Skip to main content

Eric Schansberg actually takes tough questions from voter!?


The Jackson County [Indiana] Banner recounts the town meeting recently held by 9th Congressional District Libertarian candidate Dr Eric Schansberg at which he (gasp, sputter) actually stood up and just answered people's questions.

After his prepared statement, Eric threw the floor open to the voters:

The first question Dr. Schansberg fielded was about illegal immigration. Though not his “favorite issue”, he said policy should be to deal with the reason immigrants enter the country illegally. “We need to penalize employers who hire illegal immigrants,” he said.

He went on to say that he’s a fan of legal immigration, though the process often deters people from legally moving into the country. “I’m for a high wall and a large gate. We need to streamline INS procedures. If you want people to do the wrong thing, make the right thing hard to do,” he said.

He was questioned about the Fair Tax and the flat tax, both of which he said are “improvements”. Another person asked about opening a new 9/11 investigation, which the candidate effectively dodged by saying he “hadn’t studied it enough to comment”.

Another questioner asked if he supported subsidizing alternative fuels. “As a Libertarian, I don’t want to take your money.

There’s no Constitutional basis for it. There’s no reason to ever do it in my worldview,” he said. “Why not keep your own money?”

He went on to say that the weak dollar can be turned around, with a change of leadership and more conservative policy from the Federal Reserve.

“Bush and Congress have been spending like drunken sailors. Actually, they make drunken sailors look like spendthrifts,” he said.

On the education front, he was to the point. When asked about No Child Left Behind, he replied, “Get rid of it.” He explained that he favored a system where competition can exist, like a charter school system. “Any competition is a good thing. If you inject competition, the market will take care of itself.”


What I liked about this coverage is Stephen Crawford of the Banner didn't pull any punches: when Eric ducked the question on a 9/11 investigation, Crawford called him on it. In other words, he treated the Libertarian just like any other politician. What I also like is the fact that Crawford didn't go out of his way to note that only a small group of voters showed up for the event (a fact that has also plagued Schansberg's Demopublican rivals). Good job, there.

What I liked about the town meeting itself is what I said at the beginning: no filters and damn little hyperbole on the part of the candidate.

This is what I think, this is why I think I'm a better choice than my opponents.

Probably too boring for some, but the grunt work of democracy can be that.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Steve, stop learning me stuff. :-)

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 ...