Skip to main content

Top ten reasons to take the Libertarian Party of Delaware seriously

10. Because we timed our convention to occur simultaneous with Joe Biden's announcement as Barack's VP pick, thus insuring we would be able to hold our deliberations unbothered by all the large, intrusive camera trucks that usually mark our affairs.

9. Because even when we found out that the East End Cafe in Newark was out of Colorado Sauce for the wings, we toughed it out and didn't leave.

8. Because Shirley Vandever came to our convention, and we bet she didn't come to yours.

7. Because we haven't nominated Mike Protack or Rick Atkins for anything.

6. Because our new State Chair actually has access to real office machinery.

5. Because Mark Anthony Parks, our candidate for the US House is younger than a fossil (Castle) and smarter than even an attractive box of rocks (O'Donnell).

4. Because we figured out a way to hang our banner (yes, damn it, we have one) from the mike stands on the stage when we couldn't reach the ceiling.

3. Because we had at least five times as many delegates in attendance as the Independent [Protack] Party of Delaware [and none of them was Liz Allen].

2. Because we actually held our convention in a known postal location that you can find with Google, Yahoo, or a GPS, unlike the Independent [Protack] Party of Delaware.

And the number one reason why you should take the Libertarian Party of Delaware seriously is ....

1. Because Tyler Nixon sought and accepted our fusion nomination. In many cases the party is expected to give cachet to the nominee; in our case, being associated with a candidate of quality recognized by kavips, delawaredem, and others from almost every political perspective in Delaware actually (I hope) gives us and our ideas some of his cachet.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...