From: rab@well.sf.ca.us (Bob Bickford)
Subject: Re: Libertarian candidate on Larry King Live
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 02:18:31 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.122121.28781@linus.mitre.org>,
 jmeritt@rod.mitre.org (Jim Meritt) writes:
>Each election I take a look at what Libertarians say about libertarians.
>Usually this takes the form of reviewing the party platform and perusing
>their press releases, but monday the Libertarian Party candidate for
>President was on Larry King Live.
>
>After giving a discussion on anti-quota legislation and such, using
>attendance on Larry's show and access to restraunts as examples, he told a
>caller that the party was looking into legal methods to force the
>presidential debate committees to have him attend the debates.  Apparently
>the minor detail that he would be using exactly the same US legal system
>for exactly the same reason (to force someone to accept someone that they
>did not invite) didn't bother him in the slightest. (and as for the
>argument that this is just working with the system that exists, when
>precisely that was suggested by a caller he said that would be like
>expecting jews to work with the nazis.  Apparently he doesn't even SEE that
>is what he is doing.)

Amazing what a little deliberate misrepresentation will do.

Firstly, Andre *did* say that the Party "is looking into it".  He did
*not* say "We are suing them."  And in fact, the national party issued
a press release that said we have absolutely no intention of filing
such a lawsuit; I agree that Andre should have said this (assuming he
had been informed at that point).  To the extent that the Commission
is not actually an independent body and is controlled by the two major
parties, there might be some basis for a public-interest lawsuit, and
I rather suspect that Andre didn't want to rule that out completely
until he'd had a chance to study the issue further.  But as I say, the
official word is that the Party will *NOT* be filing any such lawsuit,
nor will they be joining in the one being filed by Fulani et.al.  (No,
she's not on 50 ballots, but she filed one anyway -- I don't know why.)

As for the comment about the Jews and the Nazis, that was in response
to a caller who suggested working _within the two older parties_.  A
big difference, and nothing to do with the other subject you connect
it with.  Andre quite properly rejected the idea as hypocritical and
impractical.

>After giving a review of the top three presidential candidates,
>spearheading his ranting ^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h discussion of one by what the
>french think of him and what THEY call him, he gave a caller a discussion
>on the worth of independent and free thinking, not bothered by his
>immediately previous argument using pleading from authority and that we
>should somehow be influenced by how the europeans view the US governmental
>system.

An interesting point, although he quite clearly said "Portugal" which
was not in the least French the last time I looked.  (The candidate in
question was Perot, who has been described in the foreign press as "an
American Mussolini".)  I didn't find his citing of this interesting
little fact to be an argument from authority, but I can see how you
might have construed it that way.  [For those who didn't see it,
Marrou referred to Perot as a fascist socialist and Larry King asked
him "based on what" which Marrou answered with "based on his stands"
but in more detail, and with references to how he ran his business.
The Portugal comment was basically a sound-bite throw-away.]

>After giving Larry an extensive review of the value of a zero federal tax
>rate, he said that HE would have immediately called in the (mystically
>funded?) federal military troops for disaster relier (when directly asked
>about Hurricane Andrew)

You really weren't paying attention, were you?  Of course, neither was
one woman who called and asked how the government would be funded with
no taxes: Marrou carefully pointed out that he was targeting the
personal income tax, which is 37% of federal revenues, and that
therefore there would be plenty of money left to run the government if
we use the total budget figures of 1987 (which was about 35% lower
than our current budget).  This is the most gradualist position that I
can recall a Libertarian candidate taking: abolish the biggest and
most hated tax first, and then work on the rest.  Meanwhile we don't
have a precisely libertarian government, but it's a damned sight
better!!

Also, he did **NOT** say that the troops would be used for "disaster
relief"; he said they'd be used to prevent looting.

>He made extensive claims that the only political difference between HIS
>candidacy and that of Perot was that Perot had money.  I must have missed
>when the petitions got him personally on the presidential ballot on all 50
>states.

Perot spent many millions of dollars (I have seen the number $16
Million!) and hired highly-paid signature gatherers; the LP effort was
all funded by small individual contributions, cost about $400,000 in
total, and was almost totally volunteer.  There is simply no
comparison: Perot's campaign was a big-money effort from start to
finish, while the LP's has been grassroots all the way.

>If this is an example of their best, it is no wonder that after decades the
>libertarian party is still a joke.  In my opinion, the disconnect from the
>facts (included those presented by the candidate himself to support his
>posturing) and the internal inconsistencies exhibited indicates that the
>libertarian party would do for government what creationism does for
>science.  And in almost the same way.

It's so nice to hear from a person who has carefully studied the
positions and the issues with an open mind, not coming to the table
with a pre-formed agenda or bias, and who is willing to openly and
honestly discuss our actual positions as opposed to the vicious
distortions, out-of-context quotes, and deliberate misrepresentations
that so many others use.  Thanks for your input.

>
>-- James W. Meritt:  m23364@mwunix.mitre.org - or - jmeritt@rod.mitre.org
>The opinions above are mine.  If anyone else wants to share them, fine.
>They may say so if they wish. The facts "belong" to noone and simply are.

--
  Robert Bickford        /-------------------------------------\
  rab@well.sf.ca.us      | Don't Blame Me: I Voted Libertarian |
                         \-------------------------------------/
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:52338 alt.politics.elections:17248 talk.abortion:42970