Wednesday, October 18, 2006

Left Leaning Libertarians

I got a few emails from people asking about my view of Bruce Guthrie's performance in the campaign for US Senator in the state of Washington. Some were bothered by what was described as "the most left-wing candidate on the stage was Guthrie..."

The Libertarian Party is without a doubt the most diverse active party in the country. It has been strategized (especially in Washington state) that there probably are not many more Republican voters willing to vote for Libertarians. In the last couple of election cycles Libertarians in this state have begun promoting issues normally seen as left-wing or liberal. This has annoyed many that originally looked to Libertarians as an alternative to Republicans.

The matter is that most Republicans are not upset about deficit spending. Most Republicans think the Bush tax cuts are meaningful. For a Libertarian to stand up on a state-wide podium and lecture the state like Milton Friedman is a mistake and a recipe to get 1% of the vote. It's important for both Republicans and Democrats to understand that freedom must be given to all before it can be realized for yourself. There needs to be a new respect for our constitution and ALL of the Bill of Rights.

Votes will be necessary for the LP to regain major party status in Washington State. I don't apologize for Bruce Guthrie's left of center positioning. His Libertarian credentials are solid and he has my respect, my support, and my vote.

Wanna see the debate?
Go Here!


robert the grump said...

I saw some of the highlights of the debate. It's interesting to compare the candidates.

First, the incumbant, Maria Cantwell (Democrat), is running on her record. Other than her stance on Iraq, her record is pretty good on issues directly concerning Washington state. She has supported the war in Iraq too much to please most Washington Dems, but we all know that booting her will just result in more "stay the course".

Then you have the Republican, Mike McGavick. I want to punch this guy. He is a huge Bush supporter, but claims that he is running because Congress needs a change from the same old politicians. Someone should tell him that if we change them all, the Democrats will now run both the House and Senate.

McGavick is a close friend of Ted Stevens, the biggest pork barrel abuser in the entire Congress. He also is reviled in Washington State because he keeps trying to ram supertankers down our throats in order to make Alaska richer and Washington dirtier.

Finally, you have Guthrie. For a Libertarian (read; frustrated Republican) he is quite the liberal. He is what McGavick and Bush would condescendingly call, a "cut and run" liberal. I actually agreed with a lot of what Guthrie had to say. I loved it when he pointed out the irony of McGavick decrying the deficit when it's the Republicans who ran the deficit up to record levels in the first place. Two points for having the balls to state the obvious.

Too bad he will only screw up the election by pulling votes from Cantwell. If he Ralph Naders Cantwell out of office, he should be beaten with a heavy stick. This is exactly how Bush got to president in the first place. Nader killed the Dems in Florida.

So I'm voting for Cantwell, a little reluctantly, and admire Guthrie more than the typical Libertarian. Kudos for his gutsy comandeering of the debate.

Tracy said...

How come Harry Browne and Pat Buchanan never are credited with taking a million votes away from Bush in 2000? Nader got most of his votes in New York State and wasn't on the ballot in that many states. Browne (one of my favorite Libertarians) was on the ballot in all 50 states and took 400,000 votes. I believe he had a larger impact in that close election.