Libertarian drops out of IC race – Mobley just picked up another three votes
Libertarian Halts Campaign for Delaware Insurance Seat
By RANDALL CHASE | October 25, 2012The Libertarian Party candidate for Delaware insurance commissioner is suspending his campaign and endorsing the Republican challenger seeking to unseat a Democratic incumbent.
David Eisenhour said Wednesday that while suspending his campaign for insurance commissioner, he is still running for clerk of the peace in Sussex County.
Eisenhour said he is urging his supporters to back Republican Benjamin Mobley in the insurance commissioner race. He said Mobley has a more free-market approach than does incumbent Karen Weldin Stewart, who won a three-way Democratic primary in September.
Eisenhour said that when he accepted Libertarian Party’s nomination for insurance commissioner this spring, the only announced candidates were all Democrats, and that he thought voters deserved a choice.
But after Mobley entered the race, Eisenhour concluded that he was the best choice.
And people keep telling me that Libertarians are not the same as Republicans.
🙄
Libertarians are close to Republicans on economic issues, close to Liberals on personal freedom.
Libertarians are for gay marriage, drug legalization, 40% cut in military spending. Hardly Republican.
@cassandra: given that the Democratic incumbent is KWS, you got a lot of room to talk in this race.
Really? A Democratic incumbent that I certainly have no record of endorsing or voting for? A Democratic incumbent who I have spend acres of space on this very site making the case that she’s not exactly Democratic material? I haven’t done any pretending whatsoever that KWS is anywhere close to what I think is a Democrat and the fact that she puts a D behind her name provides me with no imperative to defend/support/vote or otherwise rationalize any (non-existent) connection to me.
In other words, take your false equivalence on this thing someplace else.
My point, Cassandra, which you quite well understand and prefer to duck (that’s OK) is simply this:
Your party runs sometimes runs candidates who are indistinguishable from Republicans, and then you gyrate like all hell to say it’s not YOUR fault, and that you shouldn’t be held to the same standard you use for everybody else.
A significant number of liberal/progressive commenters here have said freely that with KWS as their party’s choice they are contemplating voting for Ben Mobley. That’s been taken seriously. But when a Libertarian candidate says the same thing–rejecting KWS and throwing his support to Mobley–suddenly he speaks for ALL Libertarians and his support for the least-Republican-looking candidate in the race is your ridiculous evidence that Libertarians are the same as Republicans.
Get a grip.
You have been a vocal supporter of your candidate who just endorsed a Republican.
I have not been a supporter AT ALL of someone who doesn’t meet my standards.
That’s the difference. At some point I don’t mind dropping the tribal allegiance. Which I understand will be hard for you to get, but there it is. Then see the article I linked showing that libertarians mostly vote GOP, even when one of their own is in the race. Just own it.
But when you have to resort to the false equivalencies, we do get you don’t have a leg to stand on.
Cassandra I do not know if this is actually a word, but you have just created the false in-equivalency. Or something. I know you like to toss that term around and pretend that because you used it first your argument has some intellectual heft.
And I know that you like to pretend that because you supported a different Democrat in the primary from the one who won, that you get to disown her and the decision that your own primary voters made. Posture as much as you like, that’s out there.
I did support David for the position, and I don’t personally agree with his decision to drop out. I happen to think that when you accept a party nomination you should stick with it. But, hey, strange things happen inside all political parties, and mine is stranger than most.
But what you did, dear, is simply make a blanket statement that this proves your false equivalency point that Libertarians=Republicans and then do a quick internet search for one article about a book you haven’t read (and admit comes from a source you don’t trust) and then quoted it because it conveniently provide a factoid you thought would prop up your argument.
My point is this: David Eisenhour is no more legitimately ALL Libertarians than KWS is legitimately ALL Democrats. You’d like to call that a false equivalency. Go ahead. Anybody reading this can make their own decision.
You may now have the last word.
Yeah, its not like Libertarians endorse republicans or switch parties to republican to get on the ballot or anything.
Even the Delaware Libertarian blog is only “Libertarian when it suits me.”
@SW you’re absolutely correct in everything you cite, and completely wrong about your conclusion.
Libertarians don’t venerate the two-party system, and we really don’t care about your allegiance to it. To us it’s kind of like you’re still worried about allegiance to NBC in the era of cable TV and the internet.
I am only “libertarian when it suits me”–which is a philosophical position. I share a general agreement that Libertarianism should be based on social tolerance and fiscal conservatism. I also think it should be based on a non-militarized state and foreign policy with a respect for civil liberties. Those beliefs make me an outlier from the only two choices I am supposed to have.
I will grant you that it was a mistake to name a political party after a philosophy/ideology, chiefly because it gives folks like you an excuse to posture ignorantly.
Leave the heavy lifting to cassandra. At least she can always hold up her end of a good fight.
Damzzzz, sure glad I ain’t got a dog in this one!
I’m voting for Mobley for the sole reason that he is NOT KWS. He’ll probably lose, and he should–his campaign billboards make him look like a tent revival preacher, but I simply can’t vote for that phony woman.
Pity that the Libertarian dropped out of the race. I think he would have gotten a decent number of votes from Democrats protesting KWS. Mine included. That would have been the first time I voted for a Libertarian. I guess I won’t vote for anyone in that race now.
Im with ya, Roland. I’ll also be voting for mike blake, or mark blake…. dont care. He’s NOT Tom “convicted-criminal-and-all-around-total-slime-ball-who-doesn’t- deserve -to-hold-public-office-much-less-get-elected-to-a-proven-stepstone-to-the-US-senate” Gordon. Senator Gordon……. *shudder*
The point that Libertarians generally vote Republican is a truism that the CATO people decided to test. They frame their answer to make Libertarians into “swing” voters, which is laughable just based on the numbers they present. Libertarians vote more or less strongly for Republicans (at least for President which is what was cited in the article) depending upon the presence of acceptable 3rd party candidates, but apparently will vote for Ross Perot in greater numbers than they will for, oh, say — Gary Johnson.
Cato may or have captured the entire universe of Libertarians, but you can’t argue with the point that the ones they found don’t even vote for their own candidates for President. Which indicates a fatal flaw in the business of Party Building.
That said, I probably would have voted for the Libertarian candidate for IC too. Not sure yet how I’ll cast my protest vote.
There seems to be a shift in the make up of Libertarians. The young members lean to the more liberal side of the party on issues of personal freedom. The Republican party’s treatment of Ron Paul and his delegates has further isolated them from the Republicans.
There seems to be a shift in the make up of Libertarians. Whereas once they were merely embarrassed Republicans, now they are extremely embarrassed Republicans.
@cassandra “a fatal flaw in the business of Party Building.” Absolutely. And one that I personally think is worth trying to fix.
@jason If you know the history of the GOP, you know that in the late 50s-early 60s Buckley put together a coalition of Libertarians with war hawks and social conservatives. The wheels started to come off that coalition toward the end of Reagan/first Bush, as during the 1990s social conservatives were replaced by frothing at the mouth evangelicals. Libertarians split at that point between those who stayed inside the GOP to fight over control (they lost, and they continue to lose up to the present day) and those Libertarians who left for their own party. Building a party based primarily on people who are essentially anti-authoritarian in the first place is . . . a problem (Party discipline? You have to be kidding me).
Notice that CATO did make the point that in 2004 and 2006 Libertarians were deserting the GOP in fairly large numbers. The Ron Paul movement has provided the illusion that there might be some chance to change the GOP from the inside, and Richard Viguerie attempted to purchase the Libertarian Party as his own toy in 2008 with the Bob Barr nomination. About half the Libertarian Party, per se (including me), parted company with the national organization at that point.
We gave the Barr people (and most notably Wayne Root) back to the GOP this year, and in exchange got Gary Johnson who–much like Jon Huntsman–is too sane to be a good Republican in the modern sense of the word. The Johnson people are actually committed to building a functioning political party, although they’re having to do it from the top down and bottom up at the same time.
CATO’s relevance is that if they are right and 15% of the populace is at least small-L libertarian-leaning, the creation of a functional third party should appeal to them. We’ll see. And none of it will go anywhere if Libertarians cannot build functional parties at the state level, get past the ideologically crazy part of their history, and win some elections within the next 4-6 years. In Delaware that’s actually possible because the state GOP is doing us the favor of disintegrating more rapidly than anyone could have imagined.
So if you want an admission that I am severely embarrassed that many libertarians continue within the GOP ranks, here it is. Do I feel any personal responsibility for that GOP? Nope. I’ve changed registrations back and forth over the years (including to Democrat) to vote for particular candidates in closed primaries, as I did this year to support Nick Manalakos. But I can say with a clear conscience that that the last time I voted for a GOP candidate for President was in 1988.
The Libertarian Party I’m trying to build in Delaware is not going to be a Republican wannabe, but something else entirely. The process won’t be pretty, and I can live with that.
This race is closer than you think. You might be surprised at how some areas in NCC turn out. Your support is needed so it is my prayer that you will visit my website at http://www.benjaminmobley.com or visit my YouTube channel at 2012MobleyCampaign. Don’t waste your vote, support a candidate you feel has the consumers best interest in mind. Person not party. Be Blessed everyone….
Ben, sorry if I didn’t give it the attention it deserved, but I just looked at your website and found phrases like “big government takeover” and “overregulation.” You are going to be a tough sell for me, even as a protest vote.
That’s sort of the thing, isn’t it? Ben is here exhorting us to vote “person not party”, but yet his own website documents an over allegiance to the dumbest shit his party has to say. Nothing “moderate” or even vaguely competent about that.
Cass,
Wow. Let’s have dialogue… not throw bombs at each other. Have you seen my website or watched a video? Many Democrats have mentioned how they love my focus on consumer education; adding options for citizens and ensuring that insurance companies can fulfill their promises to Delaware families. We may not agree on every single thing; but, in the many areas that we do…lets fix them together. The rising cost of insurance goes across party lines. Be Blessed…
I sure have. And yet apparently there is nothing wrong in my assessment — you just don’t want it so widely known. Decreasing regulation — especially on insurance companies — is not about being focused on consumers.
The Insurance Commissioner is supposed to work for the taxpayers of this state — not for the insurance companies working here. A thing I don’t quite think you (or the current incumbent) understand.
I’m no fan of KWS, but… Ben, could you explain the Libertarian platform on health care and how you agree or disagree with your party:
Free market? Left to individuals to determine the level of health insurance they want (IF ANY????) and the race to the bottom purchase insurance across state lines (a Republican favorite)?
Mobley is the first candidate I’ve seen with customized signs. His picture is on the NC signs, and the GOP elephant is on the SC signs.
Cass,
If you’ve seen my signs then you know I don’t hide from being a Republican. Decreasing regulation has everything to do with simplifing your understanding of the product you are purchasing. What sense does it make to give you 100+ page booklet, written in language you don’t understand that describes all of your rights, coverages, etc. Then, 30 years later when you need it the most, you find it doesn’t operate the way you thought. I want you to know what you are buying and be clear on everything in insurance before you put a single dime into a policy. So let’s reduce the paperwork and simplify the language so that consumers are informed. That is what many consumers are asking for.
Consumers are asking for insurance companies to do what they said they’d do, for the price they agreed to. Requiring “plain language” in communicating with consumers the extent and limits of the coverage that they bought is itself new regulation. Regulation, I’d get behind, actually, but the kind of regulation that you have in mind is the kind that would free insurance companies to inflict even more predatory behavior on their customers. Less regulation is not what is in order — this is supposed to be a consumer-based office, so making sure that consumers are well taken care of is the thing. This implies at least enforcing the regulations currently in place or implementing more to ensure that consumers are not left at the mercy of the insurance companies.
And it’s cassandra — not cass.
But… I don’t want Mississippi, Arizona and Alabama determining my health insurance.
@jason — now *that’s* interesting. I see the signs all over Wilmington, asking people to vote split ticket. Not hiding from being a Republican — heh!
I’m a progressive Democrat and if we must have essentially a 2 party system (a tragedy of inertia toward homogenization), I’d rather that the second major party be Libertarian than Republican because at least Libertarians get many civil liberties right as well as foreign and military policy (even more so than non–progressive Democrats). The present Republican Party gets none of that right and, perhaps, nothing at all. I am, of course, extremely opposed to the Libertarian nearly unmitigated monomanical obsession with so–called “free” markets, which is a trippingly obvious attempt to transfer many of the powers of government to the undemocratic and near totalitarian domain of the private sector just to save a few bucks in taxes.
@pandora–Given that Ben is a Republican, not a Libertarian, why are you asking him to explain the Libertarian platform–or did you mistype?
@Ben Mobley–
Please tell your supporters to clean up the mess (your campaign flyers) they left all over my parking lot yesterday. Also please recognize that we’re not all Jeebus lovers & your “Be Blessed” bullshit probably repels as many people as it attracts. It comes off as insincere and phony. That shit might fly at delawarepolitics.net, but even the religious (or “Godly”, if you prefer) who contribute and/or comment here don’t wear their religion on their sleeves.
You’ve got my vote for the sole reason that you are NOT the incompetent grifter who presently holds the office you seek. Good luck in November.
Cassandra,
I don’t know what to tell you. You seem to want to put me in a category based off of my party affiliation rather than understand my platform. Every idea that I have discussed on my website and in the public has been well received…by Democrats and Republicans. Every issue in society is not a war between the parties. And “split the vote” is not me hiding being a Republican…it’s me recognizing the obvious…Obama will win Delaware. My job is to make sure that voters know they don’t have to go down ballot with the same party. This is what my opponent is counting on. I have met plenty of people this year who “thank” me for that because they did not know they could split their vote. I didn’t mean to offend you by shortening your name. My apologies and have a Blessed evening.
Roland,
Thank you for your support. I hope to have the opportunity to meet you and others on this site in the near future. I’m sure that you will find that I am a very sincere and caring person…no bs. I will need the voices on this website in order to create the change we all desire in the insurance industry. Have a “good” evening…seriously.
I don’t know what to tell you. You seem to want to put me in a category based off of my party affiliation rather than understand my platform.
Did everyone see what Ben did here? He asked me if I read his website, I told him I did and picked up an issue to discuss. And instead of engaging on that issue, Ben does this handwaving blaming my response on partisanship. As if the concerns I brought up don’t exist or aren’t worthy of discussion because some unnamed Democrats and Republicans reported back these schemes.
So that it looks to me, that should Ben Mobley actually win this thing, we get another IC who won’t engage with the people you are supposed to represent.
Could it be that the Libertarian candidate was was “encouraged” to drop out of the race to assure victory for KWS just like the straw men Gallagher and Spivack were “encouraged” to enter the primary? I wouldn’t put anything past KWS’s puppet masters now that it’s getting down to the wire and Mobley seems to be getting significant support. It would be far too expensive for McDowell if KWS were to lose so there’s little explanation for Eisenhour dropping out other than McDowell apparently trying to minimize his and KWS’s potential damages.
The funniest thing about this is that judging by the way she’s been acting since squeaking by in the primary with a mere 32% of the vote, KWS appears to actually think she’s the qualified professional she’s tried her best to get people to believe she is. Let’s hope no one is blind enough to buy that b.s.
I doubt that, metoo. I just think that the Libertarian candidate was simply not resourced to carry on a statewide campaign.
Cassandra-
Aside from Matt Denn, when did we ever have an IC who wasn’t a tool of the insurance industry? I’m not defending Mobley. He’s a politician (or at least he aspires to be one) & he gave you a politician’s answer.
As an R seeking support from Ds and liberals, Mr. Mobley should answer your questions honestly.
Good question, RDB — Matt Denn is the IC I best know since being here. His tenure in that office was the Gold Standard as far as I’m concerned. Too bad none of those left standing are even interested in such a high standard.
He gave me a politician who isn’t exactly fluent in the policies he has on his website’s answer. Mitt Romney-style. And I forgot to note that while he was thanking you for vote, he didn’t offer to have anyone come over to pick up the mess they made with his literature.