Icymudpuppy
Member
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2009
- Messages
- 4,497
Hello,
I've floated this idea a few times on here, and not gotten much response, but my local area has very few qualified and capable libertarian minded people willing to run.
First, WA is a top two state. There is no party registration. All candidates run against one another in the primary, and the top two vote getters proceed to the general election. This sometimes results in two R's running against one another in the General, or two D's, etc.
My local area is very heavily Republican. Most are both fiscally conservative, and socially conservative, although the Fiscally conservative, socially liberal group is also fairly heavily represented even inside the local R party but they don't get much attention. In most local elections for State Reps, Senators, County offices, etc, the Democrat party doesn't even field a candidate. Still, about 30% consistently vote Democrat in statewide elections. Another 40% are the social conservative voters who talk a good game about fiscal conservatism, but rarely deliver, and the last 30% are various independents who usually end up voting for R's because the really do want fiscal conservativism. For those of you familiar with WA, you may have heard of Tim Eyman who regularly pushes at least 1 fiscally conservative initiative every year. Limiting taxes, restricting the state gov from spending, etc. These initiatives can usually expect 90% support from my local area.
I think this creates an excellent opportunity for a third party candidate to run as fiscally conservative, and socially tolerant.
I am keeping my eye open for winnable elections. In May, the Online registration posts the positions open for election and who has filed, and what party they prefer. I am looking for local county and state representative races where the race is not contended by one of the two major parties, and it's a job that can actually affect policy. Thus, things like Clerk, Assessor, Coroner, Auditer, etc are not races I'm interested in.
Of course, I can expect debates for things like Sheriff, Commissioner, State Rep, State Senator, etc.
To prepare for those debates, I should start refining my talking points now.
Even though it is way out of our hands at this relatively local level, I know that the Pro-life crowd is very vocal and very active in this area. They will press me for my opinion on Abortion. At the same time, since my election will hinge on not alienating the 30% Democrat voter, I need to tread these waters carefully.
As a NAP Voluntaryist, I have philosophized about as much as I can on the matter, and this is where I am now. When asked the question this is how I intend to answer:
"I oppose late term abortions. I also support women's rights to make their own decisions without government interference. However, I also respect the right of all humans to life protected from the aggression of others. The question then becomes, at what point is a fetus considered a person with their own inalienable rights? The law at this time is unclear. Currently, if a woman loses a pregnancy during an assault, the attacker can be charged with murder. On the other hand, here in WA state, abortion is legal on demand, even as late as after the mother's water breaks. In the first case, the child must have a right to life, or how can their termination be murder? In the second case, the child must have no right to life, or the doctor and mother would be charged with murder. I propose a compromise. I support legislation for the definition of life beginning at the point where the child is capable of survival outside the mother's womb based on the earliest known surviving premature birth. The current record for earliest surviving Pre-me is 21 weeks and 5 days. Those concerned with a woman's right to choose, the woman has 152 days to make a decision, which should be more than enough time to decide if you want to have a baby, after which the child is a person and shall not be deprived of Life without due process of law as guaranteed to all persons under United State Jurisdiction, aggressive termination of which would be cause for an investigation of murder in criminal court, or wrongful death in civil court."
I appreciate constructive criticism and editing on the content of this position which would go on my campaign website. Also, I would appreciate it boiled down to a 30 second sound bite.
I am not interested in this thread becoming another Abortion debate with the Theocrats, Sola-fides, etc insisting on life at conception etc. I just want help refining this position into a concrete and easily understood political position. Violators will have their posts reported to mods.
Thank you.
-Jack
I've floated this idea a few times on here, and not gotten much response, but my local area has very few qualified and capable libertarian minded people willing to run.
First, WA is a top two state. There is no party registration. All candidates run against one another in the primary, and the top two vote getters proceed to the general election. This sometimes results in two R's running against one another in the General, or two D's, etc.
My local area is very heavily Republican. Most are both fiscally conservative, and socially conservative, although the Fiscally conservative, socially liberal group is also fairly heavily represented even inside the local R party but they don't get much attention. In most local elections for State Reps, Senators, County offices, etc, the Democrat party doesn't even field a candidate. Still, about 30% consistently vote Democrat in statewide elections. Another 40% are the social conservative voters who talk a good game about fiscal conservatism, but rarely deliver, and the last 30% are various independents who usually end up voting for R's because the really do want fiscal conservativism. For those of you familiar with WA, you may have heard of Tim Eyman who regularly pushes at least 1 fiscally conservative initiative every year. Limiting taxes, restricting the state gov from spending, etc. These initiatives can usually expect 90% support from my local area.
I think this creates an excellent opportunity for a third party candidate to run as fiscally conservative, and socially tolerant.
I am keeping my eye open for winnable elections. In May, the Online registration posts the positions open for election and who has filed, and what party they prefer. I am looking for local county and state representative races where the race is not contended by one of the two major parties, and it's a job that can actually affect policy. Thus, things like Clerk, Assessor, Coroner, Auditer, etc are not races I'm interested in.
Of course, I can expect debates for things like Sheriff, Commissioner, State Rep, State Senator, etc.
To prepare for those debates, I should start refining my talking points now.
Even though it is way out of our hands at this relatively local level, I know that the Pro-life crowd is very vocal and very active in this area. They will press me for my opinion on Abortion. At the same time, since my election will hinge on not alienating the 30% Democrat voter, I need to tread these waters carefully.
As a NAP Voluntaryist, I have philosophized about as much as I can on the matter, and this is where I am now. When asked the question this is how I intend to answer:
"I oppose late term abortions. I also support women's rights to make their own decisions without government interference. However, I also respect the right of all humans to life protected from the aggression of others. The question then becomes, at what point is a fetus considered a person with their own inalienable rights? The law at this time is unclear. Currently, if a woman loses a pregnancy during an assault, the attacker can be charged with murder. On the other hand, here in WA state, abortion is legal on demand, even as late as after the mother's water breaks. In the first case, the child must have a right to life, or how can their termination be murder? In the second case, the child must have no right to life, or the doctor and mother would be charged with murder. I propose a compromise. I support legislation for the definition of life beginning at the point where the child is capable of survival outside the mother's womb based on the earliest known surviving premature birth. The current record for earliest surviving Pre-me is 21 weeks and 5 days. Those concerned with a woman's right to choose, the woman has 152 days to make a decision, which should be more than enough time to decide if you want to have a baby, after which the child is a person and shall not be deprived of Life without due process of law as guaranteed to all persons under United State Jurisdiction, aggressive termination of which would be cause for an investigation of murder in criminal court, or wrongful death in civil court."
I appreciate constructive criticism and editing on the content of this position which would go on my campaign website. Also, I would appreciate it boiled down to a 30 second sound bite.
I am not interested in this thread becoming another Abortion debate with the Theocrats, Sola-fides, etc insisting on life at conception etc. I just want help refining this position into a concrete and easily understood political position. Violators will have their posts reported to mods.
Thank you.
-Jack
Last edited:
) but good luck nonetheless.
