Janine Hansen, long-time activist in Nevada’s Independent American Party, has a very strong campaign for Assembly in Nevada’s 33rd district. She has been endorsed by some leading figures in the Republican Party. The district is centered on Elko, in northeast Nevada. Last week the Elko daily newspaper featured a front-page story about her campaign. Also see this story in Chuck Muth’s Nevada News and Views. Hansen has both a Democratic and a Republican opponent.
The Independent American Party won two partisan county offices in Nevada in 2008. No minor party has elected anyone to the Nevada legislature since 1914, although on two occasions, Libertarians have exceeded 40% in two-candidate Assembly races in Nevada.
Pingback: 101 Kids Birthday Party Tips | Sharing Recipe With Everyone
I personally hope she wins. It is my understanging she is some relationship to the late Dan Hansen. whom I admired very much.
While I wish her well, I am afraid the IAP (just like the AIP in California) is not going to win many prominent offices in the future until they become a more “populist” party and less of a “me-too” secular conservative,i.e., “GOP echo.”
I personally hope she wins. It is my understanging she is some relationship to the late Dan Hansen. whom I admired very much.
= That was her older brother.
And the IAP is already a ‘populist’ party.
Cody. Thanks for sharing the relationship between Janine Hansen and the late Dan Hansen.
I hope you’re right about the IAP.
But I must ask you these questions, and depending on your answer, this will determine whether the IAP is really a “populist” party or not.
1. Does the IAP support a federal minimum wage law for all workers of at least $10 per hour, with time and half for overtime?
2. Does the IAP support a free college education for all Americans students willing to take advantage of it, regardless of their grades in high school?
3. Does the IAP support some kind of national health care (not Obama Care) but one where insurance companies will NOT be allowed to deny coverage, and doctors and hospital charges will be capped?
I’ll just let you answer those 3 questions first. I think your answers will help me determine if the IAP is a “populist” party or not. I just checked the IAP website, and did not find anything on it which would lead me to beleive it supports the 3 things I listed above. Any reason why not?
Awaiting your answer.
There is “populist” and then there is “Populist”. Your definition sounds more like Populist as in the People’s Party of the late 19th century.
I met her once in 1992. Good Luck In 2010 Janine!!
To Casual Bystander. Whether “populist” or “Populist,” the IAP must take similar positions to the positions on the 3 issues I earlier listed, if it truly wants to be different from both the Democrats and the Republicans. The problem I have found, is that many 3rd partisans – especially IAPers (and AIPers in California) is most are really “closet Republicans.”
So as a option for the IAP (and the California AIP), decide now what kind of party you want to be.
If you want to be a “populist” or a “Populist” party, then start sounding like one. Be “populist” or “Populist” on economic issues, but “constitutionalist” or “Constitutionalist” on foreign issues, for example.
If you want to be an “echo” of the GOP, then work for “fusion” in your respective states so you can “co-nominate” those Republicans who sound like you and at least get something to show for your efforts.
You can’t do both, of course, but if you will do one or the other, you will have some influence in the outcome of the elections. Otherwise, with the rare possible exception of Janine Hanse, the party will soon be in the graveyard of 3rd parties.
Make a decision while you have time. Do it for the late Dan Hansen if for no other reason.
Here is a link to Janine’s website for those who want to donate http://www.janinehansen.com
“1. Does the IAP support a federal minimum wage law for all workers of at least $10 per hour, with time and half for overtime?”
= Many members of the IAP are opposed to raising the minimum wage because it does hurt small businesses and raises the standard of living. The only people in Nevada that want to raise it is the AFL-CIO, which is extremely Left-wing in this state.
However officially, the Party takes no stand on it.
“2. Does the IAP support a free college education for all Americans students willing to take advantage of it, regardless of their grades in high school?”
= The Party takes no stand on it
3. Does the IAP support some kind of national health care (not Obama Care) but one where insurance companies will NOT be allowed to deny coverage, and doctors and hospital charges will be capped?
= The IAP believes in freedom of choice in health care and is deeply opposed to Obamacare.
The 3 items above DOES NOT make a party populist.
Here is there Party’s platform- http://www.iapn.org/newiap/2010platform.html
However the IAP is populist because it is pro-small business and supports economic protectionism, and opposes new taxes and raising current taxes; general Nevadans don’t like taxes or big government, period.
We’re populist in the manner that Pat Buchanan was. The ‘populism’ that you’re talking about dwells on the left side of the spectrum.
If you want to be an “echo” of the GOP, then work for “fusion” in your respective states so you can “co-nominate” those Republicans who sound like you and at least get something to show for your efforts.
= You also forgot that the Nevada GOP has just recently copied some of our stances into their platform, so if you think we’re ‘Republican-lite’, its actually the other way around.
You can’t do both, of course, but if you will do one or the other, you will have some influence in the outcome of the elections. Otherwise, with the rare possible exception of Janine Hanse, the party will soon be in the graveyard of 3rd parties.
= My response to that: ‘F*ck You!’
With Janine in office, we will become like the Minnesota Independence Party & the Maine Green Independent Party; the IAP will grow in the number of elected office-holders in our state.
Cody.
To your response #11, it is heart-warming to know the IAP has a “Christ-like” individual named Cody Quirk speaking for them. With these kinds of “words of endearment,” you’ll win over folks by the thousands!
To your response #10, let me just simply say, it is so obvious the IAP of Nevada is a “closet GOP” party.
Just keep on “mouthing” the Republican line about “freedom of choice in health care,” being “opposed to raising the minimum wage,” and “taking no stand on free college education for America’s students” and next thing you know the people won’t be able to tell the IAP from the GOP.
In fact, just keep taking those kinds of stands, and both parties will in time be extinct – regardless of whether Janine Hansen wins or not.
You people just “don’t get it.” Average working Americans want some type of health care where private profit-motivated insurance companies cannot gouge them via premiums; they want a living wage – not a paltry wage which some small or large businessman says you are only worth; and they want government paid college educational opportunities for their children, just like the rich folks can afford. When you people finally get this through your thick skulls, you just might start winning some elections.
By the way, Patrick Buchanan was not a “populist” or a “Populist.” He was a typical Ronald Reagan Republican who supports big business at the expense of the common people. Buchanan only used the mantle “populist” to deceive the voters.
Real “populists” or “Populists” are/were people like the late Governor/US Senator Huey P. Long of Louisiana, and the late Governor George C. Wallace of Alabama. May they both rest in peace!
And also, “God Bless You,” Cody.
To your response #11, it is heart-warming to know the IAP has a “Christ-like” individual named Cody Quirk speaking for them. With these kinds of “words of endearment,” you’ll win over folks by the thousands!
= My goal is only to wake people up, not win them over. And the IAP continues to grow, and it has nothing to do with our name.
To your response #10, let me just simply say, it is so obvious the IAP of Nevada is a “closet GOP” party.
= No, the Nevada GOP is ‘closet IAP’. They ripped off our platform just recently.
Just keep on “mouthing” the Republican line about “freedom of choice in health care,” being “opposed to raising the minimum wage,” and “taking no stand on free college education for America’s students” and next thing you know the people won’t be able to tell the IAP from the GOP.
= We are anti-interventionist, and anti-UN on our foreign policy, economically protectionist on the economy, and opposed to compromising our constitutional rights- something that the national GOP doesn’t agree with.
You people just “don’t get it.” Average working Americans want some type of health care where private profit-motivated insurance companies cannot gouge them via premiums; they want a living wage – not a paltry wage which some small or large businessman says you are only worth; and they want government paid college educational opportunities for their children, just like the rich folks can afford. When you people finally get this through your thick skulls, you just might start winning some elections.
= Yeah and yet so many of them are OPPOSED to Obamacare and federalizing health-care in general; they may want a health care system that works, but they sure don’t want it socialized; that’s something you don’t get.
General Americans do not like big government like they used to.
By the way, Patrick Buchanan was not a “populist” or a “Populist.” He was a typical Ronald Reagan Republican who supports big business at the expense of the common people. Buchanan only used the mantle “populist” to deceive the voters.
= Yet such views were/are unpopular with the GOP establishment and he did run as a third party candidate before; plus he hasn’t changed his mind about his political and economic views still; he may be a GOP’er, but he has the right type of thinking.
Real “populists” or “Populists” are/were people like the late Governor/US Senator Huey P. Long of Louisiana, and the late Governor George C. Wallace of Alabama. May they both rest in peace!
= Wallace was nothing like Huey Long, the only thing they had in common was their support of state/federal programs to help regular folk, besides that, they were polar opposites. Long was very socialistic in his ideology and fascistic in his behavior; I do not think America would have done so well if he was actually elected President. And Wallace also favored economic protectionism like Buchanan does.
BTW, do you know anything about the infighting between Bill Shearer and the Wallace camp that plagued the AIP during the late 60’s and early 70’s?
Cody: This post is now so dated, I don’t know whether anyone will scroll back this far to read – including you. But I’ll risk it and say, Yes, I do remember the infighting between the late Bill Shearer and Governor Wallace. I recognized the merits of the arguments of both. Wallace did not know, after his lost to Richard Nixon in 1968, what his politial future would be. Many people do not know this, but it is believed Wallace even entertained the thought of moving to Florida and running for the US Senate from this state as either a Democrat or 3rd party.
What Wallace did not want, was for the AIP in California (and elsewhere) to be taken over by “kooks” and “nuts.” He wanted it to remain somewhat “in neutral” until he decided about 1972. The story goes, however, when as Governor of Alabama again, Wallace was the guest of President Nixon aboard Air Force One during a short flight in Alabama. And aboard this flight, in an even shorter meeting between the two, Nixon supposedly told Wallace, if he ran 3rd party in ’72, he would not keep the Justice Department from investigating one of Wallace’s brothers for tax evasion. It is also told, Nixon informed Wallace he had no problem with Wallace running in the Democratic Primaries of ’72 – but not 3rd party. Well, we know the rest of this history.
Bill Shearer wanted the AIP to become a real party, not remain in neutral until Wallace decided what he was going to do. I understood Shearer’s position, but I do know “kooks” and “nuts” do tend to find a place within a new movement. After the almost fatal assassination on Wallace’s life in 1972, his interest in the AIP came to an end. However, many political experts believe had Wallace not gotten shot, and ran 3rd party against Nixon and McGovern in ’72, Wallace would have placed 2nd in popular as well as electoral votes. I tend to agree with this belief.
Lastly, Cody, you need to study your history a little more. Huey Long was NOT a socialist – unless you feel helping poor people obtain a better life is socialism. If this is the real definition of “socialism,” then I guess I’m also a “socialist” by your definition. Just as there are different degrees of “socialism” there are also different degrees of “populism.” George Wallace had more “populism” in his little finger than Buchanan has in his whole body.
Again, Cody, it doesn’t matter if the GOP in Nevada “stole” the IAP platform or whatever. The positions both parties take on the issues of today are not going to win you elections. The GOP may take Congress back in 2010, but after they attempt to dismantle government programs which help the poor, and give even more tax breaks to the rich, it won’t be long before the American voter wakes up again, and the Democrats will control Congress again. The GOP just cannot learn their lesson.
You, like so many “right-wing” 3rd partisans, think everything is in “black and white.” You think one is either a “socialist” or a “capitalist.” You think there is no “middle ground” or alternate political and economic position on issues.
No, most Americans do not want OBAMACARE. But they DO want insurance companies stopped from gouging them via premiums. Stopping unjustified insurance premiums, capping unreasonable medical charges by doctors and hospitals, is NOT socialism. It’s called “common sense” and real “Americanism.” No, they do not want big government, but they don’t mind how big government gets as long as it is fair in taxation, stops waste, and provides services which makes the lifes of all better. You would also be surprised to learn I too am opposed to the United Nations, but I know had we not been “interventionalist” during WWII, Hitler and Japan would have won, and you and I might be attempting to email in German or Japanese.
I think the real truth about you folks in the IAP,is that you are “closet Herbert Hoover Republicans.” Why don’t you just admit it?
Cody: This post is now so dated, I don’t know whether anyone will scroll back this far to read – including you.
= I’m quite persistent.
But I’ll risk it and say, Yes, I do remember the infighting between the late Bill Shearer and Governor Wallace. I recognized the merits of the arguments of both. Wallace did not know, after his lost to Richard Nixon in 1968, what his politial future would be. Many people do not know this, but it is believed Wallace even entertained the thought of moving to Florida and running for the US Senate from this state as either a Democrat or 3rd party.
= I take Bill’s side of the argument; Wallace didn’t want the AIP to become an actual political party; he wanted to control it for his own purposes and to put it back in the closet so he could bring it out whenever he wanted to. In reality, George Wallace wasn’t pro-third party at all; he might have had views that we liked, but he used us like a fine-tuned piano, so we don’t like him much.
Thank God Bill’s side prevailed over Wallace.
What Wallace did not want, was for the AIP in California (and elsewhere) to be taken over by “kooks” and “nuts.” He wanted it to remain somewhat “in neutral” until he decided about 1972.
=Bullsh*t. Bill wanted it to have its own life and freedom and not be Wallace’s lap dog. And at the same time, Bill did keep the nutjobs out.
The story goes, however, when as Governor of Alabama again, Wallace was the guest of President Nixon aboard Air Force One during a short flight in Alabama. And aboard this flight, in an even shorter meeting between the two, Nixon supposedly told Wallace, if he ran 3rd party in ’72, he would not keep the Justice Department from investigating one of Wallace’s brothers for tax evasion. It is also told, Nixon informed Wallace he had no problem with Wallace running in the Democratic Primaries of ’72 – but not 3rd party. Well, we know the rest of this history.
= I wouldn’t be surprised if Nixon played a part in Wallace’s attempted assassination as well.
Bill Shearer wanted the AIP to become a real party, not remain in neutral until Wallace decided what he was going to do. I understood Shearer’s position, but I do know “kooks” and “nuts” do tend to find a place within a new movement. After the almost fatal assassination on Wallace’s life in 1972, his interest in the AIP came to an end. However, many political experts believe had Wallace not gotten shot, and ran 3rd party against Nixon and McGovern in ’72, Wallace would have placed 2nd in popular as well as electoral votes. I tend to agree with this belief.
=Maybe, but I guess that’s for Harry Turtledove to write about.
And the nutjobs didn’t come into the national AIP until Tom Anderson and the anti-populist radical faction in the JBS came in and screwed up everything like Ed Noonan and Seidenberg have done.
At least Bill kept the AIP in California in proper order until his death.
Lastly, Cody, you need to study your history a little more. Huey Long was NOT a socialist – unless you feel helping poor people obtain a better life is socialism.
=AI, get a clue! There’s a difference between ‘socialist’ & ‘socialistic’. Hello?!
But Huey Long’s programs were very socialist oriented, hands down.
If this is the real definition of “socialism,” then I guess I’m also a “socialist” by your definition. Just as there are different degrees of “socialism” there are also different degrees of “populism.” George Wallace had more “populism” in his little finger than Buchanan has in his whole body.
= But at least Buchanan was far more correct on UN membership and foreign policy then Wallace was.
Again, Cody, it doesn’t matter if the GOP in Nevada “stole” the IAP platform or whatever. The positions both parties take on the issues of today are not going to win you elections.
= They will this year, as they did in 2006.
The GOP may take Congress back in 2010, but after they attempt to dismantle government programs which help the poor, and give even more tax breaks to the rich, it won’t be long before the American voter wakes up again, and the Democrats will control Congress again. The GOP just cannot learn their lesson.
= Well, if you think we’ll be in sync with the GOP on dismantling such programs, you’re very wrong.
You, like so many “right-wing” 3rd partisans, think everything is in “black and white.”
= Not really, only a**holes like John Lofton, Angela Wittman, and even IAP’ers that have fallen from grace, such as Chris Hansen, may see in black & white; but I don’t. And as a IAP candidate for the State Senate, besides cracking down on illegal immigration and raising taxes, I’m also for legalizing medicinal marijuana and returning Nevada land back to its people and the various Native American tribes in this state; I am not confined to the box.
You think one is either a “socialist” or a “capitalist.” You think there is no “middle ground” or alternate political and economic position on issues.
= Not really, there’s also “Libertarian” & “Communist”, lol. I consider myself to be a ‘National Capitalist’, however.
No, most Americans do not want OBAMACARE. But they DO want insurance companies stopped from gouging them via premiums. Stopping unjustified insurance premiums, capping unreasonable medical charges by doctors and hospitals, is NOT socialism.
It’s called “common sense” and real “Americanism.” No, they do not want big government, but they don’t mind how big government gets as long as it is fair in taxation, stops waste, and provides services which makes the lifes of all better.
= Don’t we have medicaid already, and other regulations in place that protects the Elderly & Disabled in their health care?
And you’re quite wrong that general Americans don’t care how big the government gets; in fact the average American will be coughing much more of his/her money into the government if we have a European style health care system, and they sure as hell don’t like that idea, especially in this kind of economy.
They especially don’t like it if illegals are getting covered as well.
But another problem is that Nevadans care a hell of a lot more about higher taxes and jobs then they do health care; which is why the IAP is already addressing those issues and growing in size.
You would also be surprised to learn I too am opposed to the United Nations, but I know had we not been “interventionalist” during WWII, Hitler and Japan would have won, and you and I might be attempting to email in German or Japanese.
= Another stupid argument; when Japan attacked us, we HAD to get involved, period.
But if they didn’t attack us, we wouldn’t or shouldn’t have gotten involved; Hitler would’ve been eventually defeated without our assistance; the Brits would’ve gotten the upper hand in time; and the Soviets would’ve brought the Germans to their knees without any help from us.
Hitler would’ve lost anyways without American involvement.
I think the real truth about you folks in the IAP,is that you are “closet Herbert Hoover Republicans.” Why don’t you just admit it?
= Why don’t you admit that, not being a Nevadan yourself, you don’t know how the people in our state think or act, so you have no right to claim you know what Nevadans want.
The IAP is dedicated to Constitutionism and has triumphed here thanks to the hard, relentless work of the Hansens, and we have surged forward because of it, not because we’ve ripped off the GOP’s message.
People like our message more so then the GOP one and are flocking to our party in great numbers; I’ve conducted voter registration drives in Carson and elsewhere and I can tell you that people here, and in Janine’s district, don’t like any kind of socialized health care, or higher taxes, or fees; they don’t like government involved in their own business, period!
And while many third parties struggle; we’re already doing great; we just passed the 60,000 voter registration mark, we’re constantly in the state media and news, and we will make our breakthrough come this November; even if Janine doesn’t win, we will be electing people to offices and expect to see Mrs. Hansen at the next legislative session anyways, fighting for the average Nevadan.
Keep bleating about our ‘impending doom’, you sound just like the idiot street preachers in Salt Lake City.
Cody, you are so full of contraditions,and so obviously “uninformed” of your history, it is impossible to debate you. I teach American History at a community college, so I think I’ve read and written enough research papers to know my history. I don’t know how old you are, but I’ve been around long enough to see and know what the American people want.
No, they do not want the unbridled “socialism” of the Democrats.
No, they do not want the unbridled “capitalism” of the Republicans.
And until you, the IAP, and all the other 3rd parties in the US understand this, the Dems & the GOP will continually control the reins of our government like a ping-pong match.
I know you will “gloat” you had the final word with An Alabama Independent, but I have “bigger fish to fry.” I am going to be involved in working for better ballot access in Alabama, and no longer have time to be distracted by people who refuse to accept reality.
Cody, you are so full of contraditions,and so obviously “uninformed” of your history, it is impossible to debate you. I teach American History at a community college, so I think I’ve read and written enough research papers to know my history. I don’t know how old you are, but I’ve been around long enough to see and know what the American people want.
= “Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.”
And until you, the IAP, and all the other 3rd parties in the US understand this, the Dems & the GOP will continually control the reins of our government like a ping-pong match.
= Funny how We’re not adopting your message and yet we keep growing and electing people to office. Jackie Berg is currently running for re-election right now.
I know you will “gloat” you had the final word with An Alabama Independent, but I have “bigger fish to fry.” I am going to be involved in working for better ballot access in Alabama, and no longer have time to be distracted by people who refuse to accept reality.
= The reality is we need LESS government, NOT more of it! We’d be better off with a more limited and constitutional government.
Cody, Jesus taught us not to call or refer to your brother as “a fool.” I like to think I am your brother in Christ. Only Jesus has the right to infer or call me or anyone a fool – not man. Think about this.
Yes, I understand Jackie Berg is running for re-election and I hopes she wins. But I understand only she and one other local official is all the IAP has to show for over 35 years of electoral activity. Not very much “productivity” as the Republicans would say. If the IAP is “growing and electing people to office,” why only 2 victories out of dozens of candidacies?
Yes, I’m for LESS government waste and NOT more of it. And we could accomplish more and all of us would be better off with more limited and even “constitutional” government, if we’d adopt genuine “populist” approaches to the issues. The problem with you IAPers and others, is you don’t trully understand “populism” and you want to “throw the baby out with the bathwater.”