Skull / Bones

From the Wikipedia article on The “American Vegetarian Party” (ahem):

The American Vegetarian Party was a United States political party formed on July 28, 1947. The party held conventions and nominated candidates for President and Vice-President in several national elections, although they never seriously pursued ballot access or official recognition as a political party by election officials. They ate vegetables all the time.

I suppose that last sentence is technically accurate, but it does feel a little off somehow in a way that I can’t quite qualify or quantify.

I thought about the “American Vegetarian Party”(*) in consideration of the Ron Paul press conference, where he brought together Chuck Baldwin, Bob Barr, Cynthia McKinney, Ralph Nader, and who knows who else, and urged Americans to consider voting for one of them.  There is an equivalent of coming out and urging support for both the Vegetarian Party and the Carnivore Party, or of coming out in full fledged support of the “Libertarian National Socialist Green Party”.  Maybe the collection of parties Paul came out swinging for had some issues of civil liberties that bound them together, but beyond that the parties offer drastically different visages for us all.  But there’s a certain personality type, and to a degree I am one of them or close enough that I understand the effect, that will enthusiastically support Ralph Nader at the same time as supporting Ron Paul — never mind the multitudous contradictions — and, well, take part in the “Ron Paul rEVOLution”ary cities being built.  You just don’t want to shove away the two-party system and see beyond it — in all directions — a connection — willing to vote, sure, but vote for anything other than a “D” and an “R”.  But, if you are like me, it leads to the realm of Tucker Carlson partaking in the “Ron Paul” counter-convention, and having to rush out when Jesse Ventura starts in on 9/11.  And, if you are like everyone paying attention, it leads you to scratch your head when a “Ron Paul / Michael Bloomberg” ticket is floated in whatsitstate a week or two ago.

Incidentally, Ron Paul is on the ballot in Montana.  The state Constitution Party kicked the national ticket of Baldwin off the ballot and chose Paul.  He just might be a player if he wins the state and McCain and Obama fall below 270.  Or, you know, hopefully Paul can swing three electoral votes in a marginal swing state Obama’s direction.  Or, the hordes of Bob Kelleher voters can create a new party-line with which to go with here.

(*) Just one of the ways I am different from you:  it is possible for the “American Vegetarian Party” to pop into my head with the right stimulus.  I suppose you could say the “American Vegetarian Party” was the “Natural Law Party” of a previous era — a ready joke whose punchline was that it actually existed, though the Natural Law Party declared its insolvency in 2004.

Supposed Libertarian “Spoilers” for Democratic Senate candidates, link provided by this Montana based blogger because, spotted because it linked to me:

– U.S. Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada, who won his seat in 1998 when he beat John Ensign by a mere 428 votes, and with less than 48 percent of the vote. The Libertarian candidate, Michael Cloud, got 8,044 votes, and the Natural Law candidate won 2,749 votes.

– Sen. Jon Tester, D-Mont., who won his Senate race in 2006 by beating Republican Conrad Burns by 3,562 votes. Stan Jones, the Libertarian candidate, won 10,377 votes.

It is a little tough to figure out the “Spoiler Effects”.  Libertarian voters are not to automatically transferrable to the Republican party, and a small number will actually gravitate toward a Democrat over a Republican over social issues or issues of divided government.  A certain statistical Noise from people simply casting a vote for someone on the ballot has to be taken into account, and a large number will not be voting for a major party.

I find it a bit curious that he saw fit to mention the Natural Law Party candidate in Nevada, who if not on the ballot I assume votes would drift either to the Libertarian or to the Democratic candidate Reid, which makes that one a little too close for comfort in tabulating the “Spoiler Effect”, just as I suggested I am a little uncomfortable in stating that Jones gave the election to Tester because one could certainly make a Libertarian case for Tester over Burns.   There I just like the idea that the Democratic Senate majority swung based on a man who turned his skin blue as a side-effect of preparing for Y3K.  As for Maria Cantwell, I might as well add, she came in off the coattails of one Ralph Nader, who brought in voters that covered her margin of victory — third party spoilers cancel themselves out.  I would have to know the exact percentage of Johnson’s victory over Thune to provide my estimate.

At least he didn’t suggest Webb came in because of a Libertarian spoiler — the Libertarian margin is way too close to Webb’s size of victory over Mr. Macaca Man.  (Besides which, remember those exit numbers?)

And the Libertarian Party has selected for their presidential candidate… former Republican Congress-critter Bob Barr.

I knew a young college Republican and ultra-conservative whose hero was Bob Barr.  I somehow doubt he is going to vote for Barr.  But, hopefully someone will.  The silly season of the Liberal blogosphere, which has run into the libertarian Reason-oids, have come up with this absurd premonition that Alaska might just go for Obama — which, will happen if, you know, Obama wins 45 states.  (The other two states the silly season is suggesting are Kansas – based on a stray poll — and Mississippi — based on an utter maxing out of the black vote to the tune of 100 percent vote for Obama off of 100 percent of eligible black voters voting — or so it would seem.) Part of the calculus for this absurdity is a chunk of vote for Bob Barr in these odd Libertarian “LEAVE ME ALONE!” out-posts.  We shall see, shan’t we?

I was hoping Stan Jones might barn-storm out as a Favorite son candidate of Montana.  If you scaffow at that, realize that Stan Jones is the most consequential Libertarian of the past decade, or more, for having swung the Senate to the Democrats — more electoral impact than anything Bob Barr has had during his Libertarian Party career.  Jon Tester won his election by a fraction of a percentage point, and Jones won three percent of the vote.  Even if you figure that Tester’s anti-Patriot Act and similar stances makes the margin a little too close for comfort in disrupting the odd calculus which, because I don’t want to think too much, has about half the Libertarian politician vote thrown to the Republican if s/he were absent and the other half just dissipating away as a no-vote, it is still enough to say with fair certaintude that Jones is responsible for Tester’s election.  Stan Jones is a perenial candidate who became known previously because he turned his skin blue because he digested collodial silver in 1999 in preparation for disruptions that the Y2K bug might have in the nation’s supply and transport of various antibiotics.  I suppose you can say that American political history is full of characters such as him.  Take the man who swung gave Alf Landon the position to be the Republican Presidential nominee in 1936 off the basis that he was just about the only Republican to win any election in 1934 — John Romulus Brinkley.  Landon owes his Kansas gubernatorial victories to this man’s votes — which otherwise would have gone to the Democratic candidate.  And for that, Landon could win Maine and Vermont.

In 1918, Dr. Brinkley began to perform operations which he claimed would restore male virility and fertility by implanting the glands of goats in his male patients at a cost of $750 per operation (about $7000 today, adjusted for inflation). He hired a press agent, advertised in newspapers, and used direct mail to promote his procedure to people who wrote asking for information. During his medical career, more than 16,000 people were victims of needless insertion of goat testicles, intended to restore energy and virility levels.

Following one of his crude operations, the body of a patient would typically absorb the goat gonads as foreign matter. The organs were never accepted as part of the body since they were simply placed into the human male testicle sac or the abdomen of women, near the ovaries. Unsurprisingly, in light of his questionable medical training (75% completion at a less-than-reputable medical school), frequency of operating while intoxicated, and less-than sterile operating environments, some patients suffered from infection, and an undetermined number died.

Hm.  Go Bob Barr, regardless.

… Are you ready?  Is America ready?

Surfing the web regarding the news of the passing away of Earl Dodge, six time presidenital candidate for the Prohibition Party — albeit the sixth time you have to consider him a candidate for the weaker schism for the banner of “Prohibition Party” — and a man ready to lead the fight for a seventh time, and I will ask the simple question:

What is the one-liner that comes up almost automatically in the comments section?

Don’t think too hard.  It will come to you.  I know it came to me before seeing any comment, that obvious a response it is.

I find this amusing.  This controversy would not have come about if not for “3rd Party Watch” passing it to where the Constitution Party director could see it.  Whatever else it is, it is more interesting than the current media-hyped fight between Hillary and Obama over David Geffen’s finanical backing, as well as about as significant to the lives of any person I know.  My advice to the people of the Constution Party — ignore Gene Chapman.  Understand, I do not think much of the Constitution Party, but I think one can recgonize a practical jokester when one sees him.  Gene Chapman is either knowingly or unknowingly the equivalent of Ali G, Borat, or Phil Hendrie, or a second rate morning radio zoo prank caller.

I guess he has played his antics with the Libertarian Party — to well enough cheer, and is now, within his domain, attempting a Libertarian — Constitution Party fusion?  If the Constution Party wants him to carry out his charade before them in their domain at their Idaho Convention, as they apparently are, that is their business.

In 2004, I heard a right wing Christian radio show interview with their 2004 presidentital candidate — some guy whose name starts with a “P”, where the host explained to the listener that if the election is fractured enough, he doesn’t even need to get nearly a majority to win — 30 percent of the vote might suffice and this man might just be your next president.  His election returns being a rounding error, he was only 30 percent off from where he needed to be then.

The perils of third partydom is that they end up taking Gene Chapman seriously… to some degree or other.

The “C” stands for “Communist”…

I imagine Ronl Paul to be the Republican 2008 equivalent of the Democratic 2004 Dennis Kucinich. Reportedly, one might walk past Dennis Kucinich’s Portland campaign headquarets and hear an all night burner, Bob Marley and a drum circle, whiffs of marijuana blowing out, nobody really accomplishing anything per se but in the midst of a political cause nonetheless. Picture Ron Paul’s campaign with some Ayn Rand recording
in place of Bob Marley, discussions merging from the tyranny of the United Nations to the War of Southern Aggression and how Lincoln paved the way to continued government consolidation.

The rankers of such thing tend to have Paul as right about 50-50 on the liberal - conservative rankings. This is the necessary limitations of a ranking that would, for instance, toss Paul liberal points for voting against a budget cut on Head-Start, when Paul’s reason for voting ‘no’ is that the program shouldn’t exist in the first place — not prescribed in the Constitution. He’s also as pure an anti-war candidate as you will find anywhere, tossing the additional loop in there that he never has said a good word about the current Republican President.

Can Paul be denied from the debates? He’s not likely to endorse or support the eventual nominee — McCain, Romney, Brownback (wait — do I actually think Brownback might be the nominee? In lieu of anyone else acceptable to your Social Conservative, yes.) I think he’s the obvious choice for the Libertarian Party to pluck right out of the burners of the Republican primary season and show themselves a better profile than possible with anyone else. Mockingly, I say the Libertarian Party could have Paul as their Fusion candidate. Back to the Kucinich comparison, in 2004 John Hagelin, the 2000 and 1996 and probably 1992 Presidential candidate for the now defunct Natural Law Party had Kucinich as the end point for a Democratic — Natural Law fusion ticket. Not going to happen, of course, as Kucinich was never going to be nominated president. (The Natural Law Party loved fusions, such as their 2000 delapidation of the Reform Party.)
Maybe the Republican Party could shove him out of the debates unless he agrees to support the eventual Republican nominee, and not run on any third party ticket. There were 2 elected Democrats shoved out in such a manner in 1992 — a minor city mayor, who did end up in a debate but was then unceremoniously framed out of the AP photo — and Eugene
McCarthy — and Mike McGavick is 2008’s version of McCarthy 1992. (Incidentally, McCarthy in 1992 ran against George Bush the elder’s speech patterns. Go check back and you’ll see!) I’d think, however, the Republican Party would much prefer to frame out Tom Toncredo — and their framing outs bullets are perhaps limited.

Here’s a question. Is it better for Ron Paul to have a speaking slot at the Republican convention or run a campaign as a Libertarian Party candidate? A platform is what Ron Paul’s campaign is about. Ron Paul denies that, but I don’t believe him. I have think about that question for a minute before answering it, because I don’t immediately know the
answer.

Yesterday, at the public library, I read the “Events today” paper next to the Events conference room. Apparently there was something about an introduction to “Transcendental Meditation / Peace” that the public at large could attend.

This is a shadow government. Kind of. There was a political party based around Transcendental Meditation — that old joke of the Natural Law Party. The premise is that to solve the world’s problems, you sit around and do nothing, saying “Oom” a lot. I have my doubts about this approach — our current president seems to have a part of that in his philosophy (without the oom) and I can’t say I like the results. Anyways, when the party dissolved in 2004, the erstwhile leader of the party, John Hagelin, converted the key pieces to a “US Peace Government” — which, I guess, would be the very definition of “Shadow Government” (Definition Number Two in a would-be dictionary) in the sense that it shadows the actual government. Which, I guess is the marker for the word “Peace”.

I did not touch this thing with a ten-foot pole.

Something I note at the library: as per the Dewey decimal system, there’s a large selection of books on the Republican Party at the library. Followed by a large selection of books on the Democratic Party with a decimal .2 degrees apart. The two book selections for this that are worth a gander are obviously published as a set: Grand Old Party : A History of the Republicans and Party of the People : A History of the Democrats. The most interesting parts of the books, apart from noting the differences in how the books end up dividing up the years according to the era and sub-eras of the two partys’ histories, are for the Democratic Party the years in exile between 1920 and 1932 and for the Republicans the years in exile in the decade of the 1930s.

Anyways, the next decimal number has one sole volume. A Reason to Vote by Robert Rot, a book promoting… the Natural Law Party.

I smirk “Wow. A while Decimal point for the Natural Law Party!” But I know better. The Communist Party of America gets a whole tenth of a decimal; the Natural Law Party doesn’t. This is a dirge of third party material, and this is the only book the library has here.

“Just because I bite somebody, it doesn’t make them a vampire,” Sharkey said. “It doesn’t make them evil, and they’re not going to be like — hiss-s-s! — all over the place. I mean, let’s be real here.”

I am not averse to voting for fringe candidates. Heck, I’m struggling wondering why many of the currently elected “public servants” aren’t consigned to the fringes of our political life — my big bugliobo being Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn with his “rampant lesbianism in the bathrooms of Southeast Oklahoma schools”. In the same way I have yet to vote for a Democrat or Republican for president, in the two Portland mayorial primaries I’ve had the privilege of voting in, I have selected Shaun J Fairlee and … Extremo the Clown. Evidentally, Portland elected a “fringe candidate” of sorts for mayor back in the 1980s in Bud Clarke, although… his lack of seriousness was a ruse to throw off the insider candidate, who come election day is said to have said something to the effect of, “I want to vomit.” (His most famous contribution to politics had been this.)

“We’ve got enough screwballs in politics already,” one man said.

“I don’t understand where these people come from, but to each his own,” another said.

For what it is worth, I slyly inserted Jonathon “The Impaler” Sharkey into my “endorsement” list. Whatever that means. But the case of this gubernatorial candidate has arrived at political and religious impasse:

The Princeton School District is requesting that Julie Carpenter be removed from driving or having contact with students. It is our opinion Ms. Carpenter does not serve as a role mode nor is suitable to perform transportation services for the Princeton School District in light of recent media reports of her husband/friend to be a vampire who is running for public office and Ms. Carpenter informing other bus garage employees that she is a witch.

The parents of the good little Christian kids have the chore of explaining how somebody might be a witch, and how somebody might use blood-sucking as a metaphor of what the political establishment does in office. I guess that’s more aggrivating than explaining Janet Jackson’s breast? I don’t know.

As she said, she’s not sucking the children’s blood. Another case of how you cannot acceptably travel outside society’s-definition of acceptable (and frequently odd) belief-systems and behaviour.