Sunday, March 12, 2006

Libertarians don't want Miller either

Apparently, Libertarians have followed the lead of the Democrats and Republicans in rejecting the Congressional candidacy of avowed racist Frazier Glenn Miller. I find these actions a little strange, considering that both the Libertarian and Republican parties have had the name of another well-known racist (and accused child molester) Martin Lindstedt of Granby on their ballots.
As recently as 2004, Lindstedt ran for governor in the Republican primary, where he lost to Matt Blunt (and don't make any jokes, the Republicans did pick the right one). I don't remember hearing any complaints about Lindstedt's well-known racist views at that time. Apparently, it becomes an issue if a candidate has already been rejected by the Democrats.

1 comment:

Kn@ppster said...

Randy,

The Libertarian Party disavowed Lindstedt in the 1990s, after he came out of the closet as a racist and anti-Semite. However, our understanding of the election laws was that we had no avenue for preventing him from filing to run as a Libertarian in primary elections. When he ran for US Senate in 1998, an actual Libertarian opposed (and defeated) him in the primary. When he and various accomplices ran for office in Newton County and such, we didn't think there was anything we could do about it.

The Democrats led the way on this by rejecting Miller's filing fee. So far as I know, it's never been done before, and it may be tested in the courts. Since I, like most Libertarians, believe that political parties have the right to associate with whom they wish and advance their beliefs rather than the beliefs of "ballot access hitchhikers," I hope that it stands up (it has in several other states according to noted ballot access expert Richard Winger).

Regards,
Tom Knapp