Skip to main content

Yeah, only those nutty Libertarians nominate whacky candidates . . . .

. . . unless, of course you examine the official Democratic nominee for US Senate in Tennessee.

Yep, there's a guy I'd be proud to have standing beside Harry Reid to form the new Democratic majority in January.

Comments

pandora said…
The Tennessean reports:

"Less than 24 hours after a man espousing conservative and libertarian views surprised the state’s political scene by winning the Democratic nomination, the Tennessee Democratic Party disavowed him, saying he’s part of an anti-gay hate group.

The party said Friday that it would do nothing to help Mark Clayton, 35, who received nearly twice as many votes as his closest challenger in Thursday’s seven-candidate primary, winning the right to challenge Republican U.S. Sen. Bob Corker in November."


Every party has nuts. At least the Dems have disavowed him and stated that they will do nothing to help him. Can you give me examples of the GOP or Libertarians doing the same with their nuts? (Serious question, btw)
Hube said…
Can you give me examples of the GOP or Libertarians doing the same with their nuts? (Serious question, btw)

David Duke would be one.
Hube said…
Did the Dems disavow Al Sharpton? Jesse Jackson? Robert Byrd?

You just turned this into one of your usual silly DL games, pandora. No surprise there.
delacrat said…
Tennessee is an "open-primary" state, where opposing party members can vote for the weakest candidate of the opposite party in order to give their own party the advantage in the general election.
Here's the problem, delacrat: almost all those kinds of nuances apply to Libertarian candidates and how they are selected, but you guys rejoice in using a few crackpots to tar and feather the entire movement.

So don't expect me to play by different rules. So-called "real" Democrats in Tennessee simply didn't work hard enough to keep this nut off the ballot, so they--and all other Democrats--now own him.

When you guys start playing nice in the first place, come back and talk.
delacrat said…
Steve,

No. Those "nuances" do not apply to Tennessee Libertarian candidates.

No one outside a party is going to trouble to influence a party primary when that party garners less than 1% of the total vote in a general election. In 2008, even Ralph Nader out-polled Libertarian Bob Barr by over 3,000 votes in Tennessee.

The Libertarian Party of Tennessee is just not big enough to be taken so seriously by the D and R parties.
Republican David said…
It shows the arrogance of the party elite, they have a moral obligation to support their candidate who was selected by the voters. I read his stuff. After reading the article. There is nothing nutty about it. There are some things that are inaccurate or misconceptions, but everything he said has a basis in reality. The NAFTA highway was a real proposal that never got off the drawing board, it has been exaggerated and blown into something interesting, but believing that someone wants to build a highway to link our three countries does not make you a poached egg nut.

As for Public Advocate, I have no idea about the organization, but you could pretty much take the Republican Platform's social agenda and find its mirror. That is hardly a hate group. It is mainstream. Now that is the real reason the Democratic party in TN is losing more and more. They are calling a large segment of their own party let alone a majority of the state haters and nuts for believing traditional values. Then refuse to acknowledge the duly nominated candidate based upon it. That is outrageous. The Democrat headquarters should be surrounded with protesters demanding the leadership's ouster. Your job is to listen to the people if you can't do it, leave.

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 ...