This Page

has been moved to new address

Quirky governor candidate

Sorry for inconvenience...

Redirection provided by Blogger to WordPress Migration Service
Wide White: Quirky governor candidate

Tuesday, April 04, 2006

Quirky governor candidate

If you're looking for an alternative for governor in Wisconsin, here's an interesting guy.

Check out his "Past Work Experience," listed in his Candidate Bio.
Farm Worker in Fruit Orchards : 1983-85
Worked during the summer
Fast Food Chicken Restaurant Cook 1985-1986
Spent some time in San Antonio, Texas
Self-Employed Painting Contractor : During this time I had up to 6 employees.
Furniture Delivery Driver Helper 1994-1998
Cab Driver 1998
Package Delivery Driver 1998
Swift Transportation Inc. 1998-2000
Truck Driver www.swifttrans.com

Currently I am employed at Paper Transport Inc. as a Truck Driver, and they are always looking for more hard working people. If you're interested in employment check out their website.

www.papertransport.com
Let's highlight a few points:
1. "Spent some time in San Antonio, Texas." YES!! He's got my vote! (Expertise on immigration issues?)
2. "If you're interested in employment check out their website." Need a job? Great! This guy can help!
3. The blank space. What did he do from 1986 to 1994? Spend time in San Antonio and paint?

Oh well. You need guys like Roy Leyendecker to lighten the political load.

Oh, one last blurb from his website. His first organization under "current memberships I presently hold:"
Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership
Who new a group that specific existed?

Labels: ,

20 Comments:

Blogger Stephanie declared,

Cool! I didn't know there was anyone else running for governor of Wisconsin. Still going Green, but at least there's more choice.

4/05/2006 10:07 PM  
Blogger Joey declared,

I don't think choice is necessarily a good thing. It's only a good thing if there are actually people who want it, and if that choice is actually viable. In this case, let's be honest: this guy doesn't have a chance, and no, it's not just because he's Libertarian. Ed Thompson showed us that Libertarians can actually gain ground.

I'm all for choice, but I'm all for good choice.

4/06/2006 9:22 AM  
Anonymous Roy Leyendecker declared,

I am glad that you like having a choice other than the two that don't mind each other being elected. Yet, are deathly afraid of anyone else winning. Please remember that in a three way election I only need 33 1/3% to tie and one vote over that to be elected. Also thank you for pointing out the errors in my website. I didn't know if anyone would be confused about my work history, or if you would automatically understand that between 86 and 94 I was a painting contractor.

4/06/2006 12:42 PM  
Blogger Joey declared,

I kind of figured that time period was 86 to 94, but it still looked odd, considering that every other job had a year posted.

Regarding the 33 1/3%, that's simply not true. You need the most votes, and that's not necessarily 33 1/3%. What happens when one guy gets 40%, one guy gets 33 1/3% (+1, if you want to go with that), and the other guy gets the remaining 26 2/3% (-1)? You'd lose.

You need the plural majority, and 33 1/3% +1 only gives you that if the other two candidates got 33 1/3% and 33 1/3% -1, respectively.

4/06/2006 12:49 PM  
Anonymous Roy Leyendecker declared,

Well Joey, I guess I have my work cut out for me. Have any other Governor candidates posted here? ;)

Roy

4/06/2006 12:53 PM  
Blogger Joey declared,

Nope. You're the first. Though I have received comments from one of the Campaign Managers for a governor candidate.

I've been accused of having Libertarian tendencies, but I just don't see the party going anywhere. I've met Ed Thompson. Nice guy. Might have even voted for him over McCallum. Maybe not. Just too many differences that I have with the WI Lib. Party.

That's why the Libertarian Party hasn't done so well nationally. They don't have a unified message. Some are okay with gay marriage, some aren't. Some are okay with legalized drugs, some aren't. On both of those issues, I disagree with the WI Libertarian Party.

On business issues, I'm sure I'd agree with them on almost all areas (though I've heard some proposals from them regarding a socialized health care system that I completely disagree with!). In any event, for the time being, I've decided to work within the two party system that we have, mostly because I can't find a third party that I really believe in.

4/06/2006 12:59 PM  
Blogger Joey declared,

I should add that I also can't quite say that the Republican Party has completely disenfranchised me. Various individual Republican officeholders have, but not the people in the grassroots party itself, and that's where things really happen.

4/06/2006 1:00 PM  
Anonymous Roy Leyendecker declared,

Joey, can you show me where in the constitution it give me or you the right to have complete control over what other people do? You must try to understand that our rights as individuals are not granted in any constitution. Constitutions only restrict what men elected to government are allowed or forbidden to do to us. No constitution has ever granted one right to us as Americans, I see nowhere in them where it says that any majority of people have the right to forbid any minority group of people from doing anything that pleases them. This is what made this country so great upon it’s founding, that a person could live as they decide without persecution. Take away those freedoms and we might as well be living under the tyranny of a King once again. I'll be busy and I'll check back next week.

4/06/2006 2:05 PM  
Blogger Joey declared,

I'm not sure what rights you think I want our government to take away.

If it's the "gay marriage" issue, that's an oxymoron in itself. You can't grant someone a "right" that by definition doesn't exist. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Civil unions are a different story, but regarding marriage, you just can't grant someone the right do something that by definition, they can't do. Whether or not the government recognizes it as a marriage doesn't matter to me. It's not a marriage in my book.

If that's not where you think I'm off base, then I'm confused....

4/06/2006 2:20 PM  
Anonymous Roy Leyendecker, declared,

Joey, Your personal opinion of the marriage issue are just that, your own. If two males or females become married that is their choice by action and it affects no one else. The only reason this issue politically is used in campaigns is because it creates a means to keep us divided and not dealing with the issues that matter. No rights have ever been granted by any constitution, we are born with them. No constitution grants any right, they only restrict what the governments can or cannot do to us.

4/24/2006 11:55 AM  
Blogger Joey declared,

The argument that two males' or females' decision to get married doesn't affect anyone else is bogus. It affects others in a number of ways that I think are obvious enough without me going into detail.

My "personal opinion" on the marriage issue is not just that. Like I said, it's a matter of the definition of marriage. Marriage is something that belongs to a man and a woman, period. By definition, it can't be extended further.

But I just made that argument in my last comment....

4/24/2006 12:54 PM  
Anonymous Roy Leyendecker declared,

Sorry Joey, that liberel answer doesn't work for me, let's leave your feelings out of this and discuss it like adults. I want you to list how a gay couple getting married is going to directly affect you.

On another note; I am not jewish, so are you going to join the JPFO? you don't need to be jewish to be a member.

Roy

5/05/2006 10:18 AM  
Anonymous Roy declared,

I recently saw a link that list the differences between a libertarian and conservative candidates.

http://www.fff.org/comment/com0604c.asp

Thought I would share it.

5/05/2006 10:29 AM  
Blogger Joey declared,

Alright, I'm done arguing the "personal opinion" and "feelings" thing. As I already said, the definition of marriage isn't a personal opinion, and I'm leaving it at that. I've already explained that. And no, I won't list the ways a gay couple getting married is going to directly affect me, because no matter what I say, you'll say, "It's your personal opinion." For crying out loud, if we didn't have personal opinions, we wouldn't have a constitution in the first place. If you've successfully separated your personal opinions from your political ideology, you've done something no one in history has been able to do.

No, I won't likely be joining the JPFO. I don't exactly have the $$$. Maybe once I've paid off my debt in, oh, three years.

Regarding the "differences between conservatives and libertarians," you've just explained why a libertarian like you can't win. You have to deal with the mindset of people at hand. You'll never get elected by disbanding everything you want to disband. I'd love to disband them as well. I've been accused of having libertarian tendencies before. However, I understand that if I were to seriously advocate for disbanding public schools, I'd never have a shot at election. I'd rather set aside my fundamental "radical" beliefs for the sake of being able to actually get something done. (By the way, there are a number of libertarians who agree with that and are frustrated with the fringe that refuses to compromise any of their fundamental beliefs for the sake of working with the general public, who you absolutely need to be able to convince if you're ever going to be effective.)

5/05/2006 11:22 AM  
Anonymous Roy Leyendecker declared,

Well, it is nice of you to do the liberel thing and end the discussion you can't defend.

As for the list of items, you have mixed those up, just like many poeple do, some of those items are national items that the fed is not allowed to do are distinctly prohibited in the constitution, different than what states are allowed.

As for what some libertarians choose to believe or not isn't my problem. You just admitted that as a "conservative" you don't have the courage to go against the accepted programs because too many people would have heart attacks without the support or rather welfare that keeps them employed.

If my ideas are "radical" then I must assume that yours are the normal socialist ones that are accepted and you will give up individual liberty so you don't rock the boat, that's sad.

5/05/2006 11:21 PM  
Blogger Joey declared,

Yeah, I've ended a discussion I can't defend. That's what I've done. You got me!

And nice job calling my bluff...you've discovered that I have no courage! Excellent....

Listen, I'm willing to go against accepted programs, but I also have a desire to actually bring about change. Pro-lifers didn't get into office by saying, "I want to end all abortions with no exception for the life of the mother." They started by protesting partial-birth abortion. Now, you can be completely anti-abortion, and it's not necessarily going to hurt you in an election, because enough of the general public has been educated on the issue.

Issues require education. You can't just advocate for something that the general public isn't educated on and expect a warm response.

But, continue the mudslinging if you must. Calling people like me a socialist certainly isn't going to help your candidacy.

5/06/2006 9:07 PM  
Anonymous Roy Leyendecker declared,

I said your Ideas were socialist, but if that is an attack on you, then grow a thicker skin.

You speak of Education, I have been busy educating the public every chance I get to speak and they are learning.

The President has helped greatly by collecting our phone records, doing things that communist countries we were told did to their people. This is the type of un-American behavior our soldiers died to keep from happening to us or at least that is what we were told as I grew up during the cold war.

5/13/2006 11:29 PM  
Blogger poesiefrancaise declared,

Roy,

I'd like to invite you to share
your views and present your
candidacy in Turtle Lake, this
Thursday, if your schedule is
amenable to that plan.

Here's the invitation that I'm
sending out on behalf of our
public library:

Dear Friends of the Library,

We want to invite you all (and your friends
and neighbors who may wish to know
more about candidates running in this
November's elections) to come on out to
the Ritsche Pavilion this Thursday to
learn more about who's running for office
and why.

We'll see you there,

Adam

Here's the tentative agenda:

Agenda for "Meet the Candidates" at Ritsche Pavilion,
Turtle Lake, Wisconsin
August 10th 2006 at 4 PM

1. Each candidate for Wisconsin office has 7 minutes to introduce him/herself to the public.

2. All introductions should end within about 1 to 1 1/2 hours.

3. A 10-minute break will be given for the public to mull around and chat and stretch.

4. Strips of paper will be provided at the tables for members of the public to jot down questions which will help them decide how to vote on Election Day (Eg.: health care issues, education, military/peace, children's rights, etc.)

5. For each question selected by the moderator (the moderator has the discretion to select questions based on time and content), each candidate will be allotted 2 minutes to address that question or a related issue that the candidate feels is important to their platform/campaign.

6. After an hour or so of questions, the candidates will be given 3 minutes to give a final speech and summary of the issues and why voters should choose them.

7. Thanks to candidates for state assembly/house and congressional districts and local
races for their coming out this evening.

8/04/2006 6:43 PM  
Blogger poesiefrancaise declared,

A propos de "gay marriage":

Don't know if the posting has
become too threadbare on this
issue but regarding the challenge
of how gay marriage affects
heterosexual citizens, wouldn't
one have to posit that, given
statistics about higher health
care costs for AIDS patients,
costs would invariably rise for
the general, non-AIDS population,
part or all of whose health care
costs are shouldered by their
employers.

Just a thought.

While it sounds rather "slippery
slope," it may be worth examining
the effect that gay marriage, if
legalized, would have on church
practice/polity and how churches
might sanction alternative marriages, if such ever became
authorized by the state to do so.

8/04/2006 6:51 PM  
Blogger Joey declared,

Wow, I just re-read this comment thread for the first time in 4.5 years. Interesting to see the thread now considering that I agree with Roy today. It's evidence that I haven't always made the greatest arguments for my positions. Of course, I was also politically pressured to adopt certain positions at the time. That doesn't make them right or excuse them though.

10/22/2010 5:06 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home