Frazier Glenn Miller, the racist who wants to be a congressman, has been shunned by Democrats and Republicans.
Now the Libertarians respond
to Miller's decision to file under their party's banner:
Allowing a candidate who would put white people on a pedestal over everyone else, does not adhere to libertarian principles ... let alone the principles of decent human living.
There is something troubling in the me-too rush to condemn Miller. If he meets the statutory requirements, why shouldn't
he be allowed to run for Congress? SWMo Libertarian covers this in his post
. Give it a read.
The gist is this:
Miller, and his fellow travelers, do not believe that non-whites/non-Jews/et cetera, have the same rights as he does.
Therefore, he goes against a basic libertarian philosophical tenet: Were he to hold public office, he would deny certain kinds of people the same rights he reserves for non-Jewish white people.
Anyone not up to speed on this man, go to www.whty.org and click the links. The "VNN" chat board shows how they talk amongst themselves. The public face Miller puts on has, behind the mask, the views and opinions of Stormfront.org and David Duke, among others.
The underlying problems are: Do we allow this man to hijack our flag, after being turned down by the R's and D's, simply because he's party-shopping to avoid running as an independent or a write-in? Would he sue all the parties who deny him? Do we run the risk of looking like hypocrites if we turn him down?
In my opinion, no to the last. He is not one of us. We would not use the power of office to deny blacks or Jews or Hispanics the right to live in America; Miller, were he (God forbid) to gain office, WOULD use the power of office to espouse "whites only" legislation.
We retain the right to refuse service.
If the Republicans and Democrats have the right to determine who runs under their party banners, so do we.
Under Missouri law, when the Dems returned Miller's filing fee, they were entitled to do so.
Miller has options, as stated earlier: He can run as a write-in, or he can get the signatures to run as an independent.
Miller has the right to run for public office, but he does not have the right to automatically be accepted by any political party.
And if he chooses to seek retribution beyond lawsuits, he's a fool. But white supremacists aren't exactly known for NOT burning things in peoples' yards, or other acts of violence.
The second link in your last post goes to another, non-related posting.
Thanks for the effort, BTW. I appreciate it, although I hate to give Miller any ammo, but Knappster has expounded on the issue at hand. I think it's important to take the chance of angering these white-power types and exposing them for the cretins they truly are.
Christopher Brown doesn't look like a model democrat either... We going to reject him also?
Is he a racist? Not that that's the only consideration, but how heinous is Brown compared to Miller?
The only reason the Democrats kicked him off the ballot was because they don't have an alternative.
I would bet that's the only reason he filed on that ticket.
If there were a legitimate candidate then it wouldn't be a big deal.
Problem is... there are no candidates.
It's a free country. If you don't want them representing you then vote them off the ballot.
There's already a candidate... Kevin Craig. And Miller will outspend him in a primary.
There's a press release, done and ready. Soon as it lets fly, I'll post a copy on my blog.
There's no question of Miller being "allowed" to run for Congress. He's perfectly free to do so.
He claims to have a political party (the "White Patriot Party"). Why shouldn't he get all his party comrades out to collect petition signatures to put that party on the ballot -- just like the Libertarians did in 1992 -- or run as an independent, collecting signatures only for his own candidacy?
When the Libertarians gathered petition signatures in 1992 (and, for that matter, when the Greens did so in 2000 and 2002), they did so for the purpose of putting candidates who shared their beliefs on the ballot, not for the purpose of allowing Glenn Miller to hijack their efforts.
Personally, as I mention in an article on my own blog, I oppose having "ballot access laws" in the first place. For more than a century, the government didn't even print the ballots -- voters wrote out their own, or took ones printed by their parties of choice (and then the ballots were hand-counted and tabulated, just like they are to this very day in Canada).
It's a shame that the playing field isn't level (i.e. that the Democrats and Republicans get "automatic" ballot access and that third parties and independents have to spend money and effort for the "privilege" of offering an alternative, before they even get to spend money and effort advertising that alternative), but just because it isn't, that doesn't mean that Glenn Miller is entitled to force Democrats, Republicans or Libertarians to provide him with a microphone, a stage, or a ballot line.
"There is something troubling in the me-too rush to condemn Miller. If he meets the statutory requirements, why shouldn't he be allowed to run for Congress?"
Maybe I've missed something, and if I have, please forgive me, but I don't think I see anybody here saying that Miller shouldn't be allowed to run for Congress. The resistance would appear to be from folks who believe he should not be allowed to run on a specific party's ticket, which seems understandable. Let him run under his own goofy little party. It's a free country.
What is it, exactly, that has you so troubled about the widespread condemnation of a racist?
Funny how the contradiction of a Libertarian Party attracts all the "wrong type" of attention grabbers.
If there's ever a good reason to avoid herd politics, I'd have to place "incoherent principles" right at the top of the list.
Look, if ya don't want "bad" people to spoil your club, then ya gotta choose either to not have one, or to let the chips fall where they may.
Or you can try to have it both ways, and look just as ridiculous as any other political herd.
Find the letter that Missouri Democratic Party Director Corey Dillon penned to the Secretary of State here.
The funny thing is that someone parodied two more rejection letters as comments below the original. (1 - 2)
So it's okay to stymie and Politically crush the free flow of ideas when those ideas are heinous to you... or so you claim?
I think forcing young girls to bear children they don't want then kicking mother and child to the curb as soon as the life breaths air is heinous. I think the idea of the suppression of civil liberties for personal gain is heinous. I think taking young men to wage war with then cutting them from the cord when they are used up is heinous. I think the mutilation of our Justice System by bureaucracy and government agencies, judges who don't enforce law, and grub licking lawyers are heinous. I think the racial views expressed by Miller are heinous. I think the Democrat's excuse for not allowing this piece of shit racist on the ballot is heinous.
The only reason the Democrats are trying to block him is because we don't have a candidate on the ballot ourselves. They (Executive Type Democrats) are trying to avoid the embarrassment of him getting a free ride through the primary... which is just about what happened. Why else would he file on that ticket?
He might be a piece of shit raciest but he's certainly not stupid.
The Democrats think they are going to save some face by keep him from "representing" the party in the General but in doing so they violated every premise that we should be standing for. They are also proving to us that we need to stop giving them our money because they are apparently unable to do their job in the first place.
We treat the Libertarians, and other 3rd parties, like shit and attempt to exclude them from the process yet expect them to handle our baggage. A good Democratic Candidate could easily raise more money and get more votes then this piece of shit racist. Unfortunately, the Libertarians are not strong enough to run a real ground campaign. They don't have the resources and they don't have the experience.
We as Democrats do. We could beat him to a bloody pulp in a primary and not lose a bit of face...
We look to lose a little face but the Libertarians look to lose their party.
Nice Democracy we got here... and it's not about race or belief.
It's about control and the complete derailment of our Democratic Process.
Your party turned him down as well. I don't see why you're pooing on us.
Press release is up on my blog.
We have the right to refuse service. We are not obligated to give Miller a soapbox, to run under a flag of convenience. He was no more a Libertarian than he was a Democrat or a Republican.
Besides, by being what he is, Miller would - if he held public office - attempt to use that power to deny rights to blacks, Jews, and just about everyone else.
Thus, it cuts against Libertarian philosophy.
But, hey, laugh now... Miller's threatening lawsuits. Whether he can pull them off is unknown, but his kind loves to make all kinds of trouble.
One more thing:
If we had not taken this action, it would have tainted the MoLP far beyond the current election cycle.
Look up "Martin Lindstedt". He was the racist freak we had to deal with, years ago. We did not need a repeat of that.
"Look, if ya don't want "bad" people to spoil your club, then ya gotta choose either to not have one, or to let the chips fall where they may."
Then that applies to the Reps and Dems as well. Don't try to single us out.
Miller has options, as stated in the press release.
Go here to see some more commentary:
And here to see what these freaks say amongst themselves:
One more tonight, I'm running on steam:
If the LP *had* said yes... what would you be saying on here?
More importantly, what would the average Joe think of the LP?
"Geez, those Libertarians let a racist run! They must AGREE with him!"
Rock in a hard place.* We took the least painful option.
* Musical reference. "Aerosmith" album. Yeah, it's forgettable.
I'm not singling out the Liberterian Party by any means.
I'm singling out the Democratic Executive Leadership for arbitrarily removing a candidate from the ballot just because they didn't have someone to run against him.
The Political Process has been eroded.
The Democrats did it and the Republicans backed them up because the practice suits them. Both of these parties are strong enough to crush the loser in the primary if they have other candidates to beat him with.
Anybody running against this hater on the Democrat or Republican ballot would have an easy "Get Out The Vote Campaign". The energy generated from the Primary would be directly turned into the November Race.
Who really thinks this guy could actually get elected?
I'm not "pooing" on the Liberterians... I'm just saying I don't agree with the decision that the Executive Leadership of the Missouri Democratic Party chose to make.
It's an erosion of our established process which is open the primary and let the voters decide who is going to be on the ballot.
Maybe I'm concerned that someone might not agree with my views and attempt to deny me ballot access...
Ron Davis for Congress!
Chief Wana Dubie for Congress!
Ron Paul for Congress!
Oh, wait, he's already in.
No one is denying Miller's right to run for office. He may run as a write-in candidate, or as an independent. Miller's letter to the editor in today's News and Leader indicates he thinks his only option is as a write-in. Simply not true. He may run as an independent if he gathers enough signatures.
You're arguing any party must accept any person who files under the party banner, no matter what. Where is the logic in that? What purpose does a party serve then?
What I am arguing is very simple.
To file on any parties ticket: "All you need to apply is $50 to $200, proof of residency and a voter registration card. And, perhaps, a campaign slogan." (Running for an office not easy, Published Monday, March 13, 2006 , Springfield News-Leader).
It is up to the Voters who draw a particular parties ballot during the Primary to decide who will represent them on the ballot during the General Election. In the past, the system has worked perfectly. This time the system was about to be exploited by someone who's views are less than desirable. Something apparently three parties have agreed on. I agree as well.
What sends shudders up and down my spine though is that everyone thinks it is "OK" for the Executive Leadership of the Political Parties to have the first say about who will have the opportunity to vie for office. This is a negation of our established process.
If the parties want to decide who is a "member" of the Party then they need to get together and require that people register with a Party when they register to Vote.
Do you honestly think that Midge
Potts is a
Republican? Do you honestly think that Christopher
Brown is a Democrat? I don't.
The fact of the matter is that our system in Missouri allows anybody to file on any ticket that they want. Just as it allows anybody to grab any parties ballot during the primary and vote for whoever they want. Cross voters in primaries get the other parties ballot and vote for the weaker candidate. This is a common practice in Missouri.
The only thing I am saying is that we need to be aware that a new precedent has just been established by Missouri Political Parties and implicitly endorsed by their "members".
If we don't like that people can abuse this system then we need to take steps and change the system; not arbitrarily negate the system when it suits us... even if it suits all of us.
The best way to deal with him was by crushing him in the primary... we didn't have a candidate to do it with so we kicked him out. The Republicans said since the Democrats did it we'll do it to. The Libertarians said since the Republicans and Democrats did it we'll do it to. The Greens said...
Am I glad that he is not going to be "representing" Democrats? You better believe it.
But I can't help but be concerned that the Executive Leadership of all the Parties can now pick and choose which candidates ever see the light of day and justify it because we agreed "it was the right thing to do" in this case.
Unfortunately, I appear to be the only one making the argument...
What's the purpose of the party? Organization...
Post a Comment