Roy Moore for Governor?

"[I]t could just cement Alabama's claim to the title of most insane American state..."

Never be too quick to write off ("right off"?) Kansas.

If David Duke could get elected to the Louisiana legeslature, then surely Moore could win the Alabama governorship.

Should be interesting if he runs. Even more interesting if he wins.

Dave S wrote: "If David Duke could get elected to the Louisiana legislature, then surely Moore could win the Alabama governorship." Well, not quite parallel examples. Recall that the Hon. [?] Rep. Duke did run for Governor of Louisiana, and he made the run off, pitting him against the Hon. [?] H. Edwin Edwards [subsequently a guest of the public in a federal prison in Texas] and Duke lost. It was not a close race. It lives in the memory of all Louisianians who were there for it as the the race that produced a pro-Edwards bumper sticker reading: "Vote for the crook. It's important!"
Wonder what a Moore race might contribute to the politcal culture....

True, Edwards reaped the benefit of running against the even more odious Duke, who only had some early success thanks to people protesing their crappy selection of candidates and voting for Duke to get some attention. When a reporter asked Edwards what he needed to do to beat Duke, he said, "Stay alive".

Duke later claimed a moral victory (to chose an ironic phrase) by saying he won 55% of the white vote.

I had suspected that either governor or US senator was his intention all along.

Don't forget, judges are elected in Alabama. His intent with the Cecil B. DeMille style 10 commandments postings were clearly part of a plan for higher elective office.

Three cheers for Roy Moore! I hope he wins and that it splits the less-government libertarian wing of the GOP from the theocrats. Then I may finally have mainstream candidates worth voting for.

Jason, I hate to break the news to you, but most self-described "libertarians" made peace with the religious right some time ago. A column by Cathy Young a few weeks ago published in the Boston Globe described the issue. Young is also a columnist and editor in Reason Magazine, a self-described "libertarian" publication. I don't know whether the column is on-line (for free) at the Reason web site (it won't be for free at the Globe web site)

To paraphrase, the religious right has no problem with the "gun" issue, which seems to be the primary issue with self-described libertarians. (You should listen to Carla Howell's ads here in Massachusetts when she's running for something. It's "Annie get your gun" all the time." Howell is the Libertarian party candidate in Massachusetts for everything.)

On the other hand, Young's column made it fairly clear that the primary issue for her brand of libertarianism isn't freedom, it's lower taxes. And the religious right hierarchy generally agrees with them on that. Um, OK, but who is going to pay the bills?

Jason, the libertarians and the religious right made peace with each other a long time ago. And, just to let you know, neither faction gives a tinker's damn about gay people.

raj, you have a very annoying habit of generalizing about "self-described libertarians", as though we all had exactly the same thoughts about everything. It's all the more annoying because when you do so, you're usually talking directly TO a "self-described libertarian" who doesn't take the position you claim that group takes. I'm a "self-described libertarian" and I have obviously not made any such peace with the religious right and I just as obviously do give a damn about gay people and gay rights. The very person you addressed this to would certainly qualify as well, and so would many other self-described libertarians who comment here, most obviously Sandefur and Rowe. Pointing out that there are other self-described libertarians who take a contrary position does not make our positions, or us, non-existent or irrelevant. It's time to reduce the size of that brush you're painting us all with.

Raj, if what you said was not true, that some libertarians had made peace with the religious right, then Jason's point, that he is hoping for a split, could never happen. They have to be aligned in the first place to split. I hate to break the news to you.

raj, you have a very annoying habit of generalizing about "self-described libertarians", as though we all had exactly the same thoughts about everything.

No, Ed, I comment here about what is posted here. And I use the term "self-described libertarians" because I have posted on a number of message boards over the last decade or so regarding comments from people who called themselves libertarian, but whose libertarianism was nothing that I would have considered to be libertarian. What is libertarian? I seriously don't know.

I'll give you an example. A number of years ago, I was something of a libertarian, in the Libertarian Party sense. I liked the Libertarian Party, except that, here in Massachusetts, they would run a candidate (Carla Howell) for everything. Her campaigns would start out "small government is beautiful" but would inevitably end up sounding like "Annie get your gun." What happened to the "small government is beautiful" them? Well apparently nobody wanted small government, but people want their guns. Or at least the Libertarian Party believed so. After a number of campaigns, it became--silly

At about the same time, the IndeGayForum web site had very active a message board. One Justin Raimondo--currently of antiwar.com fame--posted a link to a draft of an article that he had written for the American Enterprise Institute that was basically a diatribe against same sex marriage. He was a gay man living in San Francisco. I won't go into details as to why (they came out during the discussion) but as the discussion continued, I mentioned that I liked the Libertarian Party's brand of libertarianism. (I still do, by the way.) Oh, he said, that is "left-wing" libertarianism. Raimondo said that he was a "Murray Rothbard" libertarian who adhered to a "natural law" philosophy of what he called "right-wing" libertarianism, something of a "right" libertarian. Natural law libertarian? Give me a break. I won't go into details about how the discussion progressed, but it was hilarious.

Left libertarian? Right libertarian? What is libertarianism? I don't know. That's why I use the term "self-described libertarian". Do I mean it in a disparaging sense? You bet I do.

Raj, the phrase "self-described libertarians" simply means those who describe themselves as libertarians. When you post comments here, you're talking to several people who describe themselves as libertarians. So when you say, "I hate to break it to you, but self-described libertarians don't give a damn about gay people" - and you're talking to self-described libertarians who clearly do care about gay people, or who ARE gay people - is it not obvious why that's going to be seen as presumptuous and insulting? The fact that you have dealt with self-described libertarians who were hypocrites or idiots in the past does not mean that everyone who so describes themselves thinks the way they do. It's like Alan Keyes saying that gays are hedonists. It's offensive. But it's even more offensive if he's talking to gays who are not hedonists (and some are, of course).
The vast majority of the time, I enjoy your comments here very much. You add a lot to the conversation. But when you start telling self-described libertarians what self-described libertarians believe, it comes off quite badly.

Carla Howell, and her partner Michael Cloud, are another pair of those notorious "friends of mine." Carla has spent a lot of time on the gun issue because it IS a core Libertarian issue, but she has spent a lot of time on other issues too, like opposition to the drug war. As for the "small government theme" I would simply point out that Carla and Michael put an initiative on the ballot to repeal the Massachussets state income tax, and campainged strongly on all the state spending that could be cut to make room for this tax repeal. This measure shocked everyone by getting 47% of the vote. It seems to me, if you look at the whole record, that Carla and Michael have been consistent Libertarians, and fairly effective ones too. I also happen to know that they care a hell of a lot about the fate of gay people in this country. One of Michael's closest friends and partners was John Dettinger, a gay writer for "Playboy" who died of AIDS in the 90s. And Carla comes from a fine old liberal Mass. family. I think they would both be very shocked to learn that they don't care about gay people. Finally, Carla has run for exactly two offices (Governor and Senator), with all of the other slots being filled by other Libertarians. This hardly amounts to her running for everything. (Forgive the typos and spelling -- pressed for time this morning).

But when you start telling self-described libertarians what self-described libertarians believe, it comes off quite badly.

Ed, I apologize. When I refer to commentaries by "self described liberatarians," I am referring what their commentaries come across to me. I am submitting an opinion, which, I had believed, was one purpose of comments on blogs. Sometimes the opinion is supported by evidence. Sometimes the opinion is supported by inference from evidence that I may--or may not--have posted. Sometimes the opinion is supported from experience commenting on other message boards. I've been commenting on Internet message boards--mostly conservative/libertarian ones-for at least a decade.

Perry, It was sincerely not my point to suggest that the MA Libertarian party was uninterested in equal rights for gay people. They are. Several years ago, the MA LP proposed that MA state government get out of the marriage business. That proposal wasn't going to go anywhere, but at least they tried.

Regarding Carla Howell, my point was not intended to denigrate her, it was to denigrate her campaign strategy. (And I was exaggerating a bit) I live in MA. I know the offices for which she ran. If memory serves, she out-polled the Republican candidate when she ran against Ted Kennedy. in the last senatorial election. I don't know how she did in the last gubernatorial election. But I had noticed: when she ran, she started out with a "small government is beautiful" theme and ended up with an "Annie get your gun" theme. That was my point. I live in MA. I hear the ads.

I'll put off responding on the MA state income tax for another day. I'd like to get rid of the property tax. Our property tax on our US$2million property in Germany is on the order of US$250.00. Our property tax on our US$500,000 property in the suburb of Bahston is US$6000. per year. In the US, you're renting your house from the government.

Thanks for your response raj. You are no doubt correct that the advertising was slanted toward the gun issue (I know I heard all the ads at the time but no longer remember), probably for technical, tactical reasons relating to fundraising. I know one of their great frustrations was getting media coverage for their tax initiative. When you're a Libertarian candidate you are often forced to channel your message to whatever issue can attract funding, as opposed to the issue you care about most, or that is most likely to win votes. The rules are so rigged against minority opinions and parties that it is almost impossible to accomplish anything. That's why I've moved in other directions.

Perry, I sympathize with your issue, but I'll merely point out that Carla Howell didn't have much of a problem getting on the ballot in MA. I actually voted for her, in her campaign against Kennedy. Of course, she had no chance of defeating him, but a protest vote is a protest vote.

We could discuss the tax issue at length, but I'll merely point out that the bills have to be paid somehow. How are they to be paid? Income tax? Excise tax? Property tax? Estate tax? Borrowing? Reality check: the bills have to be paid. It appears that the vast majority of the American people--including those living not just in Massachusetts but also in Mississippi--want their government programs. The bills have to be paid for in some way. I wouldn't mind the borrowing--we don't have kids who would have to pay off our debt, and we have an apartment in a suburb of Munich (Germany). But my brother does have kids, and I seriously don't want to burden them with the profligacy of my generation.