I just wanted to express how excited I am about the Libertarian Party's ticket this year. Sure, I'm a partisan Libertarian and prone to voting 'L' regardless on the basis that a weak Libertarian candidate is still more in line with my policy preferences than strong Democrats or Republicans. This year, though, offers a string of strong Libertarians that I am genuinely proud of.
I will get to vote for the following:
Gary Johnson, President
James Gray, Vice President
Andy Horning, US Senate
Chard Reid, US House District 5
Rupert Boneham, Indiana Governor
Brad Klopfenstein, Indiana Lt. Governor
There isn't a one of them I wouldn't like to see in office. All are capable. All have been successful in their endeavors outside of politics. All of them are genuinely interested in building our state and nation, and making it a better place- making it freer, making it more growth friendly, eliminating cronyism. Each of them would do better by Indiana or the country if they were elected than their Democratic or Republican opponents.
I hope your will vote for these good people next Tuesday. I will be proud to do so. Proud!
Showing posts with label Rupert Boneham. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Rupert Boneham. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 31, 2012
Wednesday, April 18, 2012
Policy Vs. Team
This consideration has been a long-running them here at the Kole Hard Facts. I watched throughout the Bush years as Republicans buried their heads in the sand as the size and scope of government expanded with LBJ-like rapidity. I have since been treated to the spectacle of Democrats pretending the wars and civil liberties don't matter and deficit spending is now wonderfully good economics now that Obama is president.
Now comes the Indiana gubernatorial race. I did some google searching for a position on marriage equality for Democrat John Gregg. (I didn't have to google for Pence, thank you.) I couldn't come up with anything at all. His website has a button that says "Issues", but if you go there, you will not find any listed. He's asking what issues are important to you.
But if Gregg is the Blue Dog Democrat I think I know him to be, then he's not going to put this issue at the front of his agenda, even while Mike Pence might. So, while Gregg doesn't say anything about this issue, or any other in fairness, most people who support marriage equality will likely conclude that they have to be against Pence, so Gregg gets the vote.
Here's Libertarian Rupert Boneham's position:
That's as plain spoken as it gets. Doesn't mince words. Doesn't hide. Doesn't hope to win the issue by hoping nobody brings it up.
So, let's see if that creates any real cognitive dissonance. I hope it does. If the issue is important to you, and you want marriage equality, why wouldn't you vote for Rupert?
Enter another common theme of the blog's lifespan: The Wasted Vote Syndrome.
Oh yes, wouldn't want to waste your vote on an unelectable Libertarian. Better to vote for the Lesser of Two Evils, right? Better to defeat Pence, right?
But wait- Gregg is trailing Pence by some 13 percentage points. (See the Lugar-Mourdock poll story and read down.) At this juncture, voting for Gregg is pretty much a wasted vote too.
So- will the GLBT community go with policy or team? You're team guy is giving you nothing right now. Rupert is giving you 100%.
Now comes the Indiana gubernatorial race. I did some google searching for a position on marriage equality for Democrat John Gregg. (I didn't have to google for Pence, thank you.) I couldn't come up with anything at all. His website has a button that says "Issues", but if you go there, you will not find any listed. He's asking what issues are important to you.
But if Gregg is the Blue Dog Democrat I think I know him to be, then he's not going to put this issue at the front of his agenda, even while Mike Pence might. So, while Gregg doesn't say anything about this issue, or any other in fairness, most people who support marriage equality will likely conclude that they have to be against Pence, so Gregg gets the vote.
Here's Libertarian Rupert Boneham's position:
That's as plain spoken as it gets. Doesn't mince words. Doesn't hide. Doesn't hope to win the issue by hoping nobody brings it up.So, let's see if that creates any real cognitive dissonance. I hope it does. If the issue is important to you, and you want marriage equality, why wouldn't you vote for Rupert?
Enter another common theme of the blog's lifespan: The Wasted Vote Syndrome.
Oh yes, wouldn't want to waste your vote on an unelectable Libertarian. Better to vote for the Lesser of Two Evils, right? Better to defeat Pence, right?
But wait- Gregg is trailing Pence by some 13 percentage points. (See the Lugar-Mourdock poll story and read down.) At this juncture, voting for Gregg is pretty much a wasted vote too.
So- will the GLBT community go with policy or team? You're team guy is giving you nothing right now. Rupert is giving you 100%.
Friday, March 09, 2012
Meet-Up With Rupert
I remember my reaction when I first heard that Rupert Boneham had an interest in seeking the Libertarian nomination for Indiana Governor. I thought, "Oh, great. A reality show TV star. We work so hard, so long to be taken seriously, and we'll be cast as a joke party." He had no prior involvement in politics, but he is instantly recognizable by many thanks to his appearances on the show "Survivor".
The thought of the publicity he could bring to the Libertarian Party looked like a plus. People who would otherwise not be checking out the LP now would, and that's great. But what about his policy positions? If you see a tie-dyed tank top on a man everywhere he goes, is it because that's how he's come to brand himself, or is it that he's a bit of a pothead? Does he know anything about libertarian philosophy or policy solutions?
The Hamilton County LP hosted its monthly Meet-Up last night, and Rupert spoke for about 15 minutes. The biggest issue for Rupert? Getting government out of charities. He went on to detail how state and federal agencies have interfered with the business of his charity, Rupert's Kids, draining it of money and time, replacing those things with nothing. He works with troubled youth, with the intention of setting them up with life skills, including vocational trades. He speaks knowingly, and with passion for the kids in his programs. He observed over time that private charity succeeds when it moves kids out of their programs and into the adult workforce. Government charity has the effect of keeping people in the system, and vastly less functional.
Some libertarians may not be as excited to hear him talk about education, where he takes a destinational approach rather than directional. He spoke about eliminating some administration, moving education away from the state and back into local control, eliminating I-Step, and increasing vocational training and life skills training. He doesn't sound like Murray Rothbard, but rather Milton Friedman.
But on the whole, Rupert groks libertarianism far more than I expected at the onset. And, he's a great spokesman in this setting at least, being about 20 people. People in the restaurant kept coming over, and eventually he went over to sit with a table of fans that waited for him to end his presentation to us. People took a real interest in everything he said.
I like to reserve judgment on endorsing candidates until I've seen them in many situations. He's got the interpersonal down. Of course he has TV down. I'd love to see him on a bigger stage, and would love to hear him on the radio with a host that is less than friendly, to see how he performs. After all, the governor's candidates are standard bearers for the parties. They do public debates, and have to hold their own, while putting across a distinct message, and in our case, one that represents libertarian values.
As to the political mechanics, there were a lot of grumbles within libertarian circles several months ago about the idea of Rupert as standard bearer for the LPIN. At the same time, those grumbling haven't stepped forward to run themselves, nor have they recruited a candidate to advance a different platform. I don't know what this represents, whether it's a concession of some sort or laziness. It's disappointing because I really like contested conventions. It's good for the organization to have competing viewpoints make their cases, with the best articulated winning the day. Grumbling and muttering doesn't accomplish anything in particular. The phenomenon of one believing they have a superior outlook and then sandbagging it is most peculiar to me.
The thought of the publicity he could bring to the Libertarian Party looked like a plus. People who would otherwise not be checking out the LP now would, and that's great. But what about his policy positions? If you see a tie-dyed tank top on a man everywhere he goes, is it because that's how he's come to brand himself, or is it that he's a bit of a pothead? Does he know anything about libertarian philosophy or policy solutions?
The Hamilton County LP hosted its monthly Meet-Up last night, and Rupert spoke for about 15 minutes. The biggest issue for Rupert? Getting government out of charities. He went on to detail how state and federal agencies have interfered with the business of his charity, Rupert's Kids, draining it of money and time, replacing those things with nothing. He works with troubled youth, with the intention of setting them up with life skills, including vocational trades. He speaks knowingly, and with passion for the kids in his programs. He observed over time that private charity succeeds when it moves kids out of their programs and into the adult workforce. Government charity has the effect of keeping people in the system, and vastly less functional.
Some libertarians may not be as excited to hear him talk about education, where he takes a destinational approach rather than directional. He spoke about eliminating some administration, moving education away from the state and back into local control, eliminating I-Step, and increasing vocational training and life skills training. He doesn't sound like Murray Rothbard, but rather Milton Friedman.
But on the whole, Rupert groks libertarianism far more than I expected at the onset. And, he's a great spokesman in this setting at least, being about 20 people. People in the restaurant kept coming over, and eventually he went over to sit with a table of fans that waited for him to end his presentation to us. People took a real interest in everything he said.
I like to reserve judgment on endorsing candidates until I've seen them in many situations. He's got the interpersonal down. Of course he has TV down. I'd love to see him on a bigger stage, and would love to hear him on the radio with a host that is less than friendly, to see how he performs. After all, the governor's candidates are standard bearers for the parties. They do public debates, and have to hold their own, while putting across a distinct message, and in our case, one that represents libertarian values.
As to the political mechanics, there were a lot of grumbles within libertarian circles several months ago about the idea of Rupert as standard bearer for the LPIN. At the same time, those grumbling haven't stepped forward to run themselves, nor have they recruited a candidate to advance a different platform. I don't know what this represents, whether it's a concession of some sort or laziness. It's disappointing because I really like contested conventions. It's good for the organization to have competing viewpoints make their cases, with the best articulated winning the day. Grumbling and muttering doesn't accomplish anything in particular. The phenomenon of one believing they have a superior outlook and then sandbagging it is most peculiar to me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)