We Want You...in the Bull Moose Party! [Archive]

Loren

06-20-2006, 08:02 AM

Are you a conservative who’s disappointed in the direction and leadership of the current Republican Party?

Are you a libertarian who’s disenchanted with the Libertarian Party’s tendency toward extremism?

Are you a liberal who’d like to see the government be less interested in both your personal life AND your financial life?

Then join the Bull Moose Party!

http://voteloren.com/bullmooseicon.gif

Y’all may recall Jim MacQuarrie and myself talking about the Bull Moose Party in the past. Given our own disenchantment with the Republicans, two years ago we took the symbolic step of declaring ourselves members of Teddy Roosevelt’s breakaway party from a century ago. Jim officially changed his voter registration to “Independent - Bull Moose,” and I am once again attempting to run for office as a Bull Moose.

But a two-man party (albeit one that stretches across the nation, with Jim in California and myself in Georgia) is of limited reach and influence. We could keep the Bull Moose Party as a conversation-starter for parties, but we want to do a little more. And to accomplish that, we need help.

We’re looking for other folks who’d like to join us in the Bull Moose Party. If you know us, then you have an idea of where the party’s principles might lie. We might tend to call ourselves conservatives, but “classic liberal” isn’t too far off. For myself, you can see some of the positions I’ve staked out on my Issues Page (http://voteloren.com/issues.html).

We’ve obtained a party website address (www.BullMoose.org), and are looking to launch the site in a couple of weeks. July 4, to be specific. If you’d like to help us put this together, let us know. Jim’s our design whiz, but a site is nothing without content. With officers, a Constitution, and Bylaws, we could gain true party status before the fall election. Maybe even get other candidates to run. It’s the truest kind of grassroots effort.

We're happy to answer any questions you have. We think we've got a good idea here, but we just can't do it alone.

So who’d like to be a Bull Moose?

BlairH

06-20-2006, 08:16 AM

We’re looking for other folks who’d like to join us in the Bull Moose Party. If you know us, then you have an idea of where the party’s principles might lie. We might tend to call ourselves conservatives, but “classic liberal” isn’t too far off. For myself, you can see some of the positions I’ve staked out on my Issues Page (http://voteloren.com/issues.html).

You might want to avoid the term "liberal" when describing the party in public, since the American use of the word "liberal" is very much contrary to the conservative principles of your party. nMaybe just stick with "Libertarian Conservative" or -dare I say- Republitarian?

Other than that, it sounds like a good party. Very much in line with my own beliefs. Would you be willing to accept any UK support?

Loren

06-20-2006, 08:32 AM

You might want to avoid the term "liberal" when describing the party in public, since the American use of the word "liberal" is very much contrary to the conservative principles of your party. nMaybe just stick with "Libertarian Conservative" or -dare I say- Republitarian?

I don't intend to overuse the term, simply because it might confuse people as to where we stand.

But I hesitate to simply avoid it, because it really is a good term and label. From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism):

Classical liberalism is a political philosophy that supports individual rights as pre-existing the state, a government that exists to protect those moral rights, ensured by a constitution that protects individual autonomy from other individuals and governmental power, private property, and a laissez-faire economic policy.

That's as good a summation of my political philosophy as any.

Other than that, it sounds like a good party. Very much in line with my own beliefs. Would you be willing to accept any UK support?

Sure.

Alex

06-20-2006, 08:57 AM

Classical liberalism is a political philosophy that supports individual rights as pre-existing the state, a government that exists to protect those moral rights, ensured by a constitution that protects individual autonomy from other individuals and governmental power, private property, and a laissez-faire economic policy.

:-o
Jesus! That's the closest thing i have every read to what i think!

Citizen V

06-20-2006, 09:11 AM

It doesnt matter what party you join really,as long as you want to help people it does not really matter.

Calybos

06-20-2006, 09:20 AM

Looks like a good project, Loren. I hope it gets a lot of support.

Adam Crocker

06-20-2006, 12:21 PM

That's as good a summation of my political philosophy as any.

It is, and, should you use it enough, I suppose it's a good way to repair American political discourse somewhat by reappropriating what Republican Partisans' favourite swear word, either forcing them to come up with a new one or in the meantime force them to actually think about an articulate their principles rather than resorting to a near constant stream of demonization. Admittedly that's not an easy task and if anything it's something you're going to have work at carefully in order to properly introduce the concept in speeches and conversation should you decide that you'll use it enough to merit it. If anything it's worth having up on the website just to give people a good education in the history of modern political philosophy by reminding them of where these values come from.

That said I doubt I could be any help. My politics are not those of you and Mac, though I'm happy to see anyone get politically involved and make some sort of change, especially in a country like America where the political discourse is increasingly dominated by a narrow set of partisan views. Plus I'm yam a dirty Canuck living in the People's Republic of Saskatchewan. So I couldn't join anyways. Still I wish you to luck on your admittedly difficult endeavour.

Mike Smash!

06-20-2006, 12:28 PM

Good luck, Loren and Jim!

There's certainly a gaping hole begging to be filled by a principled radical centrist/moderate libertarian party and I wish you guys all the luck!

cactusmaac

06-20-2006, 01:56 PM

cactusmaac

06-20-2006, 01:57 PM

edit...............

Loren

06-20-2006, 03:06 PM

Why pick the name Bull Moose?

Wasn't that a party started by Theodore Roosevelt because his ego couldn't handle Taft being President instead of him? The same party that resulted in Woodrow (blech) Wilson being elected?

That's one way to look at it. But Teddy also had his share of differences with the Republican Party of his day. His Progressive Party's platform had some planks that we'd regard as downright left-wing.

But why Bull Moose? A few reasons:

1) It's an existing party name that's not in use, but which will sound familiar to people. In that way, it's better than a new, made-up, generic-sounding party name like the Freedom Party or the Tomorrow Party. The name has a history, which helps to compensate for the fact that the party is, to date, spearheaded by a couple of comic geeks.

2) It conveys 'conservative' without the connotation that 'Republican' can have with some voters. To the extent it does say the latter, it generally gives the impression of rebel Republican. Teddy and Lincoln are the two universally (excepting Tages) loved Republican figures. You hitch your wagon to a good horse, and 'Bull Moose' is better than 'Whig.'

3) It comes with its own mascot. I've opined before that American third parties don't appreciate the value of a good mascot. The Green Party, for instance, has the sunflower as its mascot. The Libertarians just use the Statue of Liberty. Those kind of mascots can't be used to personify a party the way Nast started using the donkey and elephant. A good animal mascot provides a visual representation of a party, and there can be great power in iconography. My own campaign site doesn't even have my picture yet, but I trust that the moose will make a bigger impression on people than my mug will.

Plus, unlike the donkey and elephant, the moose is a native American animal. Its mere image, even in photographs, conveys the American (and Canadian) northwest.

JeffreyWKramer

06-20-2006, 03:11 PM

I'm not sure I have time available to do anything other than offer moral support, but I certainly do offer that to your efforts here. A multi-party system is something this nation needs, and while I disagree with some of your outlined stances, your platform is closer to my thinking than is that of any other party at this point in time.

BlairH

06-20-2006, 04:35 PM

Where does the Bull Moose Party stand in regards to foreign affairs, particularly in regards to the war on terror?

Paul McEnery

06-20-2006, 06:12 PM

That's one way to look at it. But Teddy also had his share of differences with the Republican Party of his day. His Progressive Party's platform had some planks that we'd regard as downright left-wing.
Mind, it does sound a little like a new name for the Butch Log Cabin Republicans. :evilsmile

Iangould

06-20-2006, 07:57 PM

Nah, that'd be the Bull Dyke Party.

Mike Smash!

06-20-2006, 10:56 PM

Why pick the name Bull Moose?

Wasn't that a party started by Theodore Roosevelt because his ego couldn't handle Taft being President instead of him? The same party that resulted in Woodrow (blech) Wilson being elected?It's official name was the Progressive Party, but its nickname was the Bull Moose Party, because of a remark that Teddy made about being "as fit as a Bull Moose".

It was largely formed because he thought that Taft was a sad and weak President and because the party hacks were with Taft and there was some shenanigans at the convention.

It wasn't an ego thing, but the whole thing could have been prevented had Roosevelt simply asked Taft not to run again in private -- Taft never wanted to be President -- instead of calling him out in public.

They were close friends before that election and it was years before they reconciled.

Mostly the party was created out of anger at Taft for allowing the Republicans to drift away from being the party of reform and trust busting and becoming more conservative and friendly with big business. Taft, not having Teddy's charisma or hard headedness could never get things to carry over from his term as Vice President under Teddy and ended up getting cuddly with the right wing of the party.

Teddy saw that as a betrayal of his legacy, since he had hand picked Taft.

And they didn't result in Woodrow Wilson being elected President. Teddy got more votes than Taft and won a handful of states, including mine. Taft, the standing president came in third with just over 20% or so.

That and the notion of the spoiler factor is total bullshit as I've explained in past threads.

If anyone is really interested in the Presidential election of 1912 (fistfights at the Republican convention!), check out the excellent book "1912: Roosevelt, Wilson, Taft and Debs - the Election that Changed the Country"

Great book.

And yes, Woodrow Wilson was a fraud and a bigot.

Mike Smash!

06-20-2006, 11:01 PM

3) It comes with its own mascot. I've opined before that American third parties don't appreciate the value of a good mascot. The Green Party, for instance, has the sunflower as its mascot. The Libertarians just use the Statue of Liberty. Those kind of mascots can't be used to personify a party the way Nast started using the donkey and elephant.

I like the sunflower. It's a good contrast to the animals that other parties use. Plus, as I tell people at events, we have the only mascot that doesn't poop. Hell, other parties' "poop" will only help us grow.

http://www.cbc.ca/gfx/pix/green_party_canada_logo.jpg

http://www.seattlegreens.org/images/logo.gif

I'm with you on the Libertarians too. The Reform and Constitution Parties both use eagles, which are pretty generic. The Independence Party of Minnesota uses a bison.

Sanagi

06-21-2006, 02:38 AM

Typo Lad

06-21-2006, 05:18 AM

I'd like to know the official party lines on:

1) Gay marriage.
2) Palestine.
3) Israel
4) Abortion
5) Gun Control
6) Private School Vouchers.

Loren

06-21-2006, 06:17 AM

I like the sunflower. It's a good contrast to the animals that other parties use. Plus, as I tell people at events, we have the only mascot that doesn't poop. Hell, other parties' "poop" will only help us grow.

Heh. Yeah, it can look good on letterhead, but it also bears a certain resemblance to the BP logo:

http://www.taylorsyms.co.uk/images/bp_logo.gif

and it can't be translated into editorial cartoons and such.

I'm with you on the Libertarians too. The Reform and Constitution Parties both use eagles, which are pretty generic. The Independence Party of Minnesota uses a bison.

With the eagle being our national bird, using the eagle to represent your party doesn't do much to stake out a party identity.

I noticed the bison when I visited the MNIP website, and I actually think it's a great mascot. A large, iconic animal that's instinctively American, and which strikes a great profile.

Mike Smash!

06-21-2006, 06:48 AM

Heh. Yeah, it can look good on letterhead, but it also bears a certain resemblance to the BP logo:

http://www.taylorsyms.co.uk/images/bp_logo.gif

and it can't be translated into editorial cartoons and such.

We had it first! ;) And it's harder to use the sunflower to make us look stupid, too. I mean, the DNC donkey originally came from an insulting cartoon attacking Andrew Jackson.

I've never found any official origin of the GOP's elephant, aside from the fact that people making minimum wage are the ones who usually have to shovel the huge piles of shit they leave behind.

The sunflower stands tall, it can grow in nearly any terrain, it's basically tough and beautiful. Plus it connects us to Green Parties worldwide. I suppose it works in the way that many socialist political parties around the world use the red rose as a logo or Canada uses the maple leaf.

Plants work as well as animals.

With the eagle being our national bird, using the eagle to represent your party doesn't do much to stake out a party identity.

Naw, it's pretty generic:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/7b/Constitution_party_logo.gif.gif

and the Reform Party's:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/ba/American_reform_party_logo.png

I noticed the bison when I visited the MNIP website, and I actually think it's a great mascot. A large, iconic animal that's instinctively American, and which strikes a great profile.

I think it's a good one, too.

Wesley Dodds

06-21-2006, 06:51 AM

I'd like to know the official party lines on:

1) Gay marriage.
2) Palestine.
3) Israel
4) Abortion
5) Gun Control
6) Private School Vouchers.

And I'd like to know where you stand on nationalisation of industry.

BlairH

06-21-2006, 06:51 AM

I've never found any official origin of the GOP's elephant
Isn't it from the same cartoon as the Democrat mascot? The GOP's elephant was scaring the dem mascot?

I'm sure I read this somewhere. Maybe it was in a dream?

BlairH

06-21-2006, 06:52 AM

And I'd like to know where you stand on nationalisation of industry.
Or the redistribution of wealth to the proliteriat!

Loren

06-21-2006, 07:00 AM

I'd like to know the official party lines on:

There are no official party lines as of yet; that's part of the reason we're seeking out other interested folks. Jim and I naturally want a party we identify with and feel at home in, but we also want the party's platform to represent a collaborative effort of more than just the two of us. Those who join us will help to craft those official party lines.

That said, I'm willing to give some quick answers as to what *I* think about the issues you asked of:

1) Gay marriage.

Largely indifferent. I oppose the Federal Marriage Amendment, because I believe it should be up to the people of each state to decide what kind of marriage laws they want. When the people want it, it'll happen. It's a matter for legislatures and referenda, because from a legal standpoint I don't believe it's a matter for the courts to impose change.

2) Palestine.
3) Israel

Neither side is innocent, but that doesn't mean that the offenses of both sides are equivalent. The Israelis have a tendency to overreact, but the Palestinians have a tendency to target civilians and children for murder out of the blue. I'm fine with a Palestinian state, but it has to acknowledge the legitimacy of Israel. We can help, but peace depends far more on their willingness to cooperate than our capacity to push them.

4) Abortion

Unless/until Roe gets overruled, this is almost moot. Both major parties make a huge stink about it, despite the fact that there's really very little the legislative or executive can do to change it. We might as well argue whether the federal minimum wage should exist; whether you like it or not, it ain't going away. In both cases, the relevant debate is in the details.

I'll still take one position right now, though. I don't support a federal partial-birth abortion ban, because I think it violates the Tenth Amendment's limitation on federal power.

5) Gun Control

"The right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" acknowledges an individual right. I don't like registration (especially federal registration, per the 10th Amendment again), but I like background checks.

6) Private School Vouchers.

I've gone back and forth on the issue. But our school system would benefit greatly from viable competition, as opposed to the state-run near-monopoly we have now.

Mike Smash!

06-21-2006, 07:06 AM

Isn't it from the same cartoon as the Democrat mascot? The GOP's elephant was scaring the dem mascot?

I'm sure I read this somewhere. Maybe it was in a dream?Not that I know of. I've never even heard a fake sounding story for the origin of the elephant.

It wasn't really even a standardized logo until the 20th Century. Many parts of the country have ballots with different logos, like the eagle for the GOP and the rooster for the Democrats.

Typo Lad

06-21-2006, 07:14 AM

There are no official party lines as of yet; that's part of the reason we're seeking out other interested folks. Jim and I naturally want a party we identify with and feel at home in, but we also want the party's platform to represent a collaborative effort of more than just the two of us. Those who join us will help to craft those official party lines.

You're teasing me, you know that, right? A chance to shape policy?

1) Gay marriage.

Largely indifferent. I oppose the Federal Marriage Amendment, because I believe it should be up to the people of each state to decide what kind of marriage laws they want. When the people want it, it'll happen. It's a matter for legislatures and referenda, because from a legal standpoint I don't believe it's a matter for the courts to impose change.

A good, honest answer that I can get behind.

I also personally don't feel the goverment should be in the marriage business at all, no matter who's putting what in where, but that's not something that should be policy.

2) Palestine.
3) Israel

Neither side is innocent, but that doesn't mean that the offenses of both sides are equivalent. The Israelis have a tendency to overreact, but the Palestinians have a tendency to target civilians and children for murder out of the blue. I'm fine with a Palestinian state, but it has to acknowledge the legitimacy of Israel. We can help, but peace depends far more on their willingness to cooperate than our capacity to push them.

Ah. I disagree. I'm against any favoritisms.

4) Abortion

Unless/until Roe gets overruled, this is almost moot. Both major parties make a huge stink about it, despite the fact that there's really very little the legislative or executive can do to change it. We might as well argue whether the federal minimum wage should exist; whether you like it or not, it ain't going away.

I love this]. Seriously. An honest policy.

"The right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" acknowledges an individual right. I don't like registration (especially federal registration, per the 10th Amendment again), but I like background checks.

What do you dislike about registration per se? I like the idea of "annonymous" registration. Every gun is registered, but not the owner.

6) Private School Vouchers.

I've gone back and forth on the issue. But our school system would benefit greatly from viable competition, as opposed to the state-run near-monopoly we have now.

The problem is when does Seperation of Church and State enter the equation?

Mike Smash!

06-21-2006, 07:25 AM

My questions for the Bull Moosers.

Separation of church and state.
Civil Liberties, warrantless wiretapping and the USA PATRIOT Act.
Corporate personhood and corporate power and influence over government.
Eminent domain powers.
the War on Drugs.

Loren

06-21-2006, 07:36 AM

I mean, the DNC donkey originally came from an insulting cartoon attacking Andrew Jackson.

And which Jackson immediately adopted for his own use, although the Party didn't follow suit.

The use of the elephant and the donkey are primarily credited to editorial cartoonist Thomas Nast (http://www.c-span.org/questions/week174.htm) in the 1870s.

BlairH

06-21-2006, 07:37 AM

Double post. Sorry.

BlairH

06-21-2006, 07:38 AM

What do you dislike about registration per se? I like the idea of "annonymous" registration. Every gun is registered, but not the owner.

What exactly does registration accomplish? In Canada they decided to get rid of the registration simply because it did little to identify weapons used in crimes. Furthermore, the cost of keeping such a registry was astronomical.

Wesley Dodds

06-21-2006, 07:47 AM

Typo Lad

06-21-2006, 07:55 AM

What exactly does registration accomplish? In Canada they decided to get rid of the registration simply because it did little to identify weapons used in crimes. Furthermore, the cost of keeping such a registry was astronomical.

Cost I buy as an issue, but if it were effective, that outweighs cost.

If it did little to ID then there's no point, is there?

BlairH

06-21-2006, 07:56 AM

The problem is that this is just another variant of conservatism. Conservatism is already a movement that has Libertarians, radical religion, and pragmatic wet conservatives. What sets this party apart from all the other conservative movements out there?
Well, by the sounds of things:
-It's less religious than the Constitution Party
-It's less X-TREME! YO! than the Libertarians
-They are not Republicans

Quite a bit I'd say. There is definately a niche out there for the Bull Moose Party. Indeed, their manifesto -such as it is- is one that appeals to me more than that of the Republicans or the other tory parties.

And what does this party have to offer to liberals -- people who hate the "I'm your dickhead dad" model of government?
What do the Democrats, the Progressives or the Greens have to offer to conservatives --people who hate the "I'm your overbearing Nanny" type of Government.

Loren

06-21-2006, 07:56 AM

My questions for the Bull Moosers.

I don't have much time right now, but I'll try to give a quick answer to each.

Separation of church and state.

Start off with a broad one, why doncha? My own take on this can be pretty complex, so I'll just cite one example. I don't think we need to have the Ten Commandments in the courtroom, but I don't think it's a violation of the Establishment Clause to do so.

Civil Liberties, warrantless wiretapping and the USA PATRIOT Act.

80% or so of the PATRIOT Act is, IIRC, accepted even by the ACLU. It's the remaining 20% that's disputed, and I don't hold a single opinion of that whole bunch. But there are parts of the Act I'm uncomfortable with.

I don't like warrantless wiretapping. And I don't agree with keeping detainees indefinitely without trial. They may be criminals, and they should be punished, but imagine if another country detained an American indefinitely on similar charges. Golden rule.

Corporate personhood and corporate power and influence over government.

MacQ made the argument on the YABS board for an Amendment getting rid of corporate personhood.

This is probably the area where you and I differ the most, because I fear the power and force of big government more than the influence of big business, and corporate reforms tend to further grow and empower the government.

Eminent domain powers.

It's the perfect merger of big business interests with big government force. I believe the power serves a good, but it should be used sparingly and only for "public use."

the War on Drugs.

I have some of my thoughts on it here (http://voteloren.com/issues.html#wod). John Stossel (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/06/prison_for_you_but_not_for_me.html) also has a good column on it today, and I would apply his thoughts to celebrities as well.

Typo Lad

06-21-2006, 07:56 AM

And what does this party have to offer to liberals -- people who hate the "I'm your dickhead dad" model of government?

Well, I'm a liberal and so far I'm finding the concept of a party that's intellectually honest to be refreshing.

At least, it seems to me that this is what they're going for.

JeffreyWKramer

06-21-2006, 08:10 AM

The problem is that this is just another variant of conservatism. Conservatism is already a movement that has Libertarians, radical religion, and pragmatic wet conservatives. What sets this party apart from all the other conservative movements out there?

Well, it's actually somewhat more mainstream-libertarian in POV than is the current party calling themselves the Libertarians. The Libs have started to progress some, but there are still a lot of loons and wackos inhabiting that party.

And what does this party have to offer to liberals -- people who hate the "I'm your dickhead dad" model of government?
How about a stronger overt stance toward civil liberties than is indicated by the present Democratic Party's voting record, and recent history. What, with a couple decades of Democratic party figures (including Lieberman, Hillary and Tipper Gore) arguing for censorship of music, video games, etc. , plus all the Dems who voted for the Patriot Act, it's clear the Democratic Party doesn't really walk that walk.

Loren

06-21-2006, 09:55 AM

I just wanted to toss out a link to this post of Jim's (http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showpost.php?p=3266000&postcount=20) from the YABS board thread I posted.

And this post (http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showpost.php?p=3237985&postcount=371) from the Ann Coulter thread there offers a pretty good look at his policy thoughts.

cactusmaac

06-21-2006, 02:17 PM

It's official name was the Progressive Party, but its nickname was the Bull Moose Party, because of a remark that Teddy made about being "as fit as a Bull Moose".

It was largely formed because he thought that Taft was a sad and weak President and because the party hacks were with Taft and there was some shenanigans at the convention.

It wasn't an ego thing, but the whole thing could have been prevented had Roosevelt simply asked Taft not to run again in private -- Taft never wanted to be President -- instead of calling him out in public.

They were close friends before that election and it was years before they reconciled.

Mostly the party was created out of anger at Taft for allowing the Republicans to drift away from being the party of reform and trust busting and becoming more conservative and friendly with big business. Taft, not having Teddy's charisma or hard headedness could never get things to carry over from his term as Vice President under Teddy and ended up getting cuddly with the right wing of the party.

Teddy saw that as a betrayal of his legacy, since he had hand picked Taft.

And they didn't result in Woodrow Wilson being elected President. Teddy got more votes than Taft and won a handful of states, including mine. Taft, the standing president came in third with just over 20% or so.
.

Huh?

Taft launched far more anti-trust suits than Roosevelt did.

Presumably those voting for Taft and Roosevelt would have combined their votes if a single Republican candidate was on the ticket, and kept Wilson out.

Mike Smash!

06-21-2006, 03:53 PM

Huh?

Taft launched far more anti-trust suits than Roosevelt did.These are Teddy's claims not mine.

Taft was also much less aggressive than Teddy and much more cuddly with the GOP's conservative wing.

Presumably those voting for Taft and Roosevelt would have combined their votes if a single Republican candidate was on the ticket, and kept Wilson out.Not always the case, as just about every "spoiler" charge ever made had proven.

Not every Roosevelt voter would have voted for Taft and vice versa.

Loren

07-04-2006, 12:11 PM

Starting today, the new site for the Bull Moose Party is up and running. We're still working on producing more content, but what's Independence Day without Independents?

So drop by and check us out!

http://www.bullmoose.org

spoon_jenkins

07-04-2006, 01:49 PM

We had it first! ;) And it's harder to use the sunflower to make us look stupid, too. I mean, the DNC donkey originally came from an insulting cartoon attacking Andrew Jackson.
It originated from labeling Jackson as "Andrew Jackass", not from a cartoon. Like Loren noted, Jackson coopted it. From what I read, he used visual depictions of the donkey on his behalf before there were derogatory cartoons using.

Daniel Lewis

07-04-2006, 04:43 PM

Sign me up, Loren. I dunno what use I'll be to the party, but I agree with a lot of your stances-- and those that I don't, well, it's a big tent. :)

...We stand for the truth, convenient or otherwise. We stand for justice, both at home and abroad.

And we stand for the American way, in how it has brought us to this point and in how it will guide us in the future. Our political state may be suffering, but America itself continues to thrive. Our history is one of ever-increasing greatness, and the Bull Moose Party wants to help make it greater still.

Nice homage there. Warms my heart.

Loren

07-04-2006, 07:21 PM

Sign me up, Loren. I dunno what use I'll be to the party, but I agree with a lot of your stances-- and those that I don't, well, it's a big tent. :)

Indeed it is. Glad to have ya. And don't doubt your usefulness; if nothing else, maybe you can wear the moose costume at the convention. That is, once we have a moose costume. And a convention.

Nice homage there. Warms my heart.

Thanks. I was afraid that was too much, but it's worked out perfectly. None of the non-comic fans who I've had read it have picked up on that, and the folks who do notice it like it.