Sweet Loretta Nall vs. Judge Roy Moore (Alabama-Is-Gaining-On-Mississippi Edition)

Reader Warren directed our attention last week to this tragically overlooked story in contemporary politics. From the Daily Kos via Blue Gal:

Loretta Nall is the only candidate for Governor in Alabama who publicly admits that she does not wear panties.

Her brother is in prison for alcohol related offenses and she was not allowed to visit him because in spite of wearing pants, she was not wearing panties underneath. Going commando is apparently enough in Alabama to get you kicked outta prison. Hallelujah!

Needless to say, Nall is vying for the Libertarian Party nod and has a pretty damn good web site explaining her positions on just about everything.

Here's hoping she gets to run against Roy "Ten Commandments" Moore, the judge who worshipped a rock with Mosaic law inscribed on it like, well, a golden calf.

Comments

[Jennifer]

How exactly does an Alabama prison determine that a visiting woman is not wearing underwear under her pants?

[grizzly]

It’s been a while, but if I remember correctly… They asked. …and she told them.

[wsdave]

If the prison system can get away with asking, can the TSA?

[Jennifer]

Okay, then let me rephrase my question: why does an Alabama prison need to ask if a woman is wearing underwear under her pants? Damned perverts.

Skirts, maybe I could see the point of making sure women are wearing something underneath in a prison environment. But not pants.

[Alan Vanneman]

Why the “Alabama is Gaining on Mississippi” head, Nick? Nall surely doesn’t have much of a chance, because she wants to eliminate the Alabama “War on Drugs,” which, as she pointed out in a speech she gave on the anniversary of the March on Selma, is really a war on black men. Toking while black not only gets you a jail term, but you lose your right to vote.

I’d think you’d agree with Nall if you bothered to get past the no panties bit, but I guess it’s just too much fun laughing at those barefoot, inbred, toothless hicks down south. I wonder if Nall wouldn’t make a better Libertarian candidate for president than those don’t pay no damn taxes, don’t need no lousy stinking driver’s license dudes who’ve been running for the past several elections.

[Warren]

Jennifer,
Read all about it.

And to all,
The ongoing saga of Loretta Nall is well worth keeping tabs on. A new developement is the Montgomery Independent printed printed a letter she wrote in reply to an article and picture they ran earlier. FANTASTIC use of the MSM. A hilarious and gripping story, under the “Great Boobie Flap 2006” link on her website.

[Warren]

BTW
Blue Gal, found Loretta such a kindred spirit she was motivated to send $5. You can too Someone as entertaining and well spoken as Loretta is well worth it.

[Jennifer]

That was an infuriating story, Warren. So you have to show the waistband of your panties to get in?

I also wonder what exactly fits the legal definition of underwear, anyway. If I get a pair but completely cut the crotch out, so that I’m basically wearing nothing but a strip of cloth around my middle but nothing between the legs, that would count, in the sense that I’d have a waistband to show those undie-obsessed guardians of the public.

Fuck it. I need to make friends with an Alabama inmate so I can do just that before I visit him. And then hold a press conference demonstrating the stupidity of the law.

[thoreau]

Jennifer, I imagine that there are lots of prison inmates who would be happy to correspond with a woman on the outside. But I don’t think it’s a very good idea. And I think that if you announce to the world that you wore deliberately unconventional underwear during the visit, that might just make things even creepier.

[Jennifer]

Thoreau, never let it be said that I allowed mere common sense to get in the way of my flipping the government the bird.

Besides, I was thinking more along the lines of a purely heterosexual female inmate. Preferably imprisoned for a victimless crime. Maybe a nice, respectable prostitute or something.

[Reformed Republican]

If women do not wear panties, the terrorists have won.

[Jennifer]

As I think more about it, it’s almost like Redneck Zen, in a way. Instead of asking about the sound of one hand clapping, or the sound of a fallen tree that nobody hears, Alabama philosophers can ponder how many holes underwear can have before it ceases to be underwear.

[Number 6]

Great. Another LP candidate with a whackaloon claim to fame. Methinks it’s time for the LP to just call it quits. That, or announce that they are in direct competition with the LaRouchies for the mantle of kookiest political movement.

[Kwix]

Alan,
Why the “Alabama is Gaining on Mississippi” head, Nick?
I believe that Nick chose Mississippi because of the recent upholding of an anti-sex toy law.

[Kwix]

Number 6
How is Nall a ‘whackaloon’? Personally, running for governor under the Alabama Marijuana Party isn’t a half bad idea. She won’t win anyway so why not bring attention to a single issue cause. The fact that she is libertarian by nature and may seek the Libertarian nomination doesn’t make her a whackaloon. If anything does, it is that she’s willing to take on the established political structure by voicing an uncommmon viewpoint. That’s a whackaloon I can stand behind.

[David McElroy]

Since the LP isn’t even on the ballot in Alabama this year, it isn’t much help to have the party’s nomination. (The state LP didn’t have the money to afford to do the petitioning for ballot access, and ballot access requirements here are among the worst in the country.) As for Roy Moore, he won’t even win the GOP primary, IMO, much less face off against Nall’s intrepid campaign.

[thoreau]

The LP: Defending the right of ferret-owning druids to go commando since 1970.

[emme]

“Okay, then let me rephrase my question: why does an Alabama prison need to ask if a woman is wearing underwear under her pants? ”

I’m not sure why they ask this. I know here in chicago before they throw you in the cell they make sure your shoes don’t have laces on them.

I guess there’s the fear that you’ll strangle an inmate or yourself. I have no idea.

[Number 6]

Kwix-She’s a whackaloon because she’s made a point of standing up for the right to not wear panties. That, to me, puts her in the same silly category as Harry “drivers’ licenses are evil and I don’t pay taxes” Browne. She may well be justified in her anti-panty stance, but that doesn’t change the fact that it’s an inconsequential issue and that she’s making herself look like a flake.
Odd, I don’t recall saying that having a libertarian point of view made one a whackaloon.
I’ll grant you this, though-public association with the gaggle of moonbats that consitute the LP makes one suspect.

[methodman]

Loretta Nall is the only candidate for Governor in Alabama who publicly admits that she does not wear panties.

Judge Roy Moore, being the upstanding citizen that he is, of course does wear panties. (?)

[Jennifer]

She’s a whackaloon because she’s made a point of standing up for the right to not wear panties.

That’s one way to look at it. But taking the other perspective: what the hell does it say about our government, when the laws are so inherently stupid that even opposing them looks stupid?

Consider this: I smuggle nail clippers with me whenever I fly on business. Our government is now so pathetic that sitting in a hotel room clipping hangnails has become a goddamned act of defiance.

Yes, demanding the right to cut your hangnails on business trips sounds pretty damned pathetic, but not as pathetic as the government which took that right away in the first place.

[Number 6]

Jennifer-You and I might agree with her stance. But to the vast majority, she’ll come off as a moonbat. And a failure to recognize that makes her either dense or crazy.

Think about 10 people you know. How many would see her stance as anything other than batty?

[Russ 2000]

Kwix-She’s a whackaloon because she’s made a point of standing up for the right to not wear panties.

Number 6,

I think this qualifies YOU as the whackaloon because that is absolutely NOT what she’s making a point about.

[John DeWitt]

How is Nall a ‘whackaloon’?

Well, you have to admit that only the LP seems to consistently find the sort of candidate for state office whose only claim to fame is a public refusal to wear underwear when visiting prisons…

[thoreau]

Jennifer-

By all means, stand up for your right to do any darn thing that you want, but don’t run for governor on a platform that emphasizes the more trivial things that you want to do. Run for governor on a platform that emphasizes the big stuff.

[Number 6]

Russ 2000- Maybe, and maybe not. The point remains that the electorate will see that as her point. That, and she wants to smoke pot. And I say again, failure to recognize that makes her nutty.
The LP is a laughingstock, and stuff like this is a large part of the reason.

[Jennifer]

Thoreau, if I were a third-party candidate who had no chance in hell of winning anyway, why NOT focus on the little things, to at least bring them to people’s attention?

[Wild Pegasus]

In fairness, for third-party candidates, the media loves to find some kooky position or belief and make that the centrepiece of their (already scant) coverage. If they didn’t, horror of horrors, someone might listen to their ideas.

– Josh

[Number 6]

Jennifer-Because doing so would make you look:
a) Inconsequential
b) Like a moonbat.

Think Harry Browne.

[thoreau]

Jennifer-

If you really think such a candidacy could rouse enough public sympathy to change a small thing, sure, go for it. But if you think you could have an even bigger impact by drawing attention to a bigger issue, or by running as a more serious person and taking on an influential spoiler role, maybe the subject of underwear in prison isn’t the best thing to focus on.

And if you figure that you’re bound to have zero impact on anything regardless of what you do, maybe you should let somebody else run.

[Jennifer]

Fair enough.

[Lowdog]

I don’t think it’s the panties thing, she’s arguing that the corrections officers were pricks and that they didn’t have all their rules clearly stated, then wanted to be pricks about it.

I agree she has no chance of winning anything, but so what? Everyone’s so worried about chances of winning and game theory and all that shit, they don’t actually vote for the person they’d really like to see in office.

And I’m sorry, but even a moonbat would have been preferable to the fucktard we’ve got in office now, no?

[ChicagoTom]

state office whose only claim to fame is a public refusal to wear underwear when visiting prisons….

I dug around her website. Since I dont live in Alabama, I dont really know her or anything about her, but it seems that she has more of a claim to fame than that.

She sits on the State Board of Prison reform and she co-hosts a morning show that discusses various issues. Her platform isn’t too shabby either. (Granted it comes off as amateurish writing style, but I think recent elections have proved that not sounding too intellectual is actually a plus).

But since she was called to your attention becuase of this quirky story, she is mocked and attacked and dismissed as a “whakaloon”. And for what? Because she is calling attention to an insane and arbitrarily enforced policy that can be used to prevent her and others from visiting their loved ones in jail at the discretion of some low-rent DOC guard with a chip on their shoulder??

So what if these “crazy” stories are what get news. There is no such thing as bad publicity. Every quirky write-up is a chance to get more of her platform aired out. The fact that a 3rd party candidate can even get coverage is a step in the right direction.

Maybe the reason the LP is in bad shape is because the people who should be supporting it, are too busy attacking their own?

I’m gonna send her some scratch.

[Russ 2000]

The LP is a laughingstock, and stuff like this is a large part of the reason.

And having to point out that fringe candidates are nutty laughingstocks is kind of nutty in itself.

I figure most LP candidates know they appear to be kooky and they know they won’t get any votes. All these people are trying to do is get a few dozen people to honestly examine a pet issue, engage in a little public masturbation. Maybe a few suffer from delusions of grandeur, although you could say the same about candidates who actually win elections, too.

It doesn’t take more than a few seconds to realize what utter nutjobs Dubya, Kerry, Gore, Clinton, Bush I, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, and Kennedy are/were. Really, they’re all kinda creepy. Anyone who thinks those guys weren’t kooks ain’t playing with a full deck. And if you really think about it, there isn’t a soul alive who isn’t a kook. The craziest kooks are the ones who insist they are normal.

We KNOW they’re kooks, they WANT to be public employees for heaven’s sake! I know I’m insane, I actually volunteered to run my condo board. There is no honor or fun in such work, the best you can say for these people is that they are subconsciously petitioning their makers for damnation in this life so they won’t have it in their eternal afterlife.

The would-be emperor has no clothes. At least Loretta Nall admits it!

[Jemez Hobbit]

.. almost makes me want to move to Alabama to vote for her ..

.. almost ..

.. Hobbit

[Joe]

I live in Alabama, and I certainly plan on voting for her. Of course she doesn’t have much chance, but I’d love it if more politicians were like her. Her slogan is “Nall, y’all. It’s just common sense.” I agree with the first part of that, but it’s more so “un-common sense”, since most other voters would tend to disagree with her positions.

Sadly, prior to the general election I’ll find it necessary to vote in the Republican party primary for the incumbent governor, who tried to enact one of the largest tax increases in Alabama’s history (which was fortunately later rejected by Alabama voters), just to make sure Roy Moore does not defeat him and become governor.

[thoreau]

OK, I read her blog. It’s not a matter of showing up to make a statement. What happened is that she’s been involved in prison reform activism, and sits on an advisory board that has some sort of official standing. Her work has pissed off the guards, so when she showed up to visit her brother they invented a new dress code on the spot to deny her entry. Or at least it seems to be new, given that it wasn’t in any of the official rule books that she consulted after the incident. If it hadn’t been underwear, they would have gotten her for wearing white pants after Labor Day or said that her sleeves were too loose and hence sloppy, or too tight and hence provocative, or whatever, or said that it’s against the rules to wear a t-shirt under a blouse, or no t-shirt under a blouse, or whatever.

Seen in that light, what she’s really upset about is that a rule was made up on the spot to deny her entry. But that’s not how it got reported in the press. And, to be fair to the press, her blog entry starts off by talking about her underwear preferences (or lack thereof) and then goes on to the story. It makes for an eye-catching read with that juicy intro, but it also provides fodder to paint her as a kook.

So, I’d say that she’s not a kook (at least not based on this incident), but if she wants to be taken seriously as a candidate it’s incumbent on her to figure out the best way to talk about these incidents. Spend as little of the blog entry as possible on the subject of underwear, and as much as possible on the capricious way in which new rules were invented on the spot. Credibility is easy to lose, all it takes is one unpolished moment. It sucks, but that’s the way the game is played.

[cc]

Number 6-
Did you read her web page?
Great stuff about the drug raid and costs of the drug war.

If you aren’t going to support people like Nall why bother bitching about the way things are?
She’s talking about getting the 40% that don’t vote.

I sent money.

[anon2]

You’re absolutely right, credibility is easily lost, but for most people, running as a libertarian automatically strips a candidate of his credibility. To those people, it doesn’t matter whether, or how, she presents the panty issue; they’re either not listening or only looking for examples of unorthodoxy (wackiness/looniness/perjorative-of-the-dayness) to confirm their own biases.

There are also a few Libertarians who will vote for almost anyone that the Libertarian party endorses. Panties won’t be an issue for those people either.

How credibility is gained and lost in the remaining people varies. It’s hard to earn some people’s respect, but once you do, they listen carefully to what you say and try to put things in perspective. I skimmed her blog, but I don’t vote in Alabama, so I’m not going to bother to figure out how credible she is to me, but if she were to gain my respect, it would take a lot more than one unpolished moment to lose it.

At least we know she’s got a sense of humor.

If a person spends his time pandering to people whose respect he’ll lose in one unpolished moment, he might be wasting time that could be spent gaining credibility in people from whom it’s not easily lost on trivia. Since it seems that everyone has his unpolished moments, why court the undiscerning and fickle?

[Warren]

Loretta is NOT your typical Libertarian nut-job candidate. She is a serious candidate, and very liberterian on most issues. She uses the panties story to get attention, and to illistrate how the establishment uses the sytem to fuck people over. What has impressed me most about Nall lately, is how she is able to use these “kooky” stories to draw attention to her overall platform. She has really handled the media well.

I beg every Hit&Runner to take some time and dig into her website. Especially check out her speaches to the VFW and Black Mayors Confrence.

Vote Nall Y’All it’s just common sense (and send her some cents too)

[dead_elvis]

She’s a whackaloon because she’s made a point of standing up for the right to not wear panties. That, to me, puts her in the same silly category as Harry “drivers’ licenses are evil and I don’t pay taxes” Browne. She may well be justified in her anti-panty stance, but that doesn’t change the fact that it’s an inconsequential issue and that she’s making herself look like a flake.

My sense is that the panty episode is an anecdote to illustrate the broader Libertarian point about arbitrary police/state power. When conservatives illustrate the concept of smaller government by illustrating how government wastes the money we give them, we generally don’t call them whackaloons. It’s not really different, IMO.

[Franklin Harris]

Alan,
Why the “Alabama is Gaining on Mississippi” head, Nick?
I believe that Nick chose Mississippi because of the recent upholding of an anti-sex toy law.

Actually, that anti-sex toy law, if it’s the one I’m thinking of, originated in Alabama and was authored by my jackass state senator, Tom Butler (D-Madison). Of course, if Mississippi has passed a similar law, it wouldn’t surprise me.

[methodman]

I had the pleasure of meeting Loretta after she worked day and night in Goose Creek, SC ginning up media attention and helping pissed off parents channel their anger after the local high school invited cops in to search for drugs.

(Those same cops made everyone lay face down, then proceeded to handcuff a good number of students, all while pointing their loaded goddamn weapons at students laying prone on the floor. Oh, and it’s probably worthy noting that no drugs were found, and that the search was conducted because the principal “heard a rumor” that there were drugs in his school.)

She’s a pisser. Quit bitching and help her out.

[Count d'Ildeau]

As a Mississippi (and a former Alabama) resident, I have to say that AL unofficial state motto is right on the money: “Hey, at least we ain’t Mississippi”…