Why are Republicans trying to spoil the race in TX-22?

The real question is not “why are Republicans trying to spoil the race in TX-22?”

It’s “why is the Libertarian Party posturing as ‘conservative’ and pushing a candidate on the basis that the gridlock caused by a having a Democratic House of Representatives poised versus a Republican White House would be a bad thing?”

For the love of God — if Smither is going to be the Libertarian candidate, run him as a LIBERTARIAN candidate, not as “Tom DeLay, only Tom’s out of town.”

I like it when the questions are easy.

The answer to the first question (why are Republicans trying to spoil the race?) is because that is what Republicans do. Republican politicians like to lie and their supporters think it is clever and adopt the lie as their own. This is yet another example of why it is a bad plan to jump into bed with Republicans (or Democrats).

I think Tom Knapp knows the answer to his own question (why is the LP posturing as conservative?). That is because there are many in the LP that think this is the route to electoral success. There are also a few in the LP who don’t seem to know the difference between libertarianism and small govt. conservatism.

Perhaps Texas Republicans will vote for Smither, but if the recent Reason article about Smither is accurate, the Republicans certainly aren’t donating to his campaign.

Maybe Smither is just too good for DeLay’s people. They’re used to voting for the greater of 2 evils.

First of all, Bob Smither *is* running as a Libertarian. He’s listed on the ballot as such and I’ve seen no evidence that he’s trying to hide that fact. Even the script they’re using on BallotBase (targeting Republican voters in the district) specifically mentions that he’s a Libertarian. Bob often says he considers himself to be a “Ron Paul” type of candidate when it comes to his stance on the issues and most people would agree that Ron Paul qualifies as solidly libertarian.

The campaign strategy being taken by Smither is purely pragmatic. The district is considered 65% Republican based on voting history, there will be NO Republican on the ballot, and his fiscal conservative message should sell well, particularly since a significant portion of TX-22 used to be in Ron Paul’s district. To me, this seems to be the right approach to take – it gives him a realistic (albeit longshot) chance to win without trying to deceive anyone.

Mike,

You write: “What makes you think that Smither is anything but a Libertarian, and running as such?”

Nothing — that’s why I didn’t posit that he’s anything but a libertarian, or running as anything but such.

What I said was that the LP is posturing as “conservative” and “ooh, big bad Pelosi” with respect to Smither’s race, not that Smither is doing so himself. Big difference. I haven’t talked with Smither to see how he’s approaching things as an individual.

All of which is neither here nor there, for one simple reason: My opening comment was pure troll, and purposefully so. You know that we’re going to have this discussion (i.e. “is Smither pure enough? Is his campaign saying the right things?”) eventually. I just figured it might as well be sooner rather than later.

Personally, I hope that Smither is actively appealing to GOP voters on the basis “I’m all the good things you’re promised, but don’t get, when you vote Republican.”

Oh and the reason why they are spoiling it? Because they want business as usual and they don’t want Libertarians to be legitimized. For one, it would expose the Republicans as total liars when it comes to the pro-liberty, limited government rhetoric. Anyone who still beleives that is a stupid sack of shit. Never underestimate the perverse stupidity, stubborness, or selfishness of a Republican.

That’s why Delay did the Christian thing and bore false witness about Smither. Delay was there to make sure that the race was spoiled. Getting Smither elected would be a disaster for the REAL Republican party. Those rank and file members have no clue how they are being used. When the powers that be put their foot down, in swoops the party leadership to do their bidding and steer the rank and file off of a cliff. Those rank and filers have no clue of the evil that they are abetting or how they are being exploited.

Steve,

Oh, you want a pragmatic political argument? OK!

Yes, Cook rates the district at R+15. All other things being equal, the GOP candidate is going to get 65% of the vote.

Of course, things aren’t equal, because there are THREE GOP candidates: DeLay (who, last time I noticed, was still on the ballot) and two write-ins.

Unless he manages to get off the ballot, DeLay will pull at least 20% of the vote, regardless of what stops the GOP pulls out on behalf of Ms. Unpronounceable.

Ms. Unpronounceable is probably good for 10% if the GOP really puts muscle into it. The other write-in, possibly 5% if he really hits it hard.

Lampson is sitting on 35%.

That leaves 30% that’s up for grabs. Smither is probably good for 10% right now, and might be able to romp the other 20% if he and the LP go balls-out (if not, it goes to DeLay by straight-ticket GOP default).

So, if DeLay remains on the ballot, Smither needs to take at least some out of Lampson’s hide to win. (cont’d)

Tom,

Delay is off the ballot.

I wonder about this bit about vote for Smithers to keep Pelosi from being Speaker of the House. How would voting for Smithers do that? Unless he is planning to caucus as a Republican and help keep the Republicans in control. If I lived in his ward, even as a Libertarian, I would then vote Democratic because I think the Republicans are the biggest danger to freedom today, not the Democrats. If Smithers is going with the GOP then vote Democratic.

Okay, I see. The last I’d read — and I follow political news daily — is that the courts were continuing to reject the GOP’s attempt to remove him from the ballot as “no longer qualified.” Somehow I completely missed that he had voluntarily removed his name regardless of that outcome (which does not allow the GOP to nominate a replacement).

That does, indeed, change things considerably. It probably puts Lampson at more like 50% than 35% after the straight-ticket ballots with no GOP congressional candidate on them get factored in. That means that Smither is going to have to take even more Dem votes to win than if DeLay WAS on the ballot.

Or maybe I’m just not awake yet.

All of this is very good for us chatterbox types, but does he have enough volinteers to get the message out?
Is the campaign doing door to door and a few mailers, yard signs and the whole nine yards?
Keyboard consultants like us are good to a point, but it requires people willing to get hot and sweaty during a Texas Summer to get the word out.
Money, money, money. The ‘ol mother’s milk of politics.
M.H.W.

Michael Wilson:

Apparently Eric Dondero is willing to get hot and sweaty – he was here the other day talking about walking the district and going door to door.

Speaking of the mother’s milk of politics:

http://www.opensecrets.org/races/summary.asp?ID=TX22&Cycle=2006

Open Secrets reveals a pretty sad state of fiscal affairs for Smither – maybe the Texas LP has stretched itself too thin. I hate to rain on the parade, but optimism doesn’t win elections. Unfortunately, the candidate with the most cash wins over 90% of the time.

Smither has raised $2,486 and Lampson has raised $2,894,602. Wallace has raised $203,421 and Sekula-Gibbs has raised $44,338.

Smither will need an awful lot of media exposure, in-kind contributions, and volunteers to offset Lampson’s big bucks.

I hope Smither at least has the opportunity to debate Lampson.

Gordon challenges me to take it to the blogosphere. I accept and I have. I have also sent $200.00 to Smither, and I in turn, challenge everyone else to do the same. Money is the mother’s milk of politics, and it’s not enough to wish Smither well. (I have also sent Badnarik $200.00 – He’s running a hell of a campaign.)

I am vehemently opposed to the “Fair Tax” as well, and deeply concerned with it being affiliated with the philosophy of liberty.

I can’t support a candidate that seemingly takes no stand on the biggest issue of this decade – the open ended “global war on terror”.

Also, I will not support any candidate that promotes the Fair Tax – an insidious plan that would increase the size and scope of government.

I am completely bewildered by the recent obsession with some libertarians to have the government send checks to everyone in the nation – as evidenced by the Fair Tax plan and Carl Milsted’s Citizen’s Dividend plan.

I know it is politically incorrect to suggest that these ideas are not libertarian in nature, so I won’t. Individuals can make that decision themselves.

How fortunate Alaskans are that they pay no income or sales tax. Unfortunately, neither the Fair Tax plan or the Citizen’s Dividend plan include eliminating income or sales tax – quite the opposite.

Alaska distributes income. The Fair Tax and Citizen’s Dividend plans redistribute income. You are comparing apples and lemons, Tim.

LOL Citizens Dividend. I don’t even have to read that article. I got to “Why don’t we just give every citizen a chunk of money each month and be done with it?” and had to quit. Obviously the REAL question should be “Why the hell do we take it in the first place?”. These plans are just clever ways to get all Americans on the dole. And then that can become the big political issue. Who gets what, how much, how often. Blah blah blah.

The last thing in the world that we need to do is put every American on wealth redistributionist welfare.

Tim ask the question: “…what do we do bout it?”
So how would you go about reducing the government?
What programs would you cut first?
Any specific laws that you would repeal?
This doesn’t have a lot to do with the Smither’s camapign, but it may develop into talking points others can use.
Norman Thomas, the Socialist Party candidate, had a plan that was 15, or 20 issues most of which were adopted in some way by the government. Maybe we can help define 15, or 20 issues Libertarians can use as talking points nation wide and in turn help make some change.
Your turn.
M.H.W.

I would also favor the elimination of FICA, but realistically, I would support its application (in revenue neutral reduced capacity) to all income (capital gains, dividends, etc.) with no cap. THAT would be a “fair” tax!

Here’s how the un-fair tax rebate would work:

“How does the rebate work? All valid Social Security cardholders who are U.S. residents receive a monthly rebate equivalent to the FairTax paid on essential goods and services, also known as the poverty level expenditures. The rebate is paid in advance, in equal installments each month. The size of the rebate is determined by the Department of Health & Human Services’ poverty level guideline multiplied by the tax rate. This is a well-accepted, long-used poverty-level calculation that includes food, clothing, shelter, transportation, medical care, etc.”

Gee, all of us who hold “the card” would get a gov’t check every month. WHAT’S WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE?

The United States is quasi-feudalistic enough, the last thing we need to go to is a Federal property tax. The one thing the Fairtaxers seem to overlook is the Constitutional one. Not that they care about that anyway. We all know that the just a pointless argument.

All tax arguments are pointless, really. They are just cover for the real problem: spending. That’s why Republicans love tax arguments. It allows them to shift the debate to something that won’t decrease the size and scope of government. That’s the last thing in the world a Republican wants to see.

Property tax, when only the value of unimproved land is taxed, is a good thing – so long as the revenue collected is modest and only used for legitimate purposes.

The income tax, in today’s society, may be a necessary evil. A simpler, more broad-based, flat tax would be acceptable to me, in lieu of a tax on unimproved land.

A national sales tax, however, would be far worse than even today’s convoluted tax system. It would penalize the very thing that makes our economy great – namely, economic activity. It would breed even more corruption than the current tax system, as people would create convoluted stories about how what they were buying/selling were “inputs” and not finished products. It would greatly favor the rich over the poor, and it would create an underground economy filled with the typical sorts of crimes and injustices that perpeatuate in such havens. IT IS QUITE POSSIBLY THE WORST IDEA IN THE HISTORY OF HUMAN THOUGHT.

Socialism ranks higher on my list of good ideas.

OK, if I have to give money to the government for improving the value of my property, can I get money back from the government if I de-value it?

I don’t really agree with U_A about property ownership being artificial – but Russell Means, who USED to be a libertarian, would agree with you. Native culture doesn’t concepualize private ownership of property.

Yes, corp. income tax will increase the cost of goods and services – BUT NOT AS MUCH AS A SALES TAX because we can still get lots of stuff from non-corporations.

Personally, any sales tax would hurt me the most – and I don’t WANT no damned government check. I just hope we don’t lose sight of the REAL problem. Taxation is theft and here we are debating shoplifting vs. armed robbery.

Is anyone still paying attention to this now? Well who knows.
Anyhow Devious David has a point about the spending. The LP has been reluctant, IMHO, to go after the spending issue.
We complain about the Income Tax, but have not put much effort into showing people how to reduce government spending.
One great example was the recent announcment by Ford that they were going to close more plants. It would have been great to get the word out that while Ford is closing its plants, the company and its workers will continue to pay taxes to support the U.S. military forces stationed in the countries of Ford’s competitors.
M.H.W.

Chris — so it’s okay for you to benefit from the tax money of others, and not contribute any of your own to redeem those benefits?

In fact, for society to expect remuneration from you… this would be theft in all circumstances simply because you didn’t agree to pay for the services rendered to you?

Fascinating.

The libertarian argument is circular. It argues that taxes are theft without consent but then assumes that no one consents. Most taxpayers believe that taxation is legitimate and that government has the right to tax. It doesn’t matter why they believe this. They could be brainwashed, have a divine epiphany justifying it, simply think it’s a good idea, or have never given it any thought at all. But at the core they believe the state has the right, if not the duty, to collect taxes.

Remember the difference between rape and seduction. The state often seduces. It promises the taxpayer nice things if they consent to being taxed. And most citizens, by far the overwhelming majority of them, like the promises enough to consent. They may try to reduce their taxes. But most people simply do not think that taxes are a violation of their rights.

I like his argument better. He’s talking bout you, actually.

Taxing ME is theft. I do not consent.

I pay my taxes at the point of a gun. I do not consent.

If a robber points a gun in my face and demands my wallet, then I give it to him. It doesn’t mean I consent to him having my wallet.

If I do not file, then the IRS will begin collection procedures. Eventually, they will get a judgement from a court. Then they will garnish my wages. If I quit and start collecting my income “under the table” they will eventually send an armed officer with a very real gun. If I refuse to cooperate with the officer, s/he will spray pepper spray in my face, cuff me, and drag me out of my home.

They do not have to point a gun in my face. They just have to threaten to point a gun in my face. It’s much easier for me just to give the government what they want. But it is still theft.

“are you capable of independant thought or not?”

Huh? You are the one who claimed that taxes are A OK because “enough people consent to taxes at some level to make the theft argument moot”. You base your entire argument on what other people think and then ask me if I’m capable of independent thought?

Your entire schtick is “will ‘the people’ accept it”. You base your entire philosophy on what others believe.

“It’s all just bits and pieces of shit you’ve read somewhere or heard somebody else say.”

No. It is not.

You quoted an entire article as basis for your view. I’m simply relying on DEFINITIONS of words. You are trying to change the definition of two words: consent and theft. Yet you have provided no compelling argument for doing so.

“Do you realize how silly you sound talking about how you dont ”˜consent’, when you really do?”

In what way do I consent? What is your definition of “consent”?

Main Entry:consent
Function: noun
1 : compliance in or approval of what is done or proposed by another : ACQUIESCENCE
2 : agreement as to action or opinion; specifically : voluntary agreement by a people to organize a civil society and give authority to the government.

you do in fact consent to taxation, becuase you comply with the law regarding same. A non consenter would renounce their US citizenship and declare themselves not subject to any US law. That you may feel forced into doing so means not a thing, you still consent and pay taxes. Consent is a yes or no action. It’s not conditionally based on the morality of the action. That you may not approve of the action does not mean you dont comply with it, and as shown above, compliance does imply consent.

Source: Mirriam Webster online.

All this BS is just sillyness. You’re just like the rest of us.

I’m not sure. I actually HATE these discussions. Dealing with people like you just reminds me how much hassle and bullshit there is in having to constantly battle your kind.

must be a masochist, I guess. There’s no other explanation.

Also, I am an individual, not part of a “kind”.

Tim, you assume way to much.

Have you ever considered that people “like me” do question our own beliefs. We do “check our premises” (to borrow a phrase from a dead lady who I disagree with on MANY issues). And that through that evaluation we have come to the conclusions that we have. And then we re-evaluate those conclusions. I was not born believing what I do.

Just because I do not agree with you in a certain instance, just because I believe taxation is immoral, does not mean that I follow someone elses truth wholesale.

I try to find the truth. Period. I use reason, experience, and a little faith to do that. If it makes you feel better to blindly assume that those with whom you disagree are ignorant and don’t understand “learning”, then so be it.

On the ignorant thing:

I dont think they are ignorant; I think they are much too smart for their own good. They apply reason and logic into areas *LIKE POLITICS* where reason and logic are very, very small factors into why anyone does what they do. Poeple neither run for office nor vote based on logic or reason, yet most libertarians continue to believe in using those levers to make the LP a factor. It wont work – their premises are faulty. They are done before they ever start.

principles are strange things. They’re great to have, but they need to be measured with other human qualities. Libertarians ( Big L, mostly) have a hard time doing that to me.

but your role as a individual and the governments role in the world are totally different things. you play a different part.
I’m not sure your starting premises are good.

Chris,

I’m going to abandon the thread. As I said, I really hate these theory type of discussions, and life is too short to keep doing things you hate. Especially when you dont know how much life you have.

I just dont care bout this sort of stuff, except when it starts to make the political side of the LP hard to deal with and sell to the voters of this country. That’s my only concern. Toodles.