Wednesday, September 29, 2010

Libertarian Congressional Candidate Erich Miller Ducks War and Foreign Policy

I live in California's 30th Congressional District. Pro-war Democrat Henry Waxman is my representative.

This November, three candidates will be opposing Waxman.

Republican Chuck Wilkerson advocates the usual saber rattling.

Libertarian Erich Miller's website is silent on the war. If I emailed him, pressed him to the wall, he might mumble something about being anti-foreign intervention. I don't know -- and I don't care. It's Miller's job to earn my vote by advocating the correct positions on the key issues. And he's not doing it.

Miller is running for Congress. Since we're "at war," foreign policy will be a big part of Miller's Congressional responsibilities -- yet his website only focuses on the economy and health care. For whatever reason, Miller hasn't found it worth his while to say anything about foreign policy.

Maybe Miller is afraid of offending someone and losing votes?

By contrast, the socialist Peace and Freedom Party candidate, Richard Castaldo, advocates the following positions on his home page:


1. Defund all wars of imperialism, including Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.

2. Single-payer not-for-profit healthcare.

3. Abolish corporate "personhood." Rights belong to human beings, not corporations.

4. Terminate the Patriot Act and restore the Bill of Rights.

5. End corporate bailouts and create green jobs.



Castaldo's positions 1 and 4 are entirely libertarian. Many libertarians would agree with position 3. Position 5 is at least half libertarian. Only position 2 is clearly anti-libertarian.

Two out of five of Castaldo's positions (1 and 4) directly, aggressively, and unapologeticly address the core issues of our expanding wars and increasing loss of freedoms.

Why is the socialist Peace and Freedom Party more vocally libertarian on these key issues than the so-called Libertarian Party?

Do you see why I'm no longer a registered Libertarian? Why I've registered non-partisan and ignore party labels?

I'm not saying who I'll be voting for this November. But antiwar voters should educate themselves about every candidate, in every state and district. Then vote based on the issues that the candidates advocate (vocally and aggressively, not buried in some fine print). Don't waste your vote on something as meaningless as party labels.

Libertarian candidates must earn votes from libertarians, not be given votes simply because candidates have an L before their names.

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

Same same with Nightmare Nightingale / Chelene Ward Nightingale. Grossly dishonest and unethical. Same, same!

donlake@ymail.com

619.420.0209

Erich Miller said...

I'm Erich Miller, I have made very direct and frequent posts on my facebook page and web site regarding my opposition to the ongoing wars. But long before that at the break of these conflicts I was the spokes person, Media Liaison, for the LP of Los Angels County I was often on KABC or KFI radio denouncing the course our country was being taken down. I spoke against them and have continued throughout these almost ten years.

However during this election the economy, with the failed government bailouts, stimuli, healthcare fiasco have over shadowed the wars. Especially considering the Obama propaganda that we're winding down.

You are right. I do hope libertarians will vote for me based on the fact I am our candidate because I have very limited resources and must get our message out to the greater number of -non Libertarians. I did send out over 500 letters to the reg Libs to give them my web site info etc. I do expect they'll look at them. Many have called me directly to discuss their concerns.

Then I also do this. Search the web to find articles yours. I'm doing my best. Liberty is too important and too needed now.

Please contact me if you have any more questions.
818-261-8369 or visit erichmillerforcongress.com

Beth said...

Come on. Have you asked Mr. miller his opinion on the war? Every interview where he has been asked the question he unabashedly states he is against it. He has been ridiculed for years because he has been against it since the first Iraq war. In fact, when on radio talk shows representing the LP position, many callers stated he should be put in jail for his views. Very American, wouldn't you say? So before throwing out such statements, why don't you bother to ask the candidate himself? Have you sent a question? Called him? He is very accessible.

Anonymous said...

To finish my comment, it actually seems very unlibertarian of you to say something such as "if I emailed him he'd probably mumble something.....". Why don't you email first and make such comments afterwards. And there is a section in his website where he discusses how the "war" card is used for various Political ends. Libertarian philosophy embraces personal responsibility, something a little lacking in this particular post. BTW, like the ad for Sarah Palin on your blog spot.......

Thomas M. Sipos said...

* I see nothing on Mr. Miller's website about the wars. Is it buried somewhere? His Issues page addresses two issues: Health Care and the Economy. If he is antiwar, his site is not loud and clear enough about it. Not good enough.

* No, I didn't ask Mr. Miller his position on the war -- nor should I have to. Most voters won't ask. They'll judge him by what he puts out there -- and what's on his site is not good enough.

* I see my post has discomforted Mr. Miller. Good. It's compelled him to be louder and clearer on this issue. I hope to keep discomforting Libertarians. Some of them sound better under pressue.

* Some Libertarians feel pressured by Tea Party types to focus on the economy, and shut up about the war. It's vital that peaceniks apply pressure from the other direction. We want our issues on the front burner, and never have them take a back seat to any other issues. That is how politics works.

Thomas M. Sipos said...

BTW, like the ad for Sarah Palin on your blog spot.......

Those are Google ads. I have no control over their content.