The Bellingham Herald reports
A perennial Libertarian candidate from Bellingham has announced he will run against U.S. Sen. Maria Cantwell this fall.I've met Bruce a few times. We have mutual friends. He's a great guy. I personally concluded that the best way to implement the small-l libertarian principles most important to me is to elect fiscally responsible Republicans like Mike McGavick. (and yes, McGavick is campaigning against the fiscally irresponsible behavior of both parties in Congress). Those who want to reduce porkbarrel spending and win the war should vote for McGavick. Those whose main complaint with Maria Cantwell is that she voted for the liberation of Iraq should consider voting for Bruce Guthrie.
Bruce Guthrie, 42, will focus his campaign on social issues, including his opposition to the war in Iraq and the USA Patriot Act. Cantwell, D-Wash., supported both.
hat tip: Orbusmax.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at April 11, 2006 10:04 AM | Email ThisYou're silly.
Posted by: Patrick on April 11, 2006 10:31 AMTax cuts are "taking" money away from the government.
Reducing the amount of increase in spending is a spending "cut"
Why wouldn't Democrats thing all votes belong to them? They think everything else does and that it is through their magnanimus compassion and charity that some of it is given back to the people.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on April 11, 2006 10:50 AMDo you think people believe the stuff you spew? Other than your dittoheads, that is?
Posted by: FromPhilly on April 11, 2006 01:14 PMIf you're uncomfortable here, you can always go to the left wing wacko website in Blue Seattle.
It's called Horses'sAss.
Seriously.
McGavick will not get my vote.
Posted by: Husky93 on April 11, 2006 02:06 PMThe Republican Senators wouldn't even remove the cigars from their mouths before falling down laughing.
Maria Cantwell is no friend of libertarians either, but anyone who is willing to support Mike McGavick for libertarian reasons either doesn't understand what being a libertarian is, or doesn't understand the current political situation in Washington.
Posted by: thehim on April 11, 2006 02:54 PMFor those of you concerned I will "take votes from McGavick" I have the following to say:
If you want a timely withdrawal from Iraq, oppose the unconstitutional parts of the USA PATRIOT act, don't care if gays call their unions "marriages", think immigration of hard-working Mexicans is good for America, think doctors should be allowed to prescribe medical marijuana, and oppose "corporate welfare" then I hope you will vote for me.
If, on the other hand, you disagree with many of the above positions, then I encourage you to vote for McGavick.
But there's no reason to vote for Cantwell, now, is there? :)
I see my role as holding incumbents responsible for their votes against our liberty.
Cantwell is vulnerable. Very vulnerable.
Sincerely,
Bruce Guthrie
Libertarian Candidate for US Senate
PS: I'm accepting campaign contributions...
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on April 11, 2006 09:00 PMIf you can poll above 20% by August, then I'll reconsider my assessment of your viability as a candidate, but otherwise you will have stuck a serious blow to the libertarian cause if you help McGavick get re-elected.
Posted by: thehim on April 11, 2006 11:35 PMIt's late...
Posted by: thehim on April 11, 2006 11:40 PM
You two guys are amazing McGavick's campaign
is self destructing right in front of are
eyes and yet you actually think he has a chance
of winning.Well he doesn't His polling numbers
have gotten worse the latest strategic vision
poll have McGavick trailing by double digits
for the first time since they started polling
this race.He has never been closer than 12
points in the rassmussen poll.In fact in the
latest rassmussen poll his negatives have gone
up a little.
Mike McGavick has lost two campaign managers
in less than a year . Thats right Ian Goodhew
has left the campaign today.You notice that
nobody on sound politics or orbusmax for that
matter has even mentioned it.Gee I can't
imagine why.So Guys you have nothing to worry
about.
You shall not steal.
You shall not covet your neighbor's property.
We may not agree with libertarians on issues like abortion, gay marriage, war, drugs, or whatever. But one thing libertarians will do that Republicans and Democrats will not is leave you alone to spend the product of your labor, support or not support causes, and otherwise live your life as you see fit.
And frankly, I don't think all the Iraqis in Iraq are worth the life of one of our GIs. If we need to kill insurgents we have more efficient ways of doing it. If a lot of good Iraqis die in the process, that's very bad, but not as bad, in my opinion, as one good American dying when he or she didn't have to.
Posted by: ken on April 12, 2006 08:17 AM
First of all I have never said everyone else
is wrong.When I thought they were wrong I
said so and thats all.I have never said that
all republicans are idiots because they don't
see it like I do.
I am not secretly wishing disaster for anyone.
As far as McGavick is concerned he has created
his own mess not I.McGavick does not share the
core values of Ronald Reagan and that's the
problem.I am very optimistic about are country.
The republican party in this state has problems
I am hopeful that it can be turned around.
The next time you say something about me you
better be able to back it up.At the very least
have the guts to admit who you are.I wouldn't
be surprised if you are on the McGavick campaign
staff.
I can vote for bigger government with a D by the name.
I can vote for bigger government with an R by the name.
I can vote for a former Black Panther member who himself doesn't bother to vote.
I can vote for someone who I agree with who has no chance of winning.
I can wipe my ass with the ballot and make out my check to the IRS.
I guess I'll be voting for Mr. Guthrie though saving on toilet paper isn't a bad choice either.
Posted by: Tracy on April 12, 2006 12:00 PMI really like the medical marijuana part of the platform though.
Posted by: swatter on April 12, 2006 01:06 PM So you want to know who gets my approval.
Well let see yeah I like Dino Rossi a lot
though I'm a little troubled by some of things
he has done lately.
Dave Reichert is a good man we may not agree
on everything but I support him.Its a shame
Michael Young couldn't do the same for his
brother Steve.
I like Cathy McMorris even more. I think Doug
Roulstone will make a good congressman.So far
Rob McKenna has done a pretty good job running
the attorney generals office. We will see what
happens in the future.
Mr Whiner I call as I see them. I am not about
to support someone just because they have an R
by there name.
I'm not voting for anymore "fiscal conservatives" until I'm shown an example of one that actually exists...one whose name is NOT Ron Paul.
Posted by: Tracy on April 12, 2006 02:51 PMDo we do it so we can say we voted for the winner? No. That's vanity.
Do we vote so we can be "in" with the "in crowd?" No. That's also vanity.
Do we vote to change the outcome of the election?
No. Obviously when there are over 2 million votes cast in a race, your single vote has almost no chance of changing the outcome.
So, why do we vote?
To defend our values. As an act of free speech. We vote so that when we are sitting alone, thinking about our vote, we feel good about ourselves because we know we did the right thing.
If you vote for the lesser of two evils, what you send is a mixed message. Your vote tells the system that you endorse all of the positions of the "partially-evil" candidate. But if there is a candidate you agree with 90% of the time, your vote sends a clear message about your values to the system. Future candidates will be attracted to those positions in order to attract your vote.
So, it doesn't matter if your candidate will likely win or lose. Vote your conscience.
If everyone voted this way, the world would be a much better place, and we would all feel better about ourselves.
If you always do what you've always done, you're always going to get what you've always gotten.
I'm building a viable alternative. The Libertarian Party. It's a long-term struggle. Won't you join me?
Bruce Guthrie
Libertarian Candidate for US Senate
PS: I'm going to stick to the issues I mentioned above. Judge for yourself the effect this will have on the outcome of the race.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on April 12, 2006 03:28 PMWhat are your thoughts on fiscal policy, spending, taxes, budgets?
Posted by: Palouse on April 12, 2006 04:22 PMOf course I believe in the rule of law, but it's obvious that not all laws are good laws. Anyway, I think that the vast majority of illegal aliens are helping our economy and leading peaceful lives. I am in favor of offering them some kind of amnesty. This is a nation of immigrants. Every historical wave of immigrants to this country has been followed by an economic expansion. In addition, the immigrants have added their cultural distinctiveness to the American melting pot. But almost all immigrants are American by ideology. They share the American dream. I think that, in coming to this country, they enrich us all. I think we should increase Mexican immigration quotas.
As far as the fiscal policy issues, I oppose "corporate welfare" in any form, and favor responsible economic policy and deficit reduction.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on April 12, 2006 09:17 PMMaria dont forget your HELMET...
Posted by: Pacific Grove Phlash on April 12, 2006 09:20 PMFromPhilly, now I no's yous rode that little yellow bus to school but didnt yous bus into Philly from Drexel Hill or Merion Station?
Forgetaboutit
Posted by: Joey bag of doughnuts on April 12, 2006 09:32 PMAs to fiscal policy, you say you want to eliminate corporate welfare in any form. Does that include tax incentives and favorable regulatory policy to keep plants and jobs in this country? What about income taxes - what is your opinion on the progressive tax system, would you repeal the recent tax cuts?
Posted by: Palouse on April 13, 2006 08:22 AMCorporate welfare winds up destroying more domestic jobs than it saves. Corporate welfare goes disproportionatley to large businesses which can afford the lobbyists and the campaign contributions/bribes that "buy" them. But the taxes that are the source of these corporate handouts come disproportionately from taxpayers and small business owners. This hurts the economy and costs jobs because 90% of employment in this country is in companies of 50 employees or fewer. Saving 1,000 jobs at Boeing or Intalco can cost many more jobs distributed throughout the economy, but you can't see those as easily. (Read Bastiat on what is seen and what is unseen...) Also, corporate welfare is just morally wrong. It's wrong to tax the people in order to send money to a special interest like for-profit companies. Shouldn't for-profit companies have to stand on their own two feet?
As far as the deficit is concerned, I would focus on spending cuts. We can save many hundreds of billions of dollars by ending the Iraq war, reducing funding for the failed war on drugs, and eliminating corporate welfare.
If you really like immigration restrictions, the Iraq war and corporate welfare, I recommend you vote for McGavick.
Bruce Guthrie
Libertarian Candidate for US Congress
It is estimated that 30% of the California prison population is comprised of people here illegally, so they are not all here to work.
Couldn't agree more on small business, it's the backbone of our country. To his credit, Bush realizes that and has passed legislation specifically targeting small business. However, that does not mean we can rest on our laurels thinking that giant corporations like IBM, GE, etc would never leave if it became to costly to do business here. These companies provide billions of dollars every year to the federal treasury in corporate taxes, matching funds on FICA, unemployment insurance, etc.
"Corporate welfare" is a good buzz word to appeal to the little guy, but in reality most corporations are contributing far more to the pockets of our governments than they what they get in breaks. That doesn't mean all breaks are created equal, and I agree that things like spending $200 million for the Sonics makes no sense.
Posted by: Palouse on April 13, 2006 12:16 PMOoh, does he have magic fairy dust that can make the impossible happen? What war are we talking about winning? There's no "win" available in any of the so-called wars that the US is currently fighting.
War in Iraq? Who's the enemy and where's the front line? At least in Vietnam we had a specific enemy to fight against. Afghanistan is the same situation as Iraq, although at least there we have a couple specific enemies (e.g., Osama bin Laden) to try to take out.
War on Terrorism? There's no specific enemy there either, just a concept, an idea, a method of protest. How do you fight a concept with tanks and guns?
How about something close to home, like the War on Drugs? Another costly failure with no specific enemy.
These so-called wars are all unwinnable. It's all fantasy used to infringe more and more on the liberties of those who represent NO danger to the US, meaning its law-abiding citizens.
If a vote for McGavick is a vote for fairy-tale endings, then I'm definitely not voting for him!
Posted by: S. W. on April 13, 2006 07:10 PMIf everyone voted this way, the world would be a much better place, and we would all feel better about ourselves.
If you always do what you've always done, you're always going to get what you've always gotten.
This is the problem, Bruce. Many of us have always voted for Libertarians instead of Democrats, and now the Republicans are taking away our liberty. As long as YOU keep ignoring the fact that Republicans are AN ACTUAL THREAT to libertarianism, you're always going to get what YOU deserve.
I'm building a viable alternative. The Libertarian Party. It's a long-term struggle. Won't you join me?
I'm absolutely with you. And I hope that a Libertarian Party that operates from fiscal responsibility, focuses on human rights, promotes free societies across the globe, and just about everything else you've mentioned here becomes popular and eventually becomes a mainstream party. But you're doing it the wrong way. For starters, you're operating from an assumption that Maria Cantwell will be as harmful to our civil liberties as Mike McGavick. On a purely theoretical level, this would be true. But within the context of the political makeup of the Senate right now, it's not. It is vital right now for our civil liberties that an opposition party (and I don't care what that party is) takes control of Congress back from Republicans.
If you want to build the libertarian party, there's a smarter way to do it. Recruit libertarian candidates to challenge Republicans in the heavy GOP House of Representative districts (like in Eastern WA) that Democrats just concede right off the bat. Win enough seats nationwide so that neither party can pass legislation that benefits just their party's interests.
What you're doing is assinine, Bruce. And it makes me question whether or not you really care about the things that libertarians believe in, or if you're just a useful tool for the Republicans.
Posted by: thehim on April 14, 2006 12:44 PMStill, the economic question regarding free and open immigration has been long settled.
I live in Tacoma, Washington. We have a free and open immigration/trade border with Seattle. Anyone suggesting that there would be economic benefits to Tacoma by erecting a wall and preventing free and open immigration would be laughed off the stage.
Washington State has a free and open immigration/trade border with Oregon and with Idaho. Anyone suggesting that there would be an ecomomic gain by closing that would be laughed off the stage.
Such open borders have known drawbacks. Drunk drivers can freely immigrate from Idaho to Washington. We don't prevent burglars from entering at the Columbia river bridge. Ted Kazinski could have come to Tacoma unhampered from Montana and so could the Oklahoma bomber, Timothy McVeigh. Still, the economic benefits of free immigration and trade cross-borders is so huge as to easily outweigh these known disadvantages. All that was discovered at least as early as when the Articles of Confederation were junked in favor of the Constitution.
Living in Washington state, the absurdity of INS policy should be obvious. What possible economic theory could lead us to treat borders on the East (Idaho) and South (Oregon) differently than on our North (Canada) and West (Japan/China and far East)? (Hey, at least Kansas treates all four borders the same.) Unless someone can explain how economics differs from compass point to compass point, then the economic argument obviously fails.
Some might concoct reasons why we should keep Spics, Chinks, Wops, Jews, Niggers, and others out. Those arguments are wholly silly and due to parochial prejudice; these arguments should be rejected because people are people no matter where they are and where they are going.
Economic analysis does not change merely because we are looking across the Rio Grande rather than the Columbia.
Posted by: J. on April 25, 2006 05:00 PM