical issues.

Some of the issue points that Redpath states are very naive (my opinion).  Unilateral issues seem to put the US at a disadvantage—a risk I am not willing to take.  I believe in the big stick, “si vis pacem, para bellum”, molon labe, and “trust but verify”.  When it comes to our security and economy, I just don’t trust the proposed solutions.  In this case, *I* can have no compromise. 

Maybe one day I can put more faith into the LP, but with their current direction, they seem just as misguided as the democrats, and just as incompetent as the republicans—a double curse.  What we need are competencies of the democrats but with the core principles that the republicans SHOULD be using for guidance.

Hi Roy, The answer to what you ask me is in your sentence:

“It’s already well established that some people who were kidnapped and “interrogated” by agents of our government were in fact innocent.“

You link the word “kidnapped” to government officers (or whoever they were) yet link “innocent” to the detained. That’s just like a person saying,

“That dirty, filthy, FAT cop pulled-over that nice little high-school student & tried to give her a speeding ticket.“

(Any idea whose side that person is taking?)

Its what I’ve been saying all the long: This valiant stand for Guantanamo detainees isn’t about their justice—rather certain folks are just using it as the perfect opportunity to criticize the government they already hate so much.

The founding fathers never—not for a moment—wrote the constitution with the idea that future generations could use it to attack government—our own—at every single turn. That’s my unwavering opinion.

Alas, is there a fourth candidate who combines economic “conservatism”, social liberalism, AND a sane foreign policy?

Larry, you say that the LP and/or maybe just Bill Redpath, “stand-up for terror detainees at Guantanamo.“  I’m afraid that, as is all too common, that’s both unclear and undocumented.  What exactly are you accusing us—yes, I’m a Libertarian—of, and on what are you basing it?
 
It’s one thing to say that terrorists are sadistic, depraved murderers who cannot be trusted not to resume their evil ways if released, and do not deserve the same treatment as less depraved people.  (Though I’ll point out that there are many millions of people who would disagree and call them “freedom fighters” or “sacred warriors”, and you should know that noble patriotic forefathers were also called “terrorists”, “rioters”, “murderers”, and worse.)
 
All of that just begs the real question, which is whether or not the “terror detainees” are in fact terrorists or not.  Can you actually say, with a straight face, that everyone who is accused is a criminal?  If you can’t, then why in the name of all the greater gods and lesser catfish would you assume that everyone the Government says is a terrorist actually is one?  I mean, for crying out loud, it’s already well established that some people who were kidnapped and “interrogated” by agents of our government were in fact innocent; some of them have been released!
 
Let me give you an analogy here.  Years back, a friend of mine was brutally murdered.  There was strong suspicion that this was done by one or more of three individuals.  Note that I said “strong suspicion”, not proof nor even knowledge.  Would I have been justified in kidnapping the three of them and torturing—sorry, “interrogating with extreme measures”—them in order to find out which one did it?  Would the police have been justified in doing so?  What if it were to turn out that in fact, the murderer was someone else entirely?  Even if it turned out to be one of those three, and he confessed under torture, how would have torturing the other two be justified?
 
Come on, Larry, you’re smarter than that!  Ideas have consequences!  Think these things through!

Hi Bill, from my upper-story window I sometimes this couple of guys dealing dope at night—2 blocks from the police hqs by the way. Obviously they are not detained & charged with anything.

Question: Does this mean they are not dealing drugs?

If a psycho shoots an entire family in the head, but are never caught & charged—does that mean the psycho never shot the family in the head?

If a bully beats his wife at night, but she never complains and so he’s never charged—does that mean the bully never laid a hand on his wife?

I’m guessing that the Libertarian’s take on the Gitmo detainees is that they have yet to be proven to be terrorists, or to even have the equivalent of an arraignment - a presentation of at least some facts or evidence creating a reasonable belief that they did the things accused of.  And in fact, they likely question whether certain of the detainees have formally and actually been accused of anything.

I like most Libertarian stances. But I don’t like it when it stand-up for terror detainees at Guantanamo. THAT crosses strict lines I have drawn.

“People should be able to live their own lives as they choose, without interference, as long as they do not harm other people or their property.“ (Redpath’s own Libertaraian website)

Well, WHAT do terrorists do?! What am I missing here?! HELLO?!

Post Your Comments: