Wisconsin Senate Race: GOP Defection to the Libertarian Party

Here’s the release I’ve been getting in my e-mail all day long

U.S. Senate Candidate Redick, Disgusted With GOP, Joins Libertarians

MADISON, WI: Former Republican U.S. Senate candidate Dave Redick announced today that he has joined the Libertarian Party, and has re-filed to run for U.S. Senate this fall as a Libertarian.

Dave says; “The Republican Party nationwide is off course compared to it’s traditional values, and Republican leaders at the State, and County level seem to like it that way (or at least will settle to be submissive and abused “loyalists” to DC). The far-right religious groups, corrupt Congressmen, and warmonger “neocons” have taken over in DC, and it seems no one is willing or able to push them back. It is now the war, big-spending, and homeland spy party. My campaign efforts to gain support for reform have been fruitless, but revealed the depth of trouble the Republicans are in. While they engage in self-serving denial to hide problems, the cliff of the November 7 election is fast approaching. Pollsters predict many losses.

Hence I have left the Republicans to their well-earned fate, and joined the Libertarian “Party of Principle.” It embraces my philosophy of limited government, fiscal conservatism, and peace, along with social liberalism consistent with the Bill of Rights. These values and principles have been mine since becoming politically active in 1978, and on my web site since my announcement for Senate in January, 2006.

posted Jun 10th, 2006 by Stephen Gordon
  • Rick Rajter

    Nice.

    Lets hope name recognition will do the trick.

  • http://RadioFreeLiberty.com Cato Craft

    The following is from

    http://www.issues2000.org/Domestic/David_Redick_Gun_Control.htm

    The second amendment to the Constitution is usually cited as the legal basis to own a gun, but this is related to state militias (why else mention it). In fact, gun ownership is an inherent right, the same as owning a potentially lethal device such as a car, knife or ball bat, and it is only improper use that is subject to regulation. Concern over home gun safety is more emotional than real. The record shows that gun-owners are very safety conscious.
    Source: Campaign website, http://www.redick2006.com, “Issues” Feb 22, 2006

    I’m confused…The second amendment only applies to militias? (He is absolutely wrong on that one) But gun ownership is an inherent right? If not under the second amendment, then by what? His personal opinion? Natural Law? This is an odd stance to take.

    Also according to OnTheIssues.org, Redick favors “More federal funding for health coverage.”

  • http://RadioFreeLiberty.com Cato Craft

    There are several other key points by which to judge the Libertarianism of a candidate that they said he had “(No votes on which to base response)”

    I am done getting all excited about an ex-republicrat that turns Libertarian when their campaign goes south.

    Yes, he sounds more or less libertarian on his stands on many issues, but if he is really principled, then why wasn’t he LP before now?

    Once bittten twice shy.

  • http://www.colliething.com/ Susan Hogarth

    At least he doesn’t have a primary to worry about, now. Seems like an interesting fellow.

    Maybe the Libs can find him a better webmaster :)

  • http://www.renbook.com Gene Berkman

    Dave Redick is formerly from California, and in 1982 he ran for Congress on the Libertarian Party ticket. He remained committed to liberty, but ran as a Republican for Congress in 1984.

    His campaign site for his Senate campaign indicates he opposes the Patriot Act and the Iraq War, and favors an end to the income tax, so I think he will be a good candidate for the Wisconsin Libertarian Party.

  • http://www.LPWI.org Rolf from Wisconsin

    FYI

    Dave has been a Libertarian for over 20 years.

    He foolishly believed he’d get more news coverage as republican. When he came to his senses and realized his folly, he went back to the LP.

    Check out the homepage of Wisconsin’s leading political site:

    GOP Senate Candidate Redick Switches to Libertarian Party
    http://www.WisPolitics.com

  • Devious David

    … in other words he was going to lose badly anyway.

  • http://www.LPWI.org Rolf from Wisconsin

    DD,

    that’s right, Herb Kohl is unbeatable and has $100 million to spend, if necessary.

    republicans have zero chance to win as well.

    statewide races for Senate or Governor by Libertarians are one of the easiest, most cost-effective ways for regular folks to get their Libertarian message out to non-libertarians.

    Some debate on a republican blog in WI has already broken out as well:

    Losing Their Base

    http://www.bootsandsabers.com/index.php/weblog/comments_w_sidebars/7656/

    http://www.bootsandsabers.com/index.php/weblog/category_archives/C13/

  • Mark

    Sounds like good news.

  • nameless

    I’ll welcome him aboard.

    I’m tired of judging potential candidates by how “libertarian” they are. He’s a thoroughly vetted, viable candidate.

    I wish him well.

  • http://www.libertyforsale.com Timothy West

    a pickup is a pickup. He’s not a crank. +1 for us. Now, let rinse and repeat bout 1K more times…..and do it from the D’s as well. Fuck dem old parties.

  • http://www.reformthelp.org Rob D.

    Coming from a Repug on the Boots & Sabers blog Rolf linked to…

    “Whoa. Fiscal conservative and socially liberal? I’m totally voting for that guy.

    It’s too bad Libertarians are so extreme on their social/fiscal beliefs. Temper them, and they’d suck up huge chunks of the electorate.”

    http://www.ReformTheLP.org

  • http://libertarianyouth.blogspot.com Nigel Watt

    I think the LP needs to do a better job of emphasizing the gradual process by which they would reduce government instead of the need to destroy it all – and they need to come up with that process in the first place.

  • john

    cato craft

    It’s actually refreshing to hear that kind of commentary from Redick. What Redick is doing is evincing a destructionalist interpretation of the Constitution, where the Constitution grants no rights, it simply states what the Government CANNOT do, which is the way most of the orginal constitutional convention meant it. Consider this: a constructionalist argument would be “habeas corpus doesn’t apply to the prisoners in gitmo because as noncitizens, they do not have the constitutional right to it, being nonparties to the constitution”. A destructionalist response would be “the constitutional guarantee of habeas corpus DOES apply because the government is constitutionally forbidden from holding ANYONE without habeas corpus, regardless of citizenship”. Yes, to a destructionalist, you ALREADY have the RKBA, as this is a natural right, the government is simply forbidden from trampling on it