Texas Gubernatorial Candidate James Werner

“To be clear, I am the only pro-immigrant candidate for Governor of Texas. My position is that anyone who wishes to come to the United States and work should be allowed to do so–with the exception of known criminals, or individuals with ties to criminal or terrorist organizations. I do not distinguish between those who are currently working here, and those who merely wish to do so.”

Wow! An ACTUAL Libertarian running for office… Is this some kind of mistake?

“he’s a governing machine.” There’s a real recommendation. Maybe “The Governing Machine Libertarian” as a nickname. Sure, it’s long and it seems kind of oxymoronic, but perhaps honest given the new Libertarian Party penchant for socialism.

And as for being in bed with socialists.. I would agree.. There are a lot of Libertarians who advocate repressive state regimes to restrict reproductive choice, to limit the individual’s ability to cross imaginary lines in order to find gainful employment, to limit the right of a business owner to hire whomever he chooses (even if his employees live across an imaginary line), who want to restrict free trade among individuals and groups, and who wish to fund the greatest socialist bueracracy in the history of the world – the US military – in order to export revolution in the Marxist tradition and expropriate the private property of foreign people’s for the public good of the party (i.e. American corporations). Yes, we are in bed with socialists. And it has nothing to do with our hostility toward child molestors or the horrible restriction on racial slurs in polite company. Ever heard of the Constitution Party? Just a thougth. I know how it feels to be without a political home.

Exactly why there must not be a platform plank on abortion in 08, or a “offical” LP position on it beyond stating that it’s nobody’s business but their own what they do. If they break God’s law, then surely God himself will punish them. There is no human on earth that knows or understands what God does or does not desire, and anyone that says they do should be looked upon with pity.

It is no better for libertarians to be in favor of enforcing God’s supposed will than it is for Republicans to be “in charge” doing it. Any libertarian that wants a law against abortion enforced by the state is confused.

Live your lives as you see fit, and allow others to do the same. Since you cannot know God’s will, stop pretending that you have a Nextel Walkie-Talkie Phone to Heaven and rap wit the man about all things good and evil. You dont. NO human knows, becuase to presume to know God’s will is to elevate yourself to God.

Abortion cannot be “fixed” by political means, in either direction.

Any libertarian that wants a law against abortion enforced by the state is confused.

No, again, you’ve missed the point. You may disagree on the nature of fetal life. But if you accept the assumption that fetal life is in fact human life, it’s in no way unlibertarian to support its legal protection.

Any libertarian that wants a law against x enforced by the state is confused, for all values of x, apparently in your book. I happen to think that good Libertarians can still support state intervention to protect life, liberty, and property.

I want to be clear, here. I’m not for purges. Badnarik may be a “conservative” libertarian, but he’s a libertarian. But I don’t see how anyone who is anti-choice, anti-immigration, or anti-free trade can possibly be a “libertarian.” There is a smaller government party that has these beliefs and it is called the Constitution Party. If you’re one of those “libetarians” who also advocates international aggression, then there is the GOP. I support “conservatives,” moderates, anarchists, minarchists, and the reform movement… But someone who isn’t a libertarian just isn’t a libertarian, and I don’t think I’m being small-minded to say so.

I’ll jump to EOC’s defense. I am personally pro-choice, although I question whether abortion should be legal at the point where an unborn child can survive outside of the mothers’ body (the last trimester). The LP should not have a stance on abortion (other than against forced abortions). If one believes that abortion is a right of the mother, an LP candidate can advocate ending all restrictions on abortion. But if an LP candidate believes that the unborn is a human being with rights, they would still be within the grounds of libertarianism to advocate the defense of the rights ot the unborn. In fact, it would be a righteous moral obligation. Because of this divide, it’s an issue too complicated for me to take a firm stance on. I think the LP is doing a disservice to itself by not granting candidates the flexibility to develop their own stances. We have to agree to disagree by default. Depending on how you view it, it’s either gov’t oppression of rights or gov’t approved murder.

… because her state had parental notification laws. The girl died. I assume this makes you happy.

Rich white women have ALWAYS been able to get safe, legal abortions. Restricting reproductive choice gives the rich yet another privelage over the working people of this land. The rich can either fly to Switzerland, or better yet, pay a doctor to say that the abortion is medically necessary. The poor woman gets routed by a dirty coat hanger in a back alley. This is justice? This is part of your “worldview?”

My “worldview” is reality. The reality is that reproductive choice is ownership of one’s body, and it is a natural right. Furthermore, crime has dropped precipitously since the passage of Roe v. Wade – not based on coercive government programs, but based on PERSONAL CHOICE.

What happened to the LP that once boasted it was PRO-CHOICE ON EVERYTHING.

This new right-wing brand of disgruntled Republicanism makes me ill.

“Whether [the mother] is alive is not debatable.”

Right, but theoretically whether the unborn is alive is also not debatable. They are collection of living cells, and science has repeatedly proven this. However, whether or not they are afforded human rights IS very debatable. If they are, then nobody has the right to violate their human rights and kill them, even the host body. If they are only a collection of cells without legal rights, then abort away.

“What happened to the LP that once boasted it was PRO-CHOICE ON EVERYTHING.”

What about the party that was pro-responsibility on everything? Abortion is often an easy way to escape personal responsibility for the decision to have sex. (Rape is another story altogether.) For many libertarians, this is a decision too complex to take an easy pro-choice only stance. It’s bigger than just a “health” issue. I’m no Christian and no conservative, but I would support banning partial birth abortions. How does that make me a fascist?

Hey, HoT poopers! How did a Texas gubernatorial candidate post turn into an abortion debate?

Abort this tired nonsense now!

Personally, I worry about catching the cooties posting on this slimy Jerry Springer-style libertarian blog.

I recruited our excellent so-called “paper candidate” for governor. I can’t remember discussing abortion with him, although it’s quite likely I discussed my support for aborting children up to the age of two (facetiously).

How about more infighting about whether a low-budget libertarian gubernatorial candidate in the news is more or less valuable than a Placentia Traffic and Safety Commissioner in California?

Incidentally, the top three funded Libertarian candidates for office in Texas moved here from California.

Separately, Timothy West of West Virginia and George Phillies of Massachusettes both complain about what a failure their state parties are, yet feel qulaified to advise the rest of us what up with the LP.

Abort that!

First, let me reiterate that I don’t really disagree with anything that has been said since my last post. I think being pro-choice is being “agnostic” on the issue. The extreme would be “pro-abortion” – i.e. pro forced abortion or even taxpayer funded abortion.

Mr. Wilson; let’s say that “abortion is murder” for the sake of argument. This doesn’t make its prohibition anymore effective. The difference between the “murder” of abortion and more traditional murder? “Prohibition” of traditional murder HAS been relatively effective… Or people just aren’t that inclined to do it. I’m not aware of any other type of “murder” that can in any way be argued as a medical procedure, with the exception of assisted suicide (which I seriously hope that no one calling him or herself a “libertarian” would oppose).

While I don’t agree with the Roman Catholic Church, I appreciate Trevor Sutherland’s perspective, and I am “against” abortion personally myself…

… as this is (thankfully) not a Constitution Party blog, I can only presume that even those who are anti-choice would make an exception for the health/life of the mother. Herein lies the real problem with prohibition. Rich (white) woman have always been able to find (and bribe) a doctor to say that her health was in danger. Or they can simply fly to Europe, etc., wherever. Poor women have no such luxury and end up having dangerous back alley abortions. How can anyone see this as just? How can anyone deny this as fact?

And as for a thread about the wondeful Texas LP gubenatorial candiate turning into a debate on abortion, yes, that happens… But it should not in anyway be seen as a besmirch of Mr. Werner’s character. Only Tom Hannah has said anything remotely negative about Mr. Werner. The abortion issue is being debated by people who are both supportive and appreciative of the Werner campaign.

Wes,

I’m sensitive to what you’re saying, but I also don’t think I’m obliged to sit idly by while the namecalling starts.

The way to get threads to stick to the topic is for us to recognize that we can disagree in good faith without compromising libertarian principles. I don’t have a problem with that, but the person who introduced “reproductive choice” into the discussion (somehow relating it to socialism!) does appear to have trouble disagreeing in good faith.

My state party did, in fact, fail. Without any assistance from me – becuase of disagreeement over one issue, the former State Chair refused to certify/nominate any future runs for office by me and basically told me to get lost – so any involvment I had with the former LPWV stopped in late 2002, not by my choice.

That’s what started Liberty For Sale in the first place, which then set the stage for the LRC.

Oh, so one is only a Libertarian if they agree 100% with the Radical Caucus version of the Libertarian Party platform, huh?

Someone who is pro-free market economics, less taxes, and pro-marijuana legalization is NOT a libertarian by your definition.

Great. Let’s have the Libertarian Party just meet in a phone booth then. Let’s kick out anyone who does not agree with us 100% on all issues.

Nigel, Mike, y’all are complete nutcases.

Thankfully, you’re not in my home state of Texas!!

Kinky Friedman wants to raise pay for government school teachers, raise government spending on healthcare, and believes government should dictate what forms of energy are used. That’s his top three items on his “Issues” page of his website. Kinky is basically a Democrat who uses politically incorrect speech. If Republican Dondero were much of a thinker, I would expect him to support Republican Governor Rick Perry who is far more libertarian on economic issues than Kinky Friedman.

While I admire Friedman and wish him well, having the Libertarian Party endorse non-Libertarians only shrinks what little influence the party has. The Green Party used those sell-out tactics in 2004 and is suffering for it.

The LP may or may not be the best way to bring about liberty. But if you want to build a political party, then you have to have candidates and support them.

If you don’t want Libertarian candidates, then you give 20 points for non-partisan races on the Candidate Tracker.

I guess Wes missed that nationwide article a couple weeks ago of Kinky backing legalization of marijuana.

I linked to the article on http://www.mainstreamlibertarian.com

Wes needs to read Mainstreamlibertarian more often before he makes statemenst like “Kinky is no libertarian…”

Nigel,

Why would any well-known celebrity be attracted to the Libertarian Party? Why would someone like Kinky want to run on the LP ticket.

I suspect you’re a Newbie to the Libertarian Party.

You’re probably not aware that a few years ago, Jesse Ventura made overtures to the Minnesota LP. He even attended the State LP Convention and told delegates he wanted to run for Governor.

While many MN LPers supported his effort, the State LP Chairman at the time, told Jesse to expect no support from the Libertarian Party cause he wasn’t a “perfect Libertarian.”

Apparently, Jesse made the horrible mistake of saying some nice words about the public mass transit system in Minneapolis.

Over the years other celebrities like Ann Coulter and Howard Stern have approached the LP about running, and were shunned by the LP leadership cause they were not “perfect Libertarians.”

Why would Kinky expect any different sort of reception from the TX LP?

hahahaha.. Kinky is a libertarian? Wow. That’s almost as bad as “Lieberman is a libertarian.”

It’s classic how Dondero thinks Kinky is a libertarian. Kinky combines the worst of both worlds. He’s a racist and a socialist.

You blame the failure of the West Virginia Libertarians on the officers of the party?

yeah, I do. Under Richard Kerr, the party was small but worked together. I had no party members accuse me of not being libertarian enough for them, and we all got along. After he left as Chair due to sheer burnout, the party devolved into a disaster, the proof of which is that the WVLP no longer exists in any meaningful form.

The loss of ballot access in 2000 by a mere 80~90+ votes was the start, but that could have reversed. They ran off everyone that wanted to help for one reason or another.

I was a terrible candidate. I was exactly like the people who run typical LP campaigns – they have no community involvement , they dont have any money, they cant raise any money, and they run “to educate people” or “help the movement”. I was one of those kind of libertarians in 2000.

Becuase of that, and becuase of what the WVLP turned into, was why I started writing about the LP.

My god. I was just thinking the same identical thing on the way home tonight. What in the hell is going on? How long will it last?

The quality of candidates this year is incredible. Hopefully, that can be maintained – or better yet – improved upon.

Dondero might be an idiot, but I have to give him credit when he does (accidently) do the right thing on occasion. I think I might make myself a high powered political consultant like him, he gets around… what can I say: I’m jealous! LOL

Kinky is not a libertarian – maybe more of a progressive liberal with a few libertarian tendencies (but most progressive liberals have them, don’t they?) Eric, the Green Party also wants to legalize marijuana, but that does not make them libertarian. As a Texan living abroad in Japan temporarily, I’m trying to decide if he’s libertarian ENOUGH to merit my vote. Trying to help Werner get into the debates was a big plus in my book, as is having Jesse Ventura’s campaign team. He’s got a much better chance of winning than Werner does, and one can reluctantly hope that the undoubtedly Republican congress could kill off his most liberal policies. So I’m in limbo.

And by the way, thank God Ann Coulter never ran for the LP – zero question, I would leave the LP immediately and hope others would also. She is the black hole in the middle of political intellectualism and every time I hear her name I want to vomit. Repeatedly. More than anyone, she makes conservatives look like complete nimrods.

Nick,

Kinky is NOT a “progressive liberal” by any stretch. He’s Pro-War on Islamo-Fascism. He’s not a patsy pacifist roll-over and let the Muslims take over America kind of guy.

Plus, he’s big on tax cuts. That’s hardly progressive liberal. Moreoever, he’s big on protecting our border from criminals coming over like that cop killer illegal immigrant in Houston.

If anyone Kinky is more conservative, rather than liberal.

He’s kind of a “conservative centrist less taxes/marijuana legalizer with a libertarian streak.”

Kinky is essentially uncategorizable. He is certainly not libertarian, conservative, liberal, or a socialist.

Libertarian policies that Kinky supports: government/electoral reform, legalizing casino gambling to pay for schools, reducing the importance of standardized testing, 2nd amendment, stopping eminent domain abuse, legalizing gay marriage, privatizing sports funding, legalizing pot and re-examining the mistakes of the death penalty system.

Primary non-libertarian policies: putting children back on a state health care program, closing the border and state funding of stem cell research.

I’d agree he’s more libertarian than not – and the Reform Party-esque parts make me most inclined to vote for him, as the LP will only benefit in the future from reduced ballot access restrictions.

Dondero is disappointed that Ann Coulter was shunned by the LP? LOL! This speaks volumes, folks. Well, at least he’s begun tempering is libertarian grading of Kinky, down from a ridiculous 95% to an almost believable 70-80%.

Well Robert, the Libertarian Party certainly made a big deal about Ann Coulter meeting with LP of Conn. leaders about a possible Congressional run in 1996. She ended up rejecting them, because of the goofiness of the State LP Chair. Of course, afterwards the LP spinned like they rejected her.

“Kinky is NOT a “progressive liberal” by any stretch. He’s Pro-War on Islamo-Fascism. He’s not a patsy pacifist roll-over and let the Muslims take over America kind of guy.”

If Kinky supports the phoney “War On Terror” that would be a reason for me to NOT vote for him.

“‘Legalizing gambling to pay for schools’ is a libertarian policy?”

Legalizing gambling is, and if he’s going to fund an increase in teacher pay, it’s more libertarian to legalize casinos than raise taxes. Isn’t it? I’m open for debate on this issue.

“[Ann Coulter] ended up rejecting them, because of the goofiness of the State LP Chair.”

I need to send LP-Conn’s former state chair a thank you card.

Eric, I don’t mean to be rude or anything – I mean, I agree with advocating a much more pragmatic and electable version of libertarianism than the old LP status quo, but you’re really not making many friends here and you are betraying a remarkable level of ignorance about libertarianism and knowing how to reach libertarians.

Individuals should be free to gamble without interference of the state.

When the state sanctions some forms of gambling in order to pay for programs, it passes a hidden tax on the poor and ignorant. People spend their welfare checks on lottery tickets instead of buying books for thier children. What a way to fund education!

Eric, why are you even here? While your website sounds libertarian enough, everything you’ve said here indicates you’re not much of a libertarian. You sound more paleoconservative.

Furthermore, your ignorance is only reinforced because you obviously didn’t actually read the post dissing the term “Islamo-Fascism.” “Fascism” is a form of GOVERNMENT involving govenment-corporate centralization of power, which your favorite party has actually achieved quite nicely. “Islamo-Extremism”, “Islamo-Theocracy” and “Islamo-Authoritarianism” are much more accurate terms to describe the ideology.

By the way, it’s not libertarian to support banning people from proclaiming “Allah Ahkbar” whenever they want and denying cabbies the right to decline rides to whomever they want.

“You diss the term ‘Islamo-Fascism.’”

There are wacko “Christians” and wacko “Jews” that are just as bad. If I were a Moslem I’d probably hate America too. Neo-cons just add fuel to the fire. Let’s keep attacking Moslem countries and maybe one day they will like us.

Me a “Paleo-con”. Huh?

I’m exactly opposite of a Paleo-conservative.

I’m fiercely Pro-War on Islamo-Fascism precisely because I am extremely Socially Tolerant. I support drug legalization, I’m very Pro-Choice on abortion, I’m Pro-Swinger’s rights and protecting the rights of other alternative sexual lifestyles advocates including Nudists, I’m Pro-Prostitution legalization, I’m Pro-Tolerance for Gays and oppose those who wish to harrass my Gay friends on city streets, I’m fiercely opposed to drinking age laws, and I absolute hate seat belt laws.

As far as I know Paleo-cons are opposed to all of my positions above, and what’s more are staunchly anti-intervenionist.

In fact, some Paleo-cons rather like Islamacists cause they too are pruditarians.

If you’re a true libertarian the consistent position is Pro-Tolerance and Anti-Islamo-Fascism.

I’m a Proud PJ O’Rourke/Dennis Miller/Neal Boortz/Tammy Bruce/Gene Simmons/Ted Nugent/Jesse Ventura libertarian!

Bush got tax cuts through Congress. Perhaps you missed that back in 2003.

Bush proposed privatizing Social Security at one point and adopted the Cato Institute line. Perhaps you missed that one too.

Bush appointed former Libertarian Party Colorado State Chairman and Ed Clark for President delegate Gayle Norton to a Cabinet Post of Interior Secretary. Guess you missed that one.

Bush appointed Libertarian Party veteran member, and 1984 David Bergland for President Campaign Chairman Williamson “Bill” Evers to an Educational Advisory Post. Missed that one too, huh?

Bush said in his 2000 campaign for President, on marijuana legalization, “Ahh, it should just be left up to the states.”

Bush and Bush’s people (namely Karl Rove) lent a major hand to the Election effort of former Libertarian Party Presidential Candidate Ron Paul to Congress in 1996. Ron Paul has been invited to the White House to meet with Bush no less than two times!

Want me to go on?

Oh, please! Werner is not going to drop out of the race to aid a pseudo-libertarian like Kinky Friedman. Kinky is definitely anti-establishment, but that does not make him libertarian. If he gets elected, just watch how many things he starts increasing state spending for. Granted, I’d still prefer Kinky to any of the Republocrats, but it’s still quite a stretch to call him a libertarian.

The number of authoritarian pricks he appointed far overrides the two one-time libertarians (are they still? I don’t know) he appointed. And it’s great that they helped Ron Paul get elected in 1996 but that means nothing now – that was a different time, when the Republicans weren’t the ones in power. The libertarian case for Bush is slimmer than Paris Hilton on heroin.

Bush’s “libertarian” credits:

unprovoked wars of aggression, undeclared

suspending habeas corpus

secret detentions, secret prisons

torture

occupying two foreign countries

secret domestic spying (Total Information Awareness, Operation TIPS, etc)

unlimited executive power (signing statements, etc)

Anyone who thinks there’s anything libertarian about the Bush Crime Family is certifiably nuts.

Bush is a war criminal. He deserves to be impeached, convicted, tried as a civilian and executed for crimes against humanity.

The crimes of the Bush NSGOP gang are too many to list here but here’s a start:

http://www.lpalabama.org/node/357
http://www.lpalabama.org/node/358
http://www.lpalabama.org/node/359

Nick,

Why don’t I ever hear you talking about the threat of Islamo-Fascism? Have you ever traveled to Europe? Have you seen what the Muslims have done lately to Western Europe? Just a few months ago, Paris outlawed nude sunbathing due to Muslim pressure. You know about the Muslim riots in the streets of Paris last year. Just yesterday, the Honcho for the Police in France, said in the UK Telegraph “We’re now in a virtual civil war with Muslims…”

My Gay friends can’t even walk down the streets of Amsterdam any more without being harrassed by Muslim youth. They’re luck most times if it’s just a tomato that gets thrown at them, instead of a rock. Muslims are taking over control of city councils in Rotterdam and The Hague, and are pushing to repeal legalization of marijauana and to completely outlaw pornography and prostitution.

In Germany, the National Opera just pulled a longstanding Shakespearrean play so as not to “offend” Muslims.

Do you not care about this?

Eric,

Do you have a brick for a brain? Or maybe you don’t read a single goddamn thing I’ve written. Seriously, man. I’ve talked a lot about Islamo-Fascism – specifically the fact that it DOES NOT FRIGGIN EXIST. Let me repeat myself. Fascism = corporations + state collusion to cut individual liberty and create a military industrial complex. Islamo-Fascism = fake construct to scare us into relating radical militant Muslims to Axis powers of WWII. To radical Islamo-Theocrats, corporations = evil forces of Western domination. They have almost nothing to do with the rise of militant Islam in Europe. If the European government is going to play patsy with violent residents of any type and be politically correct to a T, that’s their own problem. Only the voters determine the best course of action. Frankly, it doesn’t scare me into saying let’s revoke the US “Goddamned Piece of Paper” and initiate foreign policies that create new terrorists faster than we can kill the old ones.

Yep.

So Stephen, there were no Weapons of Mass Destruction, huh? Those hundreds of thousands of Kurds who died, just died of natural causes, right? They weren’t gassed by Saddam’s henchmen.

Nah, all those reports of Saddam shipping the WMD to Syria months before the invasion are just conspiracy theories, right? And that Air Force Colonel of Saddam’s who testified to that effect, well, he just had a little mental problem.

And nooo, Muhammed Atta never met with Iraqi Intelligence in Prague, months before 9/11. He was just there as a tourist, visiting the nice old historic castles and enjoying the local pastries.

Eric:

Define fascism?