Steve G.

Posts Tagged ‘Survey Says’

TIME: Do Americans care about Big Brother?

In Big Brother, Civil Liberties, Congress, Constitutional Rights, Corruption, Courts and Justice System, Law, Libertarian, Media, Police State, Politics, US Government on March 23, 2008 at 10:15 pm

Big BrotherTIME Magazine has published an article regarding the erosion of civil liberties, and the reaction of Americans to the news that the government is warehousing vast amounts of information on innocent citizens. Here is an excerpt:

A quick tally of the record of civil liberties erosion in the United States since 9/11 suggests that the majority of Americans are ready to trade diminished privacy, and protection from search and seizure, in exchange for the promise of increased protection of their physical security. Polling consistently supports that conclusion, and Congress has largely behaved accordingly, granting increased leeway to law enforcement and the intelligence community to spy and collect data on Americans. Even when the White House, the FBI or the intelligence agencies have acted outside of laws protecting those rights — such as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act — the public has by and large shrugged and, through their elected representatives, suggested changing the laws to accommodate activities that may be in breach of them.

Civil libertarians are in a state of despair. “People don’t realize how damaging it is to a democratic society to allow the government to warehouse information about innocent Americans,” says Mike German, national security counsel at the American Civil Liberties Union.

You can read the entire TIME Magazine article here.

Advertisements

Christine Smith openly insults male LP opponents during radio interview

In Barry Hess, Christine Smith, Crazy Claims, Fraud, George Phillies, Humor, Libertarian, Libertarian Convention, Libertarian Party-US, Lies and the lying liars who tell them, Media, Politics, Shine on you crazy diamond, Steve Kubby on March 15, 2008 at 3:02 am

Christine Smith looking presidential, LOLI will readily admit that I am not a fan of Christine Smith; in fact, I have been quite harsh in my criticisms of her and her campaign. Honestly, I felt a little bad about it …. until now. I realize now that I probably wasn’t harsh enough.

She was recently interviewed by WTAN-AM1340. Here is a short excerpt from Third Party Watch:

I’ll highlight the portions which might be controversial, debatable or otherwise of interest.

“I’m the leading candidate by all the ways we can measure it.”

I’ll note that winning one non-binding primary (but losing others) doesn’t mean all that much—especially when losing to someone who isn’t even on the ballot. Here is one measurable standard which indicates that Smith is currently in 4th place among convention delegates—if one doesn’t count NOTA, which is currently outpolling Smith, too.

“These are people who are seeking the LP nomination, but the majority are far from being libertarian.” […]“Almost everyone running, with just probably a couple of exceptions, are not libertarian. They are men doing it, I guess, for their egos.”

I’m not sure what definition of libertarian she’s using, but most of the candidates certainly have libertarian and/or Libertarian credentials. Among the list of 14 LP presidential candidates, there are certainly some whose libertarian / Libertarian credentials could be questioned. However, if there are only “a couple” of libertarians running, I wondering which of these people she’s accusing of being non-libertarian: Steve Kubby, George Phillies, Bob Jackson, Jim Burns, Barry Hess, Daniel Williams.

Stephen Gordon at Third Party Watch summed up the interview this way:

Smith was quick thinking, quick talking and well spoken throughout the interview. She displayed a fair amount of confidence—but I’m sure some listeners will suggest that her level of confidence borders on hype.

You can read the entire article on Third Party Watch here.

You can listen to the interview for yourself here.

When I read that she thinks libertarian men are running to feed their egos, I thought, wow. Just, wow. That is incredibly insulting, especially when she is running against men whose libertarian credentials cannot be seriously questioned, and those men include more than “a couple” of candidates who are well-educated and have a great deal of libertarian activism experience. As far as I can tell, Christine doesn’t even have any formal education beyond high school, she has never run for any public office or even an internal LP office, and she is brand-new to the libertarian movement.  Her views have changed even since she announced her candidacy, and are likely to change even more since she is new to the movement.

Given her complete lack of qualifications to represent the Libertarian Party (much less to run the entire country), what makes her think she should be president, if not her own overinflated ego?

My impression is that Christine thinks she is far more popular and important than she really is, which is not at all surprising since she seems to live in a world that the rest of us can’t see. Between her “Peace Prize”, which is in reality nothing but a weirdly-worded certificate given to women from other women, and her “Outstanding American Award” which came from a known con man who was convicted of committing a massive $39 million fraud (and who seems to still be defrauding people, since a gentleman repeatedly discussed on my blog that the same man had stolen 125K from him, and that there is a criminal investigation into the matter), I have to laugh.

It’s a nervous laugh though, because if she gets the LP nomination (which is a serious long shot given that “None Of The Above” regularly polls better than she does), she will prove to be a complete embarrassment to libertarians everywhere, once the mainstream media starts checking into her various lofty claims and comparing them to the reality.

Yes, it may seem that I’m being very hard on her, and I am. The woman is running for President of the United States, not local dog catcher. Since she is female, she has largely escaped the level of criticism the male candidates have faced. However, if we aren’t diligent in investigating and exposing our own presidential candidates prior to the convention, we will almost certainly end up utterly humiliated when the mainstream media does that for us after the convention.

Known Libertarian Selected For Barker’s Replacement on Game Show

In Celebrities, Libertarian on July 24, 2007 at 10:45 am

It’s official! Rosie O’Donnell will not be spouting off 9/11 conspiracies on the “Price Is Right”. Drew Carey is Barker’s replacement on the longtime game show. I think Barker let out a big sigh of relief when he found out Drew was replacing him and not Rosie.

Barker said he’s not familiar enough with Carey’s past performances to offer an opinion on his selection. But, he said, “I understand he ad-libs very well and that he has a very nice, friendly way of working, and I think both of those would be helpful to him on`The Price Is Right.'” His advice for Carey: “Go out there and do that show the way you think it should be done. Don’t imitate me and don’t imitate anyone else.”

We have John Stossel on ABC and Drew Carey on CBS…who’s next?

What my job is like

In Children, Humor, Media, Personal Responsibility on July 15, 2007 at 6:22 am

I have to talk to hundreds of people like this every single day.

(Originally posted on my blog and in the
Libertarian Survey comments
which are still going strong even though it’s on page two now).

Survey to determine libertarian perspective on the 2008 presidential elections completed

In Daniel Imperato, George Phillies, Libertarian, Libertarian Party-US, Politics, Wayne Allen Root on July 12, 2007 at 6:06 pm

The survey of libertarians being conducted by LibertarianLists.com is now completed and the baseline results are available on the site. Additionally, a new (and shorter and faster) survey has been initiated here. It asks a few new questions and breaks things out differently so we can learn more about how libertarians feel about the various presidential candidates. Please participate in the new survey so your voice is heard and your vote is counted.

It’s no surprise that Ron Paul dominated, pulling in a total of 1389 votes (69.62%) out of the 1995 people who responded to the survey. What’s interesting is that he got a slightly higher amount of votes from people who indicated they were members of the Libertarian Party than from the general libertarian community. Of the 1351 self-identified LP members, 976 (72.24%) chose Paul over the other candidates.

Of the Libertarian Party candidates, George Phillies won. Here’s how the vote broke down for members of the Libertarian Party (this excludes small-Ls not associated with the LP):

Field Summary for 0005:
If the presidential election was held today, for which candidate are you most likely to vote?
Answer Count Percentage
No answer 0 0.00%
Steve Kubby (1) 36 2.66%
Mike Gravel (2) 1 0.07%
George Phillies (3) 48 3.55%
Ron Paul (4) 976 72.24%
Wayne Allyn Root (5) 31 2.29%
Dennis Kucinich (6) 6 0.44%
Mike Jingozian (7) 2 0.15%
Newt Gingrich (8) 8 0.59%
Christine Smith (9) 16 1.18%
Barack Obama (10) 14 1.04%
Daniel Imperato (11) 4 0.30%
Tom Tancredo (12) 11 0.81%
Barry Hess (13) 8 0.59%
Joe Biden (14) 1 0.07%
Alden Link (15) 3 0.22%
Chuck Hagel (16) 0 0.00%
Robert Milnes (17) 0 0.00%
Mike Bloomberg (18) 7 0.52%
Bob Jackson (19) 2 0.15%
Fred Thompson (20) 39 2.89%
John Finan (21) 0 0.00%
Dave Hollist (22) 2 0.15%
Rudy Giuliani (23) 34 2.52%
John McCain (24) 8 0.59%
Hillary Clinton (25) 6 0.44%
Mike Huckabee (26) 9 0.67%
John Edwards (27) 3 0.22%
Tommy Thompson (28) 1 0.07%
Jim Gilmore (29) 0 0.00%
Duncan Hunter (30) 3 0.22%
Al Gore (31) 11 0.81%
Other (-oth-) 61 4.52%

With respect to name recognition and favorables, let’s take a look at the top five LP candidates. Again, these data are coming from big-Ls; I’m excluding the small Ls from these data. To see the full data, simply visit here.

Name recognition factors among LP members:

  • Steve Kubby: 49.37%
  • George Phillies: 38.49%
  • Wayne Allyn Root: 18.8%
  • Christine Smith: 17.84%
  • Barry Hess: 23.46%

Of those who actually knew the candidates, here’s the average number of what they thought of them -with 1 as the least favorable rating and 5 as the most favorable.

  Kubby Phillies Root Smith Hess
AVERAGE 3.83 3.60 3.35 3.34 3.58

In other words, LP member’s presidential preferences, so far, go in this order: George Phillies, Steve Kubby, Wayne Allyn Root, Christine Smith, Barry Hess.

To rank candidates by name recognition, the list looks like this: Steve Kubby, George Phillies, Barry Hess, Wayne Allyn Root, Christine Smith.

To rate them by favorability factors, it goes like this: Steve Kubby, George Phillies, Barry Hess, Wayne Allyn Root, Christine Smith.

In other words, it looks like any of the top five candidates could end up being the eventual LP nominee. It’s a shame that no one is paying much attention to them, considering how unlikely it is that Ron Paul will win the Republican nomination.

BTW, here’s a suggestion to some of the LP presidential candidates. If Hillary Clinton has more support from LP members than you have recieved, maybe you should consider dropping from the race.

I’ll be posting additional analyses of the survey results here and here.

Imagine our embarrassment…

In Big Brother, George Bush, Obituaries, Personal Responsibility, Politics on June 29, 2007 at 9:52 pm

First, the American people – or, at the very least Florida SOS Katherine Harris and 5 of 9 Supremely Kangaroo Kort “justices” ruling in a case over which they had zero jurisdiction (2000) and Ken Blackwell (2004) – picked a friggin’ Chimpanzee as POTUS. Twice.

poodle-chimp-sm.jpg

Now, it turns out that one of the leading contenders for the NSGOP nomination may very well in fact be a reanimated corpse who feeds by draining and consuming the blood of living beings. Holy shit – what are the odds on that?

Ghouliani or Nosferatu? We report, you decide…

source:

Prose Before Hos

rudyorvampire2.jpg

rudyorvampire3.jpg

This is really scary…we must take all due diligence to keep this unclean, living undead, blood-sucking creature out of the white house, or else face even more international shame – and who would have thought it possible, after Clinton and Bush? – for our presidential selection.

Survey Allegedly Reveals Your Ideal Candidates, Lists Kent McManigal as LP Choice

In Libertarian, Politics on June 13, 2007 at 11:09 pm

Presidential SealAll you have to do is answer 25 questions.

Admittedly the site could be improved, since it lists no LP candidates except Kent McManigal (who’s no longer even running except as a write-in candidate) and references a lot of organizations that I’ve never even heard of (but they expect me to say whether I agree with their platform).

It would be a lot more accurate if, for example, you were given a choice to state you believe the war should be ended immediately. As it is, the only options are setting or not setting a deadline for returning the troops, or neither (and that could mean anything).

That being said, the results still appear to be fairly accurate, since Ron Paul came up as #1, followed by a Democrat (I used to be a Democrat, so that sounds about right even though I’m not familiar with the candidate).  Kent McManigal tied for #3, while the vast majority of Republicans are at the end.  Honestly, I’m not familiar with all the candidates listed, and the lack of specificity with regard to issues such as war could have thrown it way off.  I suspect that, with more specific answer options, the results may be quite different.

It is very strange that Kent McManigal and two Democrats tied for third place, though. LOL

The following is my full ideal candidate list according to that site, based on percentage of agreement and level of importance on the issues:

Ron Paul 72%

Dennis Kucinich 62%

Al Gore 60%

Barack Obama 60%

Kent McManigal 60%

Christopher Dodd 58%

Wesley Clark 53%

Mike Gavel 52%

John Edwards 51%

John McCain 49%

Hillary Clinton 47%

Bill Richardson 47%

Joseph Biden 47%

Alan Auguston 46%

Newt Gingrich 45%

Tommy Thompson 43%

Tom Tancredo 37%

Chuck Hagel 36%

Fred Thompson 36%

Sam Brownback 36%

Mitt Romney 36%

Duncan Hunter 34%

Rudolph Giuliani 34%

Jim Gilmore 29%

Elaine Brown 20%

Mike Huckabee 18%

I’d be interested to know how accurate others believe their results to be, and it might be interesting to take them up on their offer to provide free code for our own candidate survey. I bet it would be a lot more accurate, at any rate.
Hat tip Kent McManigal