Check out his site: http://www.smither4congress.com esp the video

NO Libertarian has ever won a Congressional seat. Imagine the media and the public’s reaction when Smither not only wins—- but wins Tom DeLay’s old seat.

He can win and here’s why:

1. NO Republican on the ballot in a very conservative district
2. NO incumbent (DeLay is gone)
3. Democrat is perfect stereotype: old time pro-union, big spending, Nancy Pelosi liberal who, adding insult to injury, is carpetbagging from across the state.

Smither can WIN— not a good showing— win ! !

Talk up the buzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

Help us. Lloyd Laughlin laughlinou@yahoo.com 214.636.0000

“Mr. Smither Goes to Washington”

Eh - I’ll give Lockyer some credit for trying to do _something_. I’ve looked at the issue very closely (I’d say more than 99% of Americans, though that doesn’t say much), and it seems pretty clear that there _is_ a direct correlation between human pollution and global warming. Enough so at least that we should take it more seriously than we are now. I agree that what he’s doing is a publicity stunt. On the other hand, publicity is exactly what the issue needs.

Abuse of the system? That’s one way to look at it. Or you might look at it in a way that says the system (our entire government) was designed for exactly this kind of stuff - allowing acts in the judicial branch to influence the legislative and executive even when the case is lost. There was a time when a segregation case would have had no chance of success either, though I’m sure you could knock a bunch of holes in that analogy as well, so forget it

I’d love to see you do a write-up on global warming and what we can do to address it. Clearly you’re not happy with the current methods being done, right?

That has nothing to do with emissions and global warming, though, just thought I’d bring it up.

Regulation though should be done via the legislative process, not by lawsuit.

As for your drug analogy, first off we have seen how well that works. Secondly, drug manufacture is illegal, it has been legislated against and therefore it is entirely legitimate to use the judicial system against them. Making cars, even cars that contribute massively to global warming, is not illegal.

Also, every analyst I have seen says that this suit has no chance of success. Lockyear knows that, it is a publicity stunt not a good faith lawsuit. That is just plain wrong and it damages the institutions themselves.

I agree, attacking cars isn’t going to really help. The truth is that they probably know that the impact of the case (win or loose) will be larger due to the publicity it gets than the actual outcome of the case.

Global warming effects are not solely caused by driving cars. There are many things that have been blamed for leading to global warming and cars are only a small part of that problem.

As far as the auto industry goes, consider that there are those in that industry who have worked to produce fuel-efficient cars in response to consumer demand and have responded to state requirements on emissions standards as well, it’s not comparable to the tobacco industry, in which there was no way to create a cigarette that has a lower risk of causing health issues. All cigarettes pose the same level of risk, while some automobiles carry a bigger risk to the environment, but manufacturers can and have worked to reduce those risks.

Now, if auto makers refused to comply with whatever standards California or another state put into place, then the state has grounds for a lawsuit. But that’s what not I’m seeing in this particular case, at least based on what Dave quoted.

However, this particular case goes one step further and points to an effect that doesn’t have such a direct cause as tobacco. Also, there is no smoking gun that shows industry execs know their products are causing direct harm to the environment. But isn’t that how our judicial system works: by pushing precedent further each time until they are blocked?

Another comparison: this is sort of like the difference between going after the drug users and the drug suppliers. My opinion is that drug users shouldn’t be prosecuted, but rather the supplier should be. Similar hear: even if the users are the real cause of the problem, it’s easier to target the supplier as there are fewer of them and you don’t have to try to change social behaviors in the process. Instead, you cut off the source and society is forced to adapt.