From Eric Dondero: Christopher Peters, MD is the Libertarian candidate for Iowa State Senate - District 15. There is no Republican in the race.
Christopher contacted Libertarian Republican and provided us with the following information:
I am a thoracic and vascular surgeon, a small business owner, and most importantly, a husband and father of three sons. Like many Iowans, I am increasingly concerned about the size of government, resulting in the erosion of our liberties and theAs always, if there is no Republican in the race, and a Libertarian is on the ballot, we here at Libertarian Republican strongly urge our fellow Republicans to Vote Libertarian! (Of course, we hope the Libertarian will "caucus" with the GOP once elected.)
jeopardization of our economic prosperity. I believe that most Iowans believe in the fundamental principles espoused in the founding documents of our nation and our state, and are frustrated that our political leaders and institutions have failed to live up to those ideals.
As a parent, I believe that the foundation of moral behavior begins not in the school, but in the home. Likewise, I believe that good governance does not begin in Washington, D.C., but in our state, our counties, and in our communities. We cannot look beyond our state borders for help in confronting the challenges we face within them. The principle of self government is plainly stated; that we should govern ourselves. Government is not the solution; we are the solution.
If we citizens of Iowa can reestablish our state government in accordance with the principles of our national and state constitutions, we can be assured of our inalienable rights to liberty and prosperity. Iowa can reform itself to better serve its citizens, to serve as a model for other state governments, and can enjoy sustainable economic growth in harmony with its resources.
I made the decision to enter the race for the Iowa State Senate in District 15 for one simple reason: to use my candidacy as an opportunity to raise issues related to the preservation of liberty and prosperity. Like many Iowans, I am concerned about the increasing size and scope of government, and the deleterious effects that growth has had, and will continue to have, resulting in the gradual erosion of our personal freedoms and economic well-being.
Sidenote; the Iowa Libertarian Party holds three elected offices - Davenport City Council, Cedar Falls City Council, and Mayor of the Town of Roland.
peters4iowa2010.com
23 comments:
urge our fellow Republicans to Vote Libertarian . . .
Like that is going to happen. Statist Republicans voting Libertarian Party which wants to abolish those Iowa farm subsidies to grow nothing, legalize drugs and end the insane drug war, favors gay rights and is against foreign wars of adventure.
Libertarians pull votes from BOTH parties.
Gary,
Pulling votes from both parties is part of the point of running. In my view, there is little substantial difference between Republicans and Democrats, and I am a disillusioned member of both. The two major parties are beholden to their own special interest groups and unique constituencies. In order to win re-election, or to displace the other party in power, a major party politician must always offer "something" to their voters. That "something" always comes out of the pocketbooks of taxpayers. Hence, under our "two-party" system (it is functionally a one-party system with two different brands), our government continues to grow. If you value government growth, vote for either party, it doesn't much matter. If, on the other hand, you would like to see a smaller and less intrusive government, I'd recommend voting for neither major party.
My 2 cents, for what they are worth in this current economic environment!
Christopher
Mr. Peters;
Your Senate Districts are fairly small. Make this a real press the flesh and door knocking campaign that costs almost nothing. Get a list and target the frequent voters. Try hard to win.
Good luck on your campaign.
Iowa only has a population of 3 million. As long as he's for farm and ethanol subsidies, he'll do ok.
Thanks for the advice and words of encouragement, Gary! I'll do my best, and have fun trying!
As for farm and ethanol subsidies, no, I'm not for them. Still, many of the small farmers here aren't in favor of them, either, after you discuss it with them a bit. My father-in-law is a retired farmer in Iowa (not in my district, unfortunately) realizes that these subsidies go primarily to the agribusiness industry, and work against the family-owned farms.
I live in Waukee, and when I have discussed that issue with farmers I know at church, it's like bringing my draft card to a hippie love in. It ain't pretty.
Well, I'm sure I'll find out soon enough! I have enjoyed intelligent conversations with my father-in-law and his friends up in the north part of the state, but they already knew me well. I haven't had those conversations with anyone down here, however, so you may well be correct!
Christopher, I couldn't disagree more. Democrats are pure evil. There is no such thing as a good Democrat, with a tiny handful of exceptions (Walt Minnick of Idaho, maybe).
Republicans either lean libertarian or are outright libertarians.
Democrats and Republicans are polar opposites. Democrats are Authoritarians, and either Fascists or Socialists (basically the same thing.)
Republicans are either libertarians or conservatives with a few moderates sprinkled in.
You gotta ask yourself is it just a coincidence that every single Libertarian Party Presidential candidate since 1972, save one, has been a Republican?
Eric,
I should clarify my belief that there is little of substance between Democrats and Republicans. I mean this in the context of government growth as it relates to which major political party is in charge at the moment.
For Iowa over the last 30 years, our population has been essentially flat, but our state government expenditures have increased nearly %130 in inflation-adjusted dollars. This growth has been nearly linear, with Republican governors for nearly 20 of those years, Democratic governors for the remainder, and, as best I can tell, a fairly equally divided legislature until just recently.
My website post on this can be found here: http://peters4iowa2010.com/iowa-budget-history-partisan-neutral/
If one looks at similar data on the national level, the pattern is similar. In inflation-adjusted dollars looking at government spending as a percentage of GDP over the last 100 years, you see overall continual growth in the size of our government, with spikes for WWI, WWII and the (first) Great Depression. It is, of course, difficult to parse exactly which party is most responsible in every instance, but that is not terribly important, in my view.
I see these trends as evidence of the failure of our "two-party" system, itself. It is not a failure only of Democrats, or only of Republicans, but of the false dichotomy that dominates our political landscape.
I doubt you expect to see significant numbers of Democrats switching their party allegiance. Instead, both major parties generally have their customary voter base firmly in hand, and must cater to those in the "middle" to sway an election one way or another. They capture the middle by offering "something", for which you and I must eventually pay.
There is, of course, a significant range of views held by those that are registered Republicans, as there is similar variability among Democrats. There is also a range of views among Libertarians. The Libertarian platform is generally appealing to Republicans whose main priority is fiscal responsibility, which I certainly value highly. At the same time libertarianism is attractive to many Democrats whose most important issues are individual rights, which I also value.
Americans have diverse beliefs, after all, and that is not necessarily a bad thing. The problem, as I see it, is trying to parse those beliefs into only two sets of luggage, R or D. It is the system which has failed us, along with politicians who view their elected position as a profession, rather than a public service.
Since it seems unlikely that we will abandon our political parties (George Washington, of course, feared their development, and was never a member of a political party), a viable third party, I believe, is our best option.
Here's one of my other recent posts, which I thought was reasonably good:
http://peters4iowa2010.com/libertarianism-new-party-old-idea/
Parenthetically, I am not providing links to my site because I believe I am particularly learned on political matters or a great writer, but just to provide readers with additional resources that may or may not be of value.
Eric,
I should clarify my belief that there is little of substance between Democrats and Republicans. I mean this in the context of government growth as it relates to which major political party is in charge at the moment.
For Iowa over the last 30 years, our population has been essentially flat, but our state government expenditures have increased nearly %130 in inflation-adjusted dollars. This growth has been nearly linear, with Republican governors for nearly 20 of those years, Democratic governors for the remainder, and, as best I can tell, a fairly equally divided legislature until just recently.
My website post on this can be found here: http://peters4iowa2010.com/iowa-budget-history-partisan-neutral/
If one looks at similar data on the national level, the pattern is similar. In inflation-adjusted dollars looking at government spending as a percentage of GDP over the last 100 years, you see overall continual growth in the size of our government, with spikes for WWI, WWII and the (first) Great Depression. It is, of course, difficult to parse exactly which party is most responsible in every instance, but that is not terribly important, in my view.
I see these trends as evidence of the failure of our "two-party" system, itself. It is not a failure only of Democrats, or only of Republicans, but of the false dichotomy that dominates our political landscape.
I doubt you expect to see significant numbers of Democrats switching their party allegiance. Instead, both major parties generally have their customary voter base firmly in hand, and must cater to those in the "middle" to sway an election one way or another. They capture the middle by offering "something", for which you and I must eventually pay.
Continued...
Continued...
There is, of course, a significant range of views held by those that are registered Republicans, as there is similar variability among Democrats. There is also a range of views among Libertarians. The Libertarian platform is generally appealing to Republicans whose main priority is fiscal responsibility, which I certainly value highly. At the same time libertarianism is attractive to many Democrats whose most important issues are individual rights, which I also value.
Americans have diverse beliefs, after all, and that is not necessarily a bad thing. The problem, as I see it, is trying to parse those beliefs into only two sets of luggage, R or D. It is the system which has failed us, along with politicians who view their elected position as a profession, rather than a public service.
Since it seems unlikely that we will abandon our political parties (George Washington, of course, feared their development, and was never a member of a political party), a viable third party, I believe, is our best option.
Here's one of my other recent posts, which I thought was reasonably good:
http://peters4iowa2010.com/libertarianism-new-party-old-idea/
Parenthetically, I am not providing links to my site because I believe I am particularly learned on political matters or a great writer, but just to provide readers with additional resources that may or may not be of value.
Sorry for the double (kind of triple) post! I received an error message that my post was too long, and reposted in two segments, failing to see that my original post was actually accepted. For the administrator, please consider deleting the two additional posts (and this one)!
I disagree eric. Republicans also come in conservative strains, usually socons, some of whom are just as authoritarian based as some democrats. Then there are the RINOs, like Grahamnesty, Snowe, etc. If you look at a politician's voting record, you'll find that there are very few truly libertarian people in the congress or the senate. Libertarian leaning is another story, but that is like someone that is like a gay guy saying once and a while he likes pussy. If what you say is true, the Tea Party wouldn't exist.
No Christopher, sorry, you're wrong again.
Economics is not the only area where we agree with Republicans.
We agree with Republicans on 90% of the civil liberties agenda:
Seat Belt laws, Helmet laws, Free Speech, anti-Affirmative Action, anti-Sharia Law, Casino gambling, Trans Fats, and halfway on Marijuana legalization, ect...
About the only possible area where many libertarians disagree with Republicans on in regards to civil liberties is abortion.
And I'm sorry, but to me, Seat Belt laws are a far, far, far more important issue than abortion. I have no kids. But I do own a vehicle. And the government has no right to tell me I have to wear a seat belt.
THANK YOU REPUBLICANS FOR OPPOSING SEAT BELT LAWS.
Right Guy, I'll take a RINO like Olympia Snowe or Susan Collins over a Democrat ANY FRIGGIN DAY OF THE WEEK!!!!!
Look at Olympia's voting record - it's not too bad, 45 to 50% NTU usually. For Maine, you can expect any better.
Olympia if she was a Democrat would be considered an "extremist Blue Dog."
Lindsay Graham? Say what you want about the bastard, but HE SERVES HIS NATION IN UNIFORM!!! He's one of a tiny handful of currently serving Military members in Congress, and for that he gets my utmost respect.
RINO = Mostly sucky Republican, but 1,000 times better than any Democrat (save maybe Walt Minnick of Idaho.)
Bottom line:
The very worst of the worst Republicans are better than virtually any Democrat, any day of the week.
Again, THE DEMOCRAT PARTY IS PURE AND UTTER EVIL. EVERY SINGLE DEMOCRAT IS A FASCIST/SOCIALIST (save about two or three exceptions.)
They are the Enemy of all Libertarians.
Christopher, you must also answer:
How is it that every single Libertarian Presidential candidate since 1972 was a Republican, or is now a Republican (Hospers, MacBride, Clark, Bergland, Paul, Marrou, Badnarik, Barr - not Harry Browne.)
How is it that all 11 Libertarians ever elected to State Legislatures in the United States "caucused" with Republicans once in office?
The Libertarian Party = Republican Party in the extreme.
Two Words:
Zell Miller.
3 Words.
Not in office.
I know chuck, but once in awhile we get a good democrat, no? Eric acted as if they never have existed.
Eric,
I think we'll just have to disagree on this issue. We appear to have different ways of visualizing the world.
My issue, as I have stated already here, and in our separate emails, but you seem steadfastly to ignore, has nothing to do with Republicans (or Democrats) per se, but with most of our Republican and Democrat politicians, and the problems inherent in our "two-party" system.
There are very few Republican politicians on the national stage who I trust implicitly. Ron Paul is one great exception, and he routinely faults his own Republican Party in exactly the same manner that I have done here. I will admit that I can think of no Democratic politician on the national stage who I trust implicitly, if that helps you out at all, but there are a few that I respect for their independence and out-of-the-box thinking.
Of the prominent Libertarians I have met, heard speak personally, or whose articles and books I have read, I have heard the same concerns regarding the failure of the "two-party" system, and the failure of the national leadership of both parties. In my opinion, this is not an essential Libertarian view, but it is much more common a view than Democrats are utterly evil and Republicans are essentially always good.
I'm not looking to pick a fight. You are entitled to your views, and I respect your right to have them, even if I don't share all of them.
Finally, from a purely pragmatic point of view, the only way to win elections and/or hope to influence policy is to reach the vast majority of Americans who live at our political center. Some of these are registered Democrats who occasionally vote Republican, some are registered Republicans who occasionally vote Democratic, and many are declared independents who may vote either way in any given direction. To vilify all Democrats is to vastly limit your appeal to roughly half of the population. It seems a bad strategy to me.
Yet Chris, it's alright to vilify nearly half the voting population with people on the right? In MSM, right wing people are vilified regularly. Just pick an issue: Guns, welfare, abortion, school choice. You are right though about demographics. 40% are left, about 40% are right and theres 20% mush in the middle idiots that decide every election. Even with the American Revolution, the distribution for it's support was similar. We were lucky we won.
I am certainly not defending the MSM! Other than Fox, most are unabashedly left-leaning; of that there is no doubt! I find Fox reasonably true to it's "fair and balanced" mantra, although with a general lean to the right. Glen Beck, who does some excellent shows and has written two very good books I have read, is one of those "right-wingers" the left loves to hate.
But, this is exactly my point regarding the failure of our "two-party" system (aggravated by both ends of the MSM political spectrum)! The polarization in real-life America is much less dramatic that what we see, hear or read in the media, at least where I live.
If we hope to make this country in any way better, and drive this cart away from the economic abyss at which it is headed, we must find areas for common ground. We cannot accomplish that goal simply with ideological rhetoric.
For those with a conspiratorial mind (I tend to shy away from such matters, but to each his or her own), some feel that our government is actually run by the banking elite, and that they are thrilled with our partisan bickering, as it keeps us citizens from looking behind the curtain and seeing who is really pulling the levers. In any case, we certainly don't do our country, or ourselves, any real favors by bickering among ourselves, or with our perceived opposites.
I choose not to engage in such a manner. I think it is our political system that is faulty, fueled in large part by main stream media, and finding fertile ground among Americans that are generally woefully uninformed and/or apathetic. My goal is to educate those that I can, and try to behave better than others who might chose to attack me or my beliefs.
Post a Comment