Inspired by PDiddie's recent post about which statewide Democrats are worthy of his vote this year, I've been thinking about how I'll be voting in some of the races he doesn't mention: in particular, for Texas Governor, US Senate, and US House.
If you know me or have read this blog, you may know that I despise the US partisan duopoly, also known as the two-headed Corporate Party. In this midterm electoral circus, and with no Green candidates on the ballot, I despise it enough to vote for Libertarians in races where I don't find the Democratic candidate an acceptable alternative—or in safe seats like Sheila Jackson Lee's US House District TX-18, where I live.
Today I decided to look into whether anything egregiously daffy appears on the Issues pages of some Libertarian candidates who will appear on my ballot in November. A glance at the Texas Libertarians' Candidates page, my first visit there since May, reveals instantly that
Governor
Despite some positions with which I disagree, I could envision choosing Mark Tippetts for governor. Democrat Lupe Valdez has all but disappeared from the scene, whilst at the tippy-top of the ticket Beto-Bob has sucked up most of the oxygen. Since I'm on record stipulating that advocating Medicare for All or a Single-Payer health system would be my criterion for whether a candidate gets my vote, this excerpt from Tippetts's website is kind of a deal breaker (emphasis mine):
If you know me or have read this blog, you may know that I despise the US partisan duopoly, also known as the two-headed Corporate Party. In this midterm electoral circus, and with no Green candidates on the ballot, I despise it enough to vote for Libertarians in races where I don't find the Democratic candidate an acceptable alternative—or in safe seats like Sheila Jackson Lee's US House District TX-18, where I live.
Today I decided to look into whether anything egregiously daffy appears on the Issues pages of some Libertarian candidates who will appear on my ballot in November. A glance at the Texas Libertarians' Candidates page, my first visit there since May, reveals instantly that
- it's an HTML clusterfuck in both Chrome and Firefox, and
- not all the candidates white male geeks.
Governor
Despite some positions with which I disagree, I could envision choosing Mark Tippetts for governor. Democrat Lupe Valdez has all but disappeared from the scene, whilst at the tippy-top of the ticket Beto-Bob has sucked up most of the oxygen. Since I'm on record stipulating that advocating Medicare for All or a Single-Payer health system would be my criterion for whether a candidate gets my vote, this excerpt from Tippetts's website is kind of a deal breaker (emphasis mine):
Government should neither provide, control, nor require health care. I do not believe that people have a right to be provided with healthcare at other peoples’ expense.
I sincerely hope that Tippetts does not have an accident or circulatory problems whilst traveling abroad, especially in most of Western Europe. God forbid he should suffer from practically free, high-quality medical care.
Congress
The Libertarian nominees for US Senate and the TX-18 seat don't generate much interest. Why? This is where my fellow alienated Harris County Green Joe McElligott makes a cameo appearance, waving his arms and howling, "You don't even have a platform!"
I'd almost rather see them take those positions that eco-socialists like me find so whack than spew generalities or say practically nothing about what they would do if elected.
Srsly, try to find any real issue positions on Luke Spencer's campaign site or his Facebook page. If you do find any, please add a Comment here. Neal Dikeman, the US Senate nominee, at least has an Issues page, but the closest it gets to specific policy prescriptions is this:
Congress
The Libertarian nominees for US Senate and the TX-18 seat don't generate much interest. Why? This is where my fellow alienated Harris County Green Joe McElligott makes a cameo appearance, waving his arms and howling, "You don't even have a platform!"
I'd almost rather see them take those positions that eco-socialists like me find so whack than spew generalities or say practically nothing about what they would do if elected.
Srsly, try to find any real issue positions on Luke Spencer's campaign site or his Facebook page. If you do find any, please add a Comment here. Neal Dikeman, the US Senate nominee, at least has an Issues page, but the closest it gets to specific policy prescriptions is this:
Zero-base [sic] budgeting on all defense and discretionary spending. 2-year budgets; Put [sic, capital after semicolon] a stop to continuing resolutions and annual cost creep.
I couldn't even copy and paste that excerpt, because the page is done as a big graphic. Dikeman won't win over many visually impaired voters with pages that their screen-reader software can't read to them.
Here's Dikeman's FB page, by the way.
Disclaimer
My purpose in posting this is absolutely not to hate on Libertarians. I count some active Libertarians among my friends. The Libertarian philosophy does overlap that of the Greens in places: Despite some irreconcilable differences on other issues, Greens and Libertarians have collaborated on opposition to foreign military entanglements, the domestic surveillance state, and the Duopoly that makes voting for the lesser evil a sacrament.
In addition, I am perfectly aware—and have lamented aloud—that Green candidates of my acquaintance have constructed similarly weak sites...or none at all. Too many Greens have thrown their hat in the proverbial ring despite not having the combination of money, time, and savvy (or even a friend with Madd Wordpress Skillz) required to put together a robust web presence. This makes it hard for voters to take these candidates even semi-seriously.
If Rachel Maddow's theory were true, that Libertarians are a wholly owned subsidiary of the Koch Brothers, just as right-wingers think lefty activists get weekly paychecks from George Soros, then why can't these Libbies afford better websites?
Here's Dikeman's FB page, by the way.
Disclaimer
My purpose in posting this is absolutely not to hate on Libertarians. I count some active Libertarians among my friends. The Libertarian philosophy does overlap that of the Greens in places: Despite some irreconcilable differences on other issues, Greens and Libertarians have collaborated on opposition to foreign military entanglements, the domestic surveillance state, and the Duopoly that makes voting for the lesser evil a sacrament.
In addition, I am perfectly aware—and have lamented aloud—that Green candidates of my acquaintance have constructed similarly weak sites...or none at all. Too many Greens have thrown their hat in the proverbial ring despite not having the combination of money, time, and savvy (or even a friend with Madd Wordpress Skillz) required to put together a robust web presence. This makes it hard for voters to take these candidates even semi-seriously.
If Rachel Maddow's theory were true, that Libertarians are a wholly owned subsidiary of the Koch Brothers, just as right-wingers think lefty activists get weekly paychecks from George Soros, then why can't these Libbies afford better websites?
RSS Feed