Actually I saw a segment on...I think it was this morning's Today
show (or maybe it was yesterday's) on NBC. Apparently, it's
something ridiculously cheap and easy to register for the NH
primary (like $1000 bucks and a few hundred signatures) which
brings out all sorts of "independent" candidates. On this segment
they profiled the mayor of some medium-sized midwest city that
I've never heard of and a woman who "communicates with dead
people who still wish to serve their country" and a
fundamentalist evangelical preacher who was told to run by God
(and who is _not_ Pat Roberston :)--all of whom are running for
president in the NH primary.
True, there are no *viable* independent candidates (of course,
you could say the same about the LP), but apparently there are
plenty of non-affiliated candidates participating in the primary.
If I'd been paying better attention to the TV this morning, I
could give you more specific info...as is, it's more of a vague
memory, sorta like the raisin bran I was eating.
>
>
>
> >on Thu, 14 Dec JP, whom we all love, said:
> >
> >>[Aside / Footnote -- I am uninterested in arcane discussions
on the "
> >>[gasp] REAL " meaning of "Libertarian". Libertarian = the LP
in the
> >>states. This is no more mysterious or controversial than
using the
> >>word Democrat to mean the same ideas/party that Bill & Hillary are
> >>members of. Saying 'Democrat' (the ordinary common usage) to mean
> >>that particular party and those particular sort of ideals does not
> >>ameliorate any "real" historical meaning of the word "democrat" -
> >>same deal with 'Libertarian'. I know a couple of people here are
> >>touchy about this <; ]
> >
> >as i said, i guess the one you're thinkin of being touchy about this
> >is none other than me.... well, i can't remember being touchy about
> >your use of the word liberal/libertarian (two different words, with
> >the same origin btw) and if i have been (and i guess i have, after
> >all, at least once?), i hereby apologize. i shouldn't have been ;-)
> >i'm not a liberal, not in the ordinary common european use of the
> >word, nor in the ordinary common american use of the word, so i
> >really shouldn't care less.... what i h a v e been "touchy" about
> >is the word "anarchist". (i do like your choice of the word "touchy"
> >btw ;- )) i'm just a little bit tired of you americans turning that
> >particular word into something meaning right-wing old-fashioned
> >laisse-faire capitalist, when in fact the common use of the word
> >anarchist in the rest of the world is as something like "libertarian,
> >anti-state socialist". i find your use of the word just a little bit
> >sad, especially as america did give the world some of the best
> >examples of anarchists and anarchist organizations ever: people like
> >Emma Goldman, Alexander Berkman, Joe Hill or the organizers of the
> >WWW wouldn't have felt very comfortable in the company of modern
> >american "anarcho"-capitalists... ;-)
> >
> >so that's what i've been "touchy" about, JP.....
> >(but i promise not to mention it again, if that'll make you feel
> >better?!)
> >
> >
> >have a nice day :-)
> >
> >tb
> >(who even tend to like some parts of the political platform of the
> >american LP! after all they stole it from the left-wing anarchist ;-)
> >and the libertarian right is much preferable to the religious-fascist
> >american right after all!)
> >
> >
> >* ----------------------------------------------- *
> > \ Trond Buland \
> > \ e-mail: trond.buland@ifim.sintef.no \
> > \ phone:+47 73 59 25 65 home:+47 73 52 78 21 \
> > * ---------------------------------------------- *
>
> ____________________________________
> OT 1.0.8 + FreePPP 1.0.2 = happiness
>
-- Greg Ritter gritter@vcu.edu ritter@urvax.urich.edu http://www.urich.edu/~ritter