6 votes

Mass. Senate Special Election; Jill Stein? Liberty Rep?

Would Liberty Republicans/Libertarians in Mass. be willing to vote for Jill Stein, the 2012 Green Party Presidential Nominee for Senate to replace John Kerry if he is appointed Secretary of State?

I assume there will be a Liberty candidate in the GOP Primary for the Special Election. But if that candidate loses, and the Greens are able to get Stein on the ballot for the Special Election, would you be willing to vote for her over an establishmnet Democrate and establishmnet Republican?

As a Green I recently helped organize a county wide Libertarian/Liberty-Republican coffee meet-up that a decent amount of people showed up to, and also attended a holiday party. In our County there is no real Libertarian Party organization, most Ron Paul supporters are working within the Republican Party.

I have attended the recent Progressive Democrats meeting. I am planning on attending the next "district" Dem and Rep meetings, then attending the County meetings, talking about non-partisan reforms.

If such a movement was built around a Jill Stein for U.S. Senate campaign in Mass. would any Mass. readers on here be willing to vote for her?

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Tell Jill to get on the Republican or Democrat ticket.

Ron Paul already explained why 3rd parties are not a viable way to get elected.


I'd love for Greens in MA to work with Prog. Dems and Lib. Reps

To help with their Primary campaigns. But I think it is important to have an "independent" or third-candidate in the General election incase both parties nominate an "establishment" candidate.

I am registered Green yet work with Progressive Democrats and Liberty Republicans. I also work to make Greens viable candidate in non-partisan races and races where neither progressives, libertarians nor independents are represented by either of the two major parties.

Without an incumbent, and in a potential split race, a third-candidate with enough support can break through.

I definitely think Libertarians should run within the Republican Party as much as possible, and that independents and progressives and some Gravel-Libertarians should build the Green Party and both should work with Progressive Democrats as much as possible, and with the other Third-Parties.

With the goal being actual reform in the interest of making the system best serve the People, Party becomes irrelevant.

I think we should each register which ever way we are most confertable and continue to work with our neighbors and community members on the issues and on actual reform.

Jack Wagner

why is this getting voted

why is this getting voted up??

If you disagree with me on anything you are not a real libertarian...

You're Kidding, Right?

Another exemplar of what purports to make up the 'liberty movement'.


A socialist-esque belief system, using government to force certain new 'rights' on everyone and providing a plethora of 'freebies' to an ever more dependent society.

My concept and belief of 'liberty' vs that espoused and desired by many who blurt-out on the DP, are completely different animals.

I will continue to advocate, but rest assured, I am not a part of what passes for the 'liberty movement' around here.

It is 1 seat in the Senate, not the implementation of a system

I think this is an important concept for us all to think about. Can we see that helping an alternative candidate from the left will not shift the majority over to 100% of their positions? And can the progressive-left see the same about supporting a liberty candidate?

Jack Wagner

Libertarians and progressives already working on stopping militr

The most Libertarian and the most Progressive House members are working together on the budget.


In Philly PA RichardKanePA

Yeah, Well...

Supporting anti-constitutionalism, in any of its many guises, isn't in my make-up, nor is it in any way an advancement of liberty, so...

Not a chance.

Render unto Ceasar...

Not to say that progressive-socialism or Green politics is anything close to the Julian Dynasty, nor that the Greens are in the majority socialists (I'd argue that the difference between Greens and Libertarians is dramatized by the media and the nature of partisan-group think).

I'd use the same quote to the "left" as well in respects to their view of the pure-libertarian idealogy; which they see as corporate-sympathization.

What I mean by "Render unto Ceasar" is to respect the difference between the government of man and the government of god. And to not demand perfect from the laws of man. To recognize the things that you cannot change, that you are not responsible to change. It is about acknowledging that the "perfect" policy is that you can pass and in the process make life and the system at least a little bit better.

Jack Wagner

My Nature...

...is to be direct and blunt. Take no personal offense at it as none is intended.

That said, it seems as if a goal of 'Green's' is to create and impose new dependency and new 'rights', which, one must assume, will be enforced via government force or confiscation in some form or fashion.

I have no interest and nothing good to say about anyone who desires to put their stinking-thieving hand in my pocket, while I am under the barrel of a gun, and take what I have to redistribute it to others who are in no manner entitled to nor deserving of stealing my wealth, property or value earned.

There is no other way to slice it, unless one wishes to obfuscate and rationalize or justify this wrong goal.

Next, I am not a 'Libertarian'. I am an individualist and a constitutionalist. I happen to hold to certain liberty related beliefs that libertarians do, but I march to my own drum.

As to rendering to Ceasar...fuck Ceasar. I am uninterested in waxing biblical about government.

I do not concede to 'render'. Ceasar must take what Ceasar has the force to take, cause it isn't voluntary on my part.

Also, I recognize things that 'I' cannot change, just fine. That lack of ability to make desired changes by myself does not, however, negate my duty and effort to wake people up and attempt small changes as the opportunity presents.

The Constitution for the united States is something I took an Oath to protect and defend. I meant it when I swore to it and neither 'Ceasar' or my inability to make drastic and immediate change, negate my opposition, vocal and otherwise, of ANY numbnuts who advocates installing some person, program, legislation, edict or other means of further destroying what I swore to protect and defend.

We have a Republic that is in desperate need of restoration.

That is all.

Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness

I understand your position. I think the Constitution gives us the ability to Amend it, and that the allocation of Powers to the Federal Government should go through the legal proceeding.

With that said; from an accurate reading of the Constitution the Federal Government has no authority to be involved in Health-Care. Yet, we have Medicade and Medicare. There is a natural social interest in treating health-care similar to security (police, military, etc. all being part of government). And so, it has become part of our Government. That is the reality. Not even Ron Paul called for eliminating Medicare or Social Security. It is not responsible from a Governing stand point.

And holding onto one extreme or the other (Health-Care for All, or Complete Elimination) gets us no further in either direction.

In that instance I would say that we should free up inner-state insurance and allow doctors to compete (and buy generic medicine), while allowing for a bulk-single-payer-public option at cost (with those currently covered by Medicare and Medicaid having their cost covered). We could then go through the proper Amendment process to allow for Congress to have that power.

The reality is you will never get rid of Health-Care as a public interest. As long as you fight it completely you allow it to build in the wrong direction (such as the Affordable Health Care Act which both Progressives and Libertirians opposed; albiet for different reasons).

The same goes with the Congress's lack of power to issue bills of credit. Even before the Federal Reserve the Treasury had issued U.S. Notes which were direct bills of credit (not borrowed money through the bonds market). Lincoln talked about the need for another form of currency other than just Gold and Silver in order to fullfill the needs of the market. By fighting the concept altogether we get the worst of it with interest acurring Federal Reserve Notes, when we could start Printing U.S. Notes, Nationalize the Fed (rather than ending it), Free up Gold and Silver as Legal Tender and allow it to compete (most likely finding a Savings market vs. Credit's spending market), and monetize the debt. Now both "sides" are given their perfect markets.Additionally, as a Public Bank the Federal Reserve could print enough money to create a Public Fund capable of generating enough revenue to pay for the functions of government; thus ending the need for any taxation.

Now you have spending maintained while freeing the entire tax burden from the economy. With no corporate tax business will boom, with no income tax investment will increase, with gold and silver free from capital gains saving will increase without pulling credit from the economy.

I'm working on a "power-point" explaining my points.

When I say, "Render unto Ceasar" I do not mean to justify and sympathize with Caesar. I do not even mean Ceasar specifically. What I mean is, that it is important to understand your environment. Art of War key principle. Understand your terrain. React to reality, not what you expected reality to be, or what it "should be."

Thank you for defending the Constitution.

Jack Wagner

Michael Nystrom's picture

I would vote for her

She's not going to win - let's not kid ourselves.

The liberty movement makes up a wide swath of thought. Jill is no doubt anti war, and anti interventionism (I assume - I don't know much about her). Those positions she shares with Ron Paul. Because RP holds those positions, he has a wide swath of support that is not just "conservatives." Ron Paul draws far beyond "conservatives." This is his strength over Rand.

Anyway, it is a big tent. You're snorting around as you are in this big tent isn't pleasant for anyone. Just keep it in mind.

That being said, while I'd vote for her, I wouldn't campaign on her behalf.

- - - - - -

Scott Brown is likely to run. I wonder if Rand will support Brown if he runs.

Brown would actually be a good test case. He was a senator by special election. The coming election is also a special election, to replace Kerry.

In 2010, the Tea Party's momentum was so strong, the wave lapped up here even in MA. That wave isn't quite strong as it was before....

Anyway, Brown is basically a liberal wearing an R suit.

If This Comment is For Me...

All you need do to to prevent my 'snorting around' is ban me. Otherwise, I really don't care about being pleasant, or fitting in. What I do care about is individual liberty and calling things as they are.

As opposed

To what..R&D establishment hacks?. That's a 'no brainer'.

"Hell is empty, and all the devils are here" (Shakespeare)
RP 2012~ Intellectual Revolution.

I don't live in

I don't live in Massachusetts, but I don't know why any libertarian or believer in limited government would vote for another socialist politician who wants to ban all guns.

LeAlan Jones, Green, Pro-Gun Right in Chicago

Just a note; not Jill Stein, but LeAlan Jones, a Green from Illinois, that ran for Obama's vacated Senate seat, was pro-gun rights for Chicago citizens so that they could protect themselves against drug dealers and criminals, and so they could help put violent criminals away and feel that they could defend themselves.

I think that any success for the Green Party will be from embracing this aspect of the progressive movement. Becoming accessible to Liberty folk and Progressive folk. By having a base large enough to attract Independents, Democrats and Republicans. I think this is what any third-party needs to do.

In my region there is no Libertarian Party. There is a strong Green Party. I work with them and Progressive Democrats and Liberty Republicans. I work on local issues. Non-partisan issues.

In electoral politics I do think we need to be pragmatic. I'll vote for Liberty Republicans and Libertarians, at the same time, I hope some Liberty/Libertarian folk will vote Green when they are the best option.

That is how we can build and get people in office.

Jack Wagner

Stein on Gun Control; the Four Agreements


While she isn't close to "Pro-Gun", she doesn't want to ban all guns.

My interest is seeing how much can Liberty Mass. voters compremise to achieve a signifacnt electoral victory for the counter-status-quo.

Stein agrees on a number of issue with Ron Paul folk, the same as Cynthia McKinney in 2008.

The Four Agreements.

War, the Fed, Drug Policy, and Privacy.

Jack Wagner

No thanks. Greens hate free

No thanks. Greens hate free enterprise. That's a deal breaker.

10-15 million more voters need to believe in non-interventionism (liberty) at home and abroad to change America. Minds changed on Syria. Minds changing on privacy. "Printing money" is part of the dialogue. Win minds through focus, strategy.

From Greens and Libertarians

"Just as contemporary Greens have fondness for government and contempt for private property that their forebears did not share, Libertarians take an extreme position on private property and have hostility to all forms of government that their philosophical predecessors did not share."

As a Green I bring a lot of my "Ron Paul" influence into the dialouge. I also attend Liberty Republican and Progressive Democrat meetings and as many local group meetings as possible. I get to know my community and neighbors despite partisan affiliation. And I promote that approach within the Green Party.

While Jill Stein is a more general Green, there are Libertarian-friendly Greens such as LeAlan Jones, Matt Gonzalez and Kent Mesplay.

Jack Wagner