According to this story, the Alaska Libertarian Party has nominated Joe Miller for U.S. Senate. In 2010 he was the Republican nominee for the same seat.
According to this story, the Alaska Libertarian Party has nominated Joe Miller for U.S. Senate. In 2010 he was the Republican nominee for the same seat.
The comments to the story pretty much nail this. Joe Schmoe should have run in the primary, but for some reason didn’t (perhaps because he was considering the CP’s presidential nomination?), and as a Tea Party guy is obviously carpet bagging in the LP here. His statements about lying about computer use are Hillary-esque. Now I’m really glad he stayed away from the CP.
That’s pretty nutty.
Joe Miller is still stumping for Trump, even after being given the Libertarian ballot line. Reading his bio, he’s nuts. WTF is the Alaska Libertarian Party thinking?
Cal–ALP is thinking, “Nominate him and get big votes in November.”
Dumb decision.
Awesome decision. A (mostly) paleolibertarian right-winger as an LP candidate? It’s about time.
Then again, I’m not an LP member, but it’s good to see that not 100% of LP candidates are left-libertarians.
I’m sure Miller was vetted properly. The only issue I would have with him is foreign policy, but I’m assuming he’s at least better than Cruz on that and maybe in the same league even as Rand Paul, which would be relatively close enough.
Miller or his wife – or both- helped the Ron Paul delegates at the tumultuous Alaska 2012 GOP convention IIRC. He gets point for that, meanwhile Weld was stomping for Romney or writing new papers for the CFR.
Maybe the AIP will back Miller too? It would be a good tactical decision – maybe not for them but for third parties in Alaska in general, IMO.
Ok, I may have jumped the gun. He said in his press release that he would want to caucus with the GOP.
That is actually really dumb. How will that help the LP or third parties at all?
http://independentpoliticalreport.com/2016/09/joe-miller-announces-run-against-lisa-murkowski-as-a-libertarian/
Krzysztof – There is no left-libertarian or right-libertarian. There is only libertarian and not-libertarian.
Independents in the US Senate, such as Leiberman and Sanders, caucus with either the Democrats or the Republicans. It’s probably not acceptable in polite society to tell anyone about caucusing with yourself. It would probably take getting at least two members and perhaps three or more for it to make sense for another party to have it’s own caucus.
Shouldn’t he run with the Totalitarian Party, given his stated admiration for the Berlin Wall and neo-nazis like Trump? They could call it the T-Party for short.
Couple the above criticisms with the fact that he backs foreign interventionism, supports the death penalty, is pro-life, and favors keeping marijuana illegal…. The guys is a Paleo-conservative at best (and belongs the Constitution Party)… And in reality is likely a neocon.
AMcCarrick – How can someone be both a Paleo-conservative and a neocon? There are three things on your list that are not CP platform positions.
The very generous rankings at http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Joe_Miller.htm show Miller to be on the far right, and about equal distance from libertarian and totalitarian. On foreign policy he is indeed an interventionist as well.
Jeff Becker… I said at the very least a paleocon but is likely a neocon… I never stated that he’s holding both ideologies simultaneously, but is likely one OR the other. Thus he maybe a paleocon BUT is likely a neocon. And is really a detriment to Libertarians. And what three things? The Constitution Party ins pro-life, Anti-drug legislation and is pro-death penalty. His only balk with them would be the foreign interventionism.
Don’t confuse the Constitution Party’s stated positions with those of 2012 presidential candidate Virgil Goode (who is now campaigning for Trump). The CP clearly points out the Tenth Amendment when it comes to drugs and capital punishment leaving those decisions up to the states. Actually, the 21st Amendment would apply here as well.
Straight from their platform:
“The Constitution Party will uphold the right of states and localities to restrict access to drugs and to enforce such restrictions. We support legislation to stop the flow of illegal drugs into the United States from foreign sources. As a matter of self-defense, retaliatory policies including embargoes, sanctions, and tariffs, should be considered.”
“restrict access to drugs and to enforce such restrictions”… Sounds anti-drug legalization to me. Reading between the lines they’re anti-drug legalization. If they were indifferent it would say “will uphold the right of states and localities to restrict or permit access to drugs and to enforce such statutes free from federal intervention”.
I suppose this makes Lisa Murkowski’s bid for re-election a walk. She has three major opponents now — Miller, the Libertarian candidate; Ray Metcalfe, the “Berniecrat” winner of the Democratic primary, whom the Alaska Democratic Party is not supporting; and independent Margaret Stock, whom the Alaska Democratic Party *is* supporting. There are also a couple of other independents, I think, including one who came in second when he ran for the U.S. Senate on the Green Party against Ted Stevens.
Generally, incumbents triumph with such a fractured opposition.