Apparently, Sean Haugh has appointed himself determinant of who characterizes a nutty candidate who is bad for the Libertarian Party. He says of Mr. Barrett:
From the references you can also see that there’s a community of people out there who are watching and listening to Barrett’s every word. When he says this junk in the future as a Libertarian candidate, every one of these people will have reason to link these noxious sentiments to our party.
Setting all that aside, why would you want to support a candidate that blithely lies to all of you?
For the moment, let’s overlook the fact Libertarian Party member (and presidential/congressional candidate) Ron Paul had had some pretty shocking racist, anti-semitic, and homophobic statements attributed to him… yet still got a hallelujah from the LP National Office when he dropped out of another party’s primary.
I know little of Mr. Barrett. It appears from the citations that he is prone to some nontraditional and non-LP opinions on 9/11, and as someone who rejects the 9/11 conspiracy theories, I’d certainly be uncomfortable having those views communicated as a Libertarian Party view on the issues.
However, Mr. Barrett’s run with the LP is apparently his first.
Which brings me to one Mr. Kevin Craig of Missouri. Mr. Craig is a perennial candidate representing the LP in Missouri.
Mr. Craig advocates a “Libertarian theocracy” on his campaign web site. Unlike Mr. Haugh’s experiences with Mr. Barrett, I didn’t have to browse around a dozen obscure listserves and local papers to find lots of controversial and noxious sentiments. I just had to go to his own campaign web site.
In poverty and anonymous homosexuality, at least man is his own god. But these would-be gods always cry out to Big Brother to bring paradise. Those who will not acknowledge the Messiah as their King live under the boot of the messianic state.
Another thing I find “morally repugnant” is the civil government telling citizens that two (or more?) homosexuals have a “right” to be “married.”
They have also disregarded God’s intent. Every single person who signed the Declaration of Independence (1776) and the Constitution (1787) believed that homosexuality is contrary to “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.” The rights we have are only those with which we have been endowed by our Creator, who also ordained “marriage,” and who also defined who we can and cannot be “married” to.
Every single person who signed the Constitution would say the government is a child abuser by teaching children that homosexuality is not sinful.
It’s trendy to believe that evil capitalists and industrialists cause “acid rain” and “global warming,” but the MainstreamMedia gets all bent out of shape when Jerry Falwell suggests that homosexuals and the ACLU caused 9-11 or hurricanes. The Bible clearly declares that man’s evil is the cause of climatological disturbances (Deuteronomy 28) or as the lawyers call it, “acts of God.”
* “Hate” homosexuality and homosexuals
* Follow God’s Commandments with respect to them
Homosexuals attempt to embezzle sexual satisfaction from God’s business.
The entire creation is God’s enterprise.
God is the Boss.
Homosexuals are disobedient employees.
God hates them.
That’s just a small sampling of the various content Mr. Craig has spread as the Libertarian Party’s campaign message during his Libertarian candidacies.
When I communicated my concern about this problem to then-Executive Director Shane Cory, I was ignored. When I finally cornered Cory at the Conservative Leadership Conference last year, and asked him about these repugnant statements, he told me that the LP cannot monitor every candidate or centrally control every bad statement that candidates make.
So why the emphasis on one supposed deranged individual, while on the LP clock, yet no emphasis on Mr. Craig — who has made his controversial and noxious statements *on his campaign web site*?
Craig’s candidacy has been “watched” by a number of people across the blogosphere, and has been used by several Democrats in the past to attack the Libertarian Party. A quick Google search produces numerous pages of commentary.
If Haugh is not willing to enthusiastically go up against Craig, whose views certainly damage our party’s credibility and are every bit as noxious as those allegedly uttered by Barrett, then he should cease and desist from his activities against Barrett. From where I am sitting, Haugh’s pogrom looks like politically-expedient grandstanding, not principled defense of the LP from candidate bigotry.