Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 25 Jul 1992 01:40:20 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      libertarians

Hi all:

Maybe somebody else got to this first (I haven't read all the mail
yet tonight), but I just had to send this out.  Tonight I saw a press
conference by Andre Marrou (and I guess the first thing I should
mention is that I thought it was about a million times more interesting
and better handled than the one I suffered through today from Presidential
Spokesfish Marlin).  Several things he said intrigued me.  He said they
are working with people from both the Perot and the Buchanan factions,
and that their phones are ringing off the hook.  He also said that he
has qualified for both the presidential debates and secret service protection
(I don't know what is required for them, though.)  And that he has qualififed
to be in the presidential debates, but there is a pre-condition that the
participants accept matching funds, which the Libertarian party refuses to
do.  He talked about government and finance, and he talked in specifics.
I liked what he had to say.
   Now before y'all jump all over me about the libertarian position on
abortion, I have to say that it seems to me that if the government can
be transformed into a more strictly constitutional institution, I would
have no problem with the libertarian position on abortion.  Seems to me
that what they advocate is *neutrality* on social issues such as abortion,
which I would support, given that government is to be a strictly secular
pursuit.  It is my understanding that such would leave the question to
the states and the people, and would also leave plenty of room for dissent.
Thus, people such as Operation Rescue demonstrators would not be made to
suffer unconstitutional treatment because of the content of their protest;
they would be treated as "protesters," equal to those who protest the
South African embassy.  If we could get some clearheaded neutrality on
the part of the federal government, I think that we might be able to get
back to limited, less intrusive, less expensive government.  In essence,
I gues what I'm saying is that at the moment I'm wondering whether it
might not be preferable to have a President that will run the *United
States* and not meddle in the domain of the states, rather than one
who has specific political positions on social issues and will do
whatever it takes to ram those positions into the law, or one that
has a specific political position and is hesitant to do so.  I would
rather have someone in the White House that says, "look, social issues
are *your* problem, not mine.  My problem is running the government.
If you want an ideologue, go live in some other country.  I've got
an economy to fix."
   Anyway, I was just rather impressed with Marrou, especially with
the perseverance of the Libertarian Party in the face of a media that
has totally ignored it.  (Marrou did win Dixville Notch, after all,
and he mentioned that there were 50-some candidates in both parties
running in New Hampshire, and he beat all of them except Bush and
Clinton (I think--whoever it was who won the Dem primary there.)
He says he'll submit a surplus budget to Congress, whether or not
there is a balanced budget amendment; one would have thought such
a statement would merit at least as much attention as Ross Perot
telling Larry King he'd run for President.
   So, I'm just wondering if anybody else saw this and what they
thought.  Does anybody out there know what Marrou did in Alaska
to get the income tax repealed?  Did he have to kill somebody?
(that might not look too good.)  Just some random thoughts.

                                      --Missy Justice

Almost forgot:  I also saw a State Department briefing which began with
the following exchange:
   STATE:  Thank you for your patience.  I have no official information
           to report, but I will answer your questions.
   REPORTER:  Do you have anything new to tell us about the situation in
           Iraq?  [which, by the way, I thought was an incredibly stupid
           question, given the statement preceding it.  What a fool *I*
           was!]
   STATE:  Yes (at this point he opened a book and began reading what
           sure sounded like an official statement)...

What's going on here?  Is this completely ridiculous, or is it just me?
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU