| |
| Writings Discussion Authors Help Search Home |
Interview With A (Losing) Candidate By: Brian Webber on 11/15/2002; 11:22 AM Interview With A Candidate By Brian D Webber BW: I'm here with Patrick West, Natural Law (http://www.natural-law.org) party candidate for the second Congressional distrcit in the state of Colorado, a state which has gotten some attention in the national news lately because of the heated and very close Senate race between incumbent Wayne Allard and Tom Strickland. Before we get into your platform and your district, I'd like to ask you what you think of this Senate race which is SO close it's been talked about at length on Meet The Press with Tim Russert. PW: It has been an interesting race, and a very negative race. It is unfortunate that negativity has to play such a big part in campaigning. Candidates spend more time talking down about their "opponent" that you never really hear about they stand on the issue, which leads me to believe that perhaps they don't have much of a platform to stand on. I believe that campaigning is not a competition, but a way to increase awareness of all of the possibilities and the great potential for introducing solutions to critical problems facing this nation. Imagine how confident people would be in our political system if all viewpoints were heard and not just the views of the two major parties. Perhaps people would be inspired to participate in the elections if they felt that they were being represented and their voices being heard. I will be supporting Rick Stanley for US Senate in this race. I hope that people will go out and investigate their options in this one. BW: That's very interesting, but another thing some people have suggested to aid voter confidence, in addition to more candidates, is including a No Confidence option on the ballot. Some places already have it in fact. In Nevada in June of 1990, None of the Above came in 2nd in the Republican primary. Do you think a None of the Above option on all elections would encourage candidates to work harder? PW: I would definitely support the addition of an option on the ballot for all elections for "None of the Above". I believe that this would be a clear indication to the people in government that the citizens of this country are fed up with business as usual. I also believe that this would improve voter turnout as more and more people do not believe that their elected representatives truly represent the constituents of their district. It would also show just how disenfranchised voters are with the current political system and the current political climate of constant bickering and partisanship. The Colorado Coalition of Independent Political Parties (CCIPP, http://www.ColoradoVoices.org is considering what actions to take during 2003, and this is definitely something that we will begin educating people on, as well as instant runoff voting. Personally, I will also begin looking into an initiative for 2004 for public financing of our elections. After the great success of this system in a few other states, such as Maine, I believe that Colorado is ready. I would like to see other ballot reforms as well, such as removing party designation from the ballot, same day voter registration as is being promoted with Amendment 30. In terms of campaign finance reform I would like to see the elimination of PACs and the ability for past office holders from becoming lobbyists after serving office. Other election reforms, I would like to see instant runoff voting and declaring election day a mandatory national holiday and begin the education process for proportional representation as opposed to our winner take all system. BW: Jello Biafra (former frontman for punk-rock group Dead Kennedys) discussed the No Confidence option on his spoken-word aldum I Blow Minds For A Living, and he also suggested that in any race where None of the Above actually won, a special election should be held like when a Congressman dies or resigns, but with two NEW candidates instead of "the two bozos who got rejected the first time." *laughs* Anyway, you mentioned Amendment 30, an amendment I actually worked on as a petition circulator this past summer. Could you explain it in a nutshell to VoU's readers, in case they don't have the time to check out the official website for it? (http://www.YesOn30.org) PW: Amendment 30 lets eligible citizens change their address or register to vote on Election Day, as six states already have done. Idaho, Maine, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Wisconsin, and Wyoming allow for same day registration. Their voter turnout is 15% higher than others states, and they have had zero cases of election irregularities. The president of the County Clerks' Association of Wyoming writes, "For nearly a decade now, Wyoming has enjoyed the benefits of EDVR [Election Day Voter Registration]. Those benefits have included greater participation in the election process resulting in increased voter turnout. I believe that Colorado deserves a system such as this. It is a step in the right direction. Again we need to look into election reform and campaign finance reform where people will again feel that they have a voice in government, that their vote really does count, and that they are truly being represented in government. Instant Runoff Voting (IRV), Public Financing of elections, Proportional Representation. These are all systems that we must pursue in this state. BW: You talk about election reform quite a bit on your website as well, and your stance on the more important issues can be found on your website. But some people here at VoU may not have time to check it for themselves. Can you explain in one paragraph the platform you are running for Congress on, and also, could you say why you chose the U.S. House as opposed to the U.S. Senate or the State Senate? PW: My platform is a life supporting platform. My platform includes support for prevention-oriented, holistic health care; consciousness-based education, allowing the student to take full advantage of the creative intelligence by focusing on the student rather then the content; crime prevention through proven programs such as restorative justice and enlightened sentencing; sustainable, organic agriculture, providing the most nutritious foods to a growing population; animal advocacy; renewable energy and energy conservation; and creating permanent, positive peace by co-creating more harmonious international relations. Why US House instead of US Senate or State General Assembly. First of all, I have run for this office once before, in 1998. And still today we continue to see the same problems that we saw in 1998. If the Democrats or Republicans had the solutions to the critical problems facing this country, you think we would have heard about them by now, but we have not. We continue to have sky rocketing health care costs with declining health, high rates of crime, declining educational outcome, the decimation of our environment, the destruction of our rural communities and farming communities, and we continue to utilize outdated modes of foreign policy that focuses on the use of force and violence as a means to create peace. I think enough is enough, let's get someone in there who cares. BW: Some people have suggested that perhaps minor parties shouldn't run Presidential candidates until more of them hold positions such as the one you're running for, and other smaller offices such as Mayor and City Council. Do you agree with this? If so or if not, why? PW: I believe that it is very important to run candidates for city council, mayor and other smaller offices. This is truly at the grassroots level. But I also see running candidates for state offices and federal offices and even President to be important as well. These are more high-profile races and will help get the message of the party out to the people. Voter guides will include our platform points, candidate forums allow our candidates to get out and increase awareness of their campaign and the party itself, advertising in papers, doing fundraisers, getting volunteers involved at this level is very important in getting the word out. And when you have a candidate for President, you get the message out to the entire nation and the world. Dr. John Hagelin, Presidential candidate of the Natural Law Party in 1992, 1996 and 2000, was very successful at increasing awareness of the Natural Law Party and its platform and ideas, enlivening the consciousness of the individual to the possibilities that still exist today. So I see it important to run local candidates as well as candidates in state and federal campaigns as well. BW: So, the election is only a few days away. Are you nervous at all? [NOTE: This interview was done by e-mail, and unfortunately, the reply did not get back to me until after the Mid-Term election, where Patrick came in 4th out of five candidates. Incumbent Democrat Mark Udall won, despite staying under the radar for most of the election, running NO TV or Radio ads whatsoever. At least none that i could see/hear over the cacophony of BS attack ads from Allard, Strickland, Matsunaka, beauprez, ad nauseum.] PW: I was not nervous at all. I knew that somehow I would win in this election, maybe not win in terms of getting the most votes, but winning in terms of increasing support for our message, increasing the hope and keeping our dreams alive. Our current government is not sustainable, it will not last. As long as we keep increasing awareness of the possibilities, when it is our time, we will be ready. We've got a lot of education to go, but we are making a difference. I am proud of this fact. The hope is alive, and because of that I am not nervous about the results of election day! BW: Well, I guess with the election over now I should get to wrapping this up. Just a few more questions though. First, there is a bit of controversy surrounding our party because of a NL sponsored commercial that ran in England. It has been the source of much ridicule by the like of NitCentral (a board I frequent) and it is the ONLY thing anyone is willing to bring up whenever I discuss my affiliation. It involves, if the information is correct, a man meditating on a flying carpet. How do you respond to this? PW: The Natural Law Party is all about prevention oriented solutions, focusing on the individual by promoting programs and policies that promote good health, education that focuses on the lerner, crime prevention that focuses on individual and societal stress, creating permanent, positive peace throughout the world, sustainable, organic agriculture, renewable energy, sustainable business developement, and more... But people aren't willing to look beyond some things that they have "heard" of, or some "information" that they have received about the Natural Law Party. Yes, we do mention Transcendental Meditation in our platform because this technology has been scientifically proven, in over 600 scientific studies, to greatly improve health and educational outcomes, greatly decrease crime and residivism, reduce dependence on alcohol and drugs, improve the collective consciousness of the population through group practice, and much much more. But TM is not the basis of the party. The basis of the party is preventing problems from occurring in the first place by focusing on proven programs and technologies. If a program were to come along that also had scientific backing and could solve and prevent problems from occurring, then we would accept that technology with open arms. It's all about seeking out the best possible solutions to the critical problems facing this nation. The Natural Law Party could remove the references to the TM technique and still have a far superior platform to the Democrats or Republicans, or even the Greens or Libertarians in my humble opinion. You can't force someone to be green, they have to want to be green for it to work; and you can't just eliminate people's dependence on government (by eliminating government programs) and expect people to automatically be self governing. You enliven the consciousness of the people to the unlimited possibilities and potential that lies within. Then people will recognize the impact that their thoughts and actions have on others around them and the planet, they then want to be green, they then become self governing. Look beyond the label and look deep into the platform of a candidate. Do they offer scientifically proven solutions, solutions that have been peer reviewed and utilized throughout the world? Open your minds to the possibilities. A closed mind has never been the hallmark of a functioning intelligence! BW: OK, thanks! This has been fun, and I think I've done a fairly good job consdiering this is my first ever interview. One last question before we call it a night (or day). I'm sure you've heard all the political party jokes, such as "How can you tell if a Democrat is lying? He's telling who he hasn't had sex with" or "How can you tell if a Libertarian is lying? He's telling you he can get elected." Tell me, just to end this on a high note, what would the punchline to the joke, How can you tell if a Natural Law man is lying, be? >:-) PW: He's telling you that he participated in a debate! Related Links: Patrick West's Campaign Site - http://www.WestForCongress.com Wayne Allard - http://allardforsenate.com/ Doug Campbell - http://www.dayhorse4senate.info Gary Cooper - Write In John Heckman - http://www.quickpage.com/J/johnheckman Rick Stanley - http://www.stanley2002.org/ Tom Strickland - http://www.stricklandforcolorado.com
RE: Interview With A (Losing) Candidate By: Brian Webber on 11/16/2002; 11:40 PM Yipes. I figured I'd have a DELUGE of replies by now. So much for my intuition.
RE: Interview With A (Losing) Candidate By: Brian Webber on 12/8/2002; 1:08 AM OK, I admit I'm no Barabra Walters here, but come on, this was a good interview! Certainly better than anything you'd see on Craig Kilborn's show! :-)
RE: Interview With A (Losing) Candidate By: Matthew Patterson on 12/8/2002; 3:16 AM The main problem I can see with the Natural Law platform is that it assumes that every individual, once he is open to his consciousness (or whatever terms you want to use for it), is going to want exactly the same thing for himself and for the community as everyone else. I think we can be reasonably certain that this will not, in fact happen. You would wind up with a bunch of enlightened people arguing about how best to proceed rather than a bunch of dimwitted morons arguing about how best to proceed. While the former is arguably a better scenario, it still leads to nothing getting done.
RE: Interview With A (Losing) Candidate By: Brian Webber on 12/11/2002; 2:37 PM A valid point Matty, however, I must ask, if the debaters were all enlightened (not to mention relaxed thanks to Meditation), whose to say somethign WOULDN'T get done? Grnated debates would be boring to wathc on TV this way, but something would defiantely be acomplished. Then again, with my typig erorrs, questionable grammar, and potty mouth I'm probably not the best spokesperson for the party. :-)
RE: Interview With A (Losing) Candidate By: Matthew Patterson on 12/11/2002; 6:54 PM A valid point Matty, however, I must ask, if the debaters were all enlightened (not to mention relaxed thanks to Meditation), whose to say somethign WOULDN'T get done? I would hesitate to give any group control over something as important as the government simply on the promise that something *might* get done. I need to see specific goals, numbers, plans, to be convinced. Preaching preventative approaches for every situation is fine; now tell me *specifically* how it's going to work in any given situation.
RE: Interview With A (Losing) Candidate By: Brian Webber on 12/11/2002; 7:50 PM Preventative Health Care. The current Disease Care system benefits only drug pushers(companies), and greedy doctors and HMOs. If we spent just HALF the money we spend curing sick Americans on making sure they don't get sikc in the first place, we could save a lot of money that could go to schools. For that mater, we could give even MORE to schools if we stop spending billions of dollars on guns that blow up and missles that don't (for those of you in the Christian Coalition, it's supposed to be the other way around).
RE: Interview With A (Losing) Candidate By: ScottN on 12/12/2002; 7:53 PM Excuse me for going OT, but would you care to back up your claim of "guns that blow up and missiles that don't"? Thank you, ScottN, ex-defense contractor
RE: Interview With A (Losing) Candidate By: Brian Webber on 12/12/2002; 8:27 PM That was just a general comment on the ever-decreasing quality of over-priced goods produced for our Military. Don't you think it's sad our WWII era stuff STILL works better than stuff built in the past few years?
RE: Interview With A (Losing) Candidate By: ScottN on 12/13/2002; 5:23 PM I don't believe that WWII era stuff works better than modern stuff, so no, I don't think so. And, again, would you care to provide any sort of documentation for that assertion? Remember, Brian, I used to work with the Army. I KNOW what quality weapons and men we have. Yes, military hardware is expensive. However, it often has incredibly difficult requirements to meet. Example (using 1993 tech -- I worked on this): *Explosive atmosphere: The empty case is pumped full of acetylene. It is then placed in a chamber full of acetylene. The gas inside the case is ignited. The chamber atmosphere must not also ignite. Again, remember this is 1993 technology. The killers were the weight and the temp range (because the temp range requires heaters, which KILLS the power budget...) But given those requirements, we still lost money at $25K per unit.
RE: Interview With A (Losing) Candidate By: Matthew Patterson on 12/13/2002; 5:39 PM If we spent just HALF the money we spend curing sick Americans on making sure they don't get sikc in the first place, we could save a lot of money that could go to schools. Explain how money currently being spent on treatment would instead be spent on prevention. In your answer, be sure to detail exactly what preventative methods ought to be emphasized that currently are not. Specifically mention the savings in converting to a prevention-based approach, and explain how people would be treated if prevention failed. Use extra sheets as necessary. No, you can't do this on an Internet forum, and it's not really your job to. However, someone has got to have some specifics in mind before they actually attempt to put things into practice! This is what scares me the most about politics: the idea that people may be legislating off the tops of their heads.
RE: Interview With A (Losing) Candidate By: Seth Dillingham on 12/13/2002; 5:45 PM On 12/13/02, ScottN said: >486-based PC >Must weigh 7 pounds, INCLUDING 3 days worth of batteries >Must have operating temperature range from -40F to +120F >Must be able to survive a 5 foot drop onto concrete nonoperating. >Must be able to survive a 3 foot drop onto concrete while operating. >Must pass environmental survivability including salt fog, water >immersion, etc... >Case must survive an explosive atmosphere test.* I bet our cats could still destroy one of these computers in a few days. They can ruin any computer.
RE: Interview With A (Losing) Candidate By: ScottN on 12/13/2002; 7:19 PM Oh, no doubt. There was no "cat hair" in the environmental tests :-) Oh, and Brian, another reason they're so expensive... process and testing. If we have bugs... PEOPLE DIE. (Of course, if we don't have bugs, people die too... but if we have bugs, *our* people die)
RE: Interview With A (Losing) Candidate By: Brian Webber on 12/14/2002; 1:11 PM A little biased are we Scott? C'mon, doesn't it seem rather stupid that these billion dollar cruise missiles have a nasty tendency to go of course (if you think they don't I know some Canadian soldiers and Afghani wedding party attednants who'd beg to differ), whil the much cheaper 'Daisy Cutter' can get more of the job done? It's sickenening how the past 7 administrations (I'm including Billy Bob Clinton in that!) have just wasted our money. Do you know that if we'd just loosed Daisy Cutters throughout those cave regions in Afghanistan Bin laden would be either a crispy critter or would've sufocated from all the oxygen being sucked out of his caves? This war could've been over by last November, and for a lot less money. And then ther'es the Osprey. Cool name, shitty ship.
RE: Interview With A (Losing) Candidate By: ScottN on 12/15/2002; 4:44 PM if you think they don't I know some Canadian soldiers and Afghani wedding party attednants who'd beg to differ Actually, they went right where they were aimed. The intel was bad. I freely admit my bias in this situation. However, my bias comes from an insider's knowledge and experience. You're biased too. You're the one making the claim of "guns that blow up and missiles that don't". Please back up said claim.
RE: Interview With A (Losing) Candidate By: Brian Carnell on 12/15/2002; 8:53 PM Two comments on the interview: The Communists and the Socialists run candidates with bad ideas. The Natural Law Party runs candidates with downright bizarre ideas. The guy mentioned Hagelin, so lets look at Hagelin's solution to terrorism, "This approachknown as the Invincible Defense Technologycalls for the establishment of a permanent group of 40,000 experts in technologies of consciousness to neutralize the acute ethnic and religious tensions that fuel violence and social conflict, effectively disarming terrorism at its basis. This approach is an essential component in any comprehensive approach to combating terrorism." The Invincible Defense Technology using technologies of consciousness? Why don't they just rename it the Moonbeam Party and get it over with? "Don't you think it's sad our WWII era stuff STILL works better than stuff built in the past few years?" But look at the difference in what was asked in WW II vs. today. World War II Air War: Designate a target, and bomb the s--- out of everything in a large radius around the target day after day until the target, and everything else in the area, is obliterated. Contemporary Air War: Designate a target, and take it out cleanly. If the people living in the apartment above the target die, expect Amnesty International reps. to appear on CNN the next day. The war in Afghanistan, IMO, demonstrated just how amazingly accurate modern weapons can be, and that precision air power can -- at least under some circumstances -- win a war with minimal civilian casualties.
RE: Interview With A (Losing) Candidate By: ScottN on 12/15/2002; 11:30 PM Thank you, Mr. Carnell.
RE: Interview With A (Losing) Candidate By: Brian Webber on 12/17/2002; 12:53 PM You know what? That was too mean. Mark, if you wanna send that off to the belachers I'll understand. I could've made my point without being insulting.
RE: Interview With A (Losing) Candidate By: Matthew Patterson on 12/18/2002; 12:57 AM Gladly done.
RE: Interview With A (Losing) Candidate By: Brian Webber on 12/18/2002; 1:41 AM Thanks. Now, my point before I got angry was, people, even smart people, tend to see things the way they want to see them. A sad trend I've noticed from the two primary ends of the political spectrum, Liberal and Conservative, is an obgerant(sp?) unwillingness to accept any idea that is different from what they've accepted as fact or as sane, or whatever. Is there a chance that Dr. hagelin's idea for fighting Terrorism won't work? Sure, but wasn't there an equal chance almost a hundred years ago that standing up for the rights of women to vote would fail? Of course. The thing these instant gratification/paranoid concern types in power these days just don't get, and I'm sure Scott and Brian will agree with me on THAT if nothing else, is that affecting change is like skydiving. You can practice on the gorund all you want but it's not until you jump out of the airplane at 10,000 feet that you know if you're fucked or not.
RE: Interview With A (Losing) Candidate By: Matthew Patterson on 12/18/2002; 7:07 PM Is there a chance that Dr. hagelin's idea for fighting Terrorism won't work? Sure, but wasn't there an equal chance almost a hundred years ago that standing up for the rights of women to vote would fail? I'm sorry, what is the relationship between these two things? One concerns civil rights, the other military readiness.
RE: Interview With A (Losing) Candidate By: Brian Webber on 12/18/2002; 9:17 PM My point was, we're such a nation of wimps lately that, good or bad, any idea that's NEW and could accomplish SOMETHING are essentially screamed down. Remember the McCain-Feingold bill? First decent thing I'd seen out of the Republicrats in years but the Opposite of Progress of the U.S. went after it like villagers after Karloff!
RE: Interview With A (Losing) Candidate By: ScottN on 12/19/2002; 12:06 PM There's a difference between being "screamed down" and being ridiculed. I hold no opinion about the efficacy of TM, but in general Hagelin's ideas weren't screamed down, they were the butt of jokes. DISCLAIMER! I am not attempting to claim Mr. Webber should be ridiculed. I'm pointing out that the general public thought Mr. Hagelin's ideas were silly.
RE: Interview With A (Losing) Candidate By: Matthew Patterson on 12/19/2002; 8:43 PM Remember the McCain-Feingold bill? First decent thing I'd seen out of the Republicrats in years but the Opposite of Progress of the U.S. went after it like villagers after Karloff! Except that it raises a fairly severe First Amendment issue, as well as giving the Republican Party a fairly large advantage in future campaigns. (Republicans have always been better at raising "hard money" donations than Democrats have. Cutting down on soft money lets them get ahead in that game.)
RE: Interview With A (Losing) Candidate By: Brian Webber on 4/28/2003; 8:39 PM I just went to an NL party gathering in Fort COllins yesterday and I have to say it was very interesting and insightful. Ken Freed was there to discuss his new book Global Sense (an update of Tom Paine's Common Sense, beleived to have been a major factor in spraking the American Revolution). I wish I'd broguth a tape rcorder or soemthing, becuase my short term memory, not to mention my ability to explain recent events to other people is to be kind, abysmal. But one thing I do remember is a phrase that rings very true to me. Personal Democracy. I can't quite remember what it means (I'll have to read my signed copy of Global Sense I guess *wink*), but it sounds good doesn't it?
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Copyright Notice | Privacy Policy | Contact | |
 |
|