LP Senate Candidate: ‘Bomb Those Camel-Dung Shovelers’

Pro-war, racist, or just blackmail? You decide. Libertarian Party of Kentucky candidate for US Senate Sonny Landham wants to release oil from the strategic oil reserve, drill in areas of the U.S. currently off-limits to the oil companies and then try to persuade OPEC to cut the price of oil. What if it doesn’t?

“We should go and bomb those camel-dung shovelers back into the sand,” Landham said. “I said ‘camel-dung shovelers.’ Make sure you put that in the newspaper.”

The LP of Kentucky may have nominated the actor in the hopes that he would follow in the footsteps of his co-stars in the movie Predator (Jesse Ventura and Arnold Schwarzenegger). Perhaps they should have done a better job at vetting their standard-bearer.

31 Responses to “LP Senate Candidate: ‘Bomb Those Camel-Dung Shovelers’”

  1. Nexus Says:

    ‘camel-dung shovelers’??
    I don’t want this guy in my party!

  2. Freeman Says:

    I thought the embargo in the early seventies proved the camelshit shovellers can tighten down the spigot and jack up the price on a whim.

  3. Susan Hogarth Says:

    Frankly, as distressing as his racism is, I find the bombing part of the comment more offensive.

    The LP nationally and locally should denounce these remarks and resolve to go forward with a better program of candidate recruitment, screening, and education.

  4. Steve Perkins Says:

    Perhaps they should have done a better job at jetting their standard-bearer.

    They probably should have “vetted” him rather than “jetting” him in the first place… that would explain it.

  5. Nexus Says:

    “Frankly, as distressing as his racism is, I find the bombing part of the comment more offensive.”

    It’s twice as bad because he wants to bomb people based on their race. This person has no place in the LP.

  6. Ayn R. Key Says:

    Ain’t the Reform Caucus great?

  7. Citizens For A Better Veterans Home[s] Says:

    I have relatives in the area, they like tuff talk like that! ——Don Lake

  8. Mike Says:

    Man…I was really hoping my state would put up a respectable LP candidate.

  9. Mike Gillis Says:

    Can the LP revoke their endorsement?

  10. Michael Seebeck Says:

    Rick Stanley rides again!

    Time for LPKY to step in and revoke endorsement or rescind nominations based on violating the Statemetn of Principles.

  11. Eric Dondero Says:

    Funny, none of you all here were criticizing Landham a few weeks ago, when he made some negative comments in the press about Bush.

  12. Eric Garris Says:


    Did the negative comments include threats of blackmail and did he call Bush a stupid-ass cracker? That would be more comparable.

  13. Eric Dondero Says:

    Hey Garris, in the future please don’t use my first name. We are not on a cordial friendly basis. I view everything your views to be reprehensible, and extremely counter productive to the success of the libertarian movement.

    Call me Dondero, Rittberg, whatever. The use of my first name is reserved for friends and political allies of mine, not advesaries. Thank you.

  14. Eric Dondero Says:

    Garris would have been one of those little panty waste guys in WWII back home, avoiding Military Service, calling on the US Government to “Please not use terms like Kraut or Jap to describe the peace loving German and Japanese peoples.”

    Garris and his ilk, much prefer tossing flower pedals at those who’d like to destroy the United States and joining in with renditions of “Kumbaya,” rather than use a “derogatory” term for our enemies.

  15. Eric Dondero Says:

    As an aside, one should note that Mr. Garris makes his home in the San Francisco Bay area.

    One could make the argument that Garris’s views are a bit skewed and somewhat out of touch with the values, and views of Middle America.

    Alas, an ongoing problem for the leftist wing of the libertarian movement.

  16. Eric Garris Says:

    Hey, Eric!

    Which OPEC nations are we at war with?

  17. Eric Dondero Says:

    Hey Garris, again, you are not a friend, nor even a political ally, but rather the complete opposite. Please refrain from using my first name. I am asking you kindly. It’s a very simple request. I’d be glad to engage you in further discussions. But I ask you simply to address me as “Dondero,” “Rittberg” Mr. Rittberg” whatever.

  18. Mark Smith Says:

    “Garris and his ilk, much prefer tossing flower pedals at those who’d like to destroy the United States …”

    A flower has tossable petals.
    While cars, bikes and drum sets have pedals.
    I’d give Eric a pass,
    but that pain in the ass
    Still refuses to show us his medals.

  19. Ayn R. Key Says:

    I like how Eric Dondero is so deftly avoiding Eric Garris’ content by complaining about use of a first name.

    What’s wrong with Garris’ questions that causes you to avoid them so determinidely, Eric?

  20. Lance Brown Says:

    Eric Dondero,

    Seeing as how you are posting comments as “Eric Dondero”, it could be argued that you have opened the door to people referring to you as “Eric”. You could have posted as “Mr. Dondero”, “Rittberg”, or whatever, and that would send a different message, But if you don’t want your “adversaries” (of which I would guess there are many on this site) referring to you as “Eric”, you might want to try a new user name. Because Eric is what you are introducing yourself as.

    At the very least, Eric, I would say that web forum common law dictates that anyone in the discussion here can call you “Eric Dondero”, since that is your official name here. If I were Mr. Garris, I’d probably do that just to rattle your cage. You wouldn’t be in any position to object, really. Asking someone to be more polite to you because you hate them isn’t much of a bargaining position, Eric.

  21. Lance Brown Says:

    Point of Information, Eric…would it be acceptable for your adversaries to call your Mr. Eric Dondero Rittberg, Camel-Dung Shoveler? Does that create a sufficient amount of formal distance for your needs?

  22. Clark Says:

    ...landham..yet another dipshit republicrat to whom it’s axiomatic that the U.S. inc. is world bully-boy, judge, jury and executioner!..


  23. Jason Says:

    You bunch of hyper-sensitive pansies. I don’t want to count how many times i read the word racist. That words needs to be removed from the english language because it has lost its meaning. It’s thrown around more than dirty underwear.

    What he said is not racist. It’s direct, pointed but a stupid choice of words for a politician to make. That doesn’t make him a racist and besides, people have the right to speak, say or write anything they want.

    The more crap I read especially about the Texas city councilmen who got worked up over the “Black Hole” comment along with the social acceptance of picking on West Virginians for being supposedly inbread and referring to to people in the South as Rednecks, the more I find this kind of talk refreshing.

  24. Citizens For A Better Veterans Home[s] Says:

    Eric, heard from the Pope lately? ——- Don Lake

  25. Simon Girty Says:

    Whether it racist or not, it will be percieved as racist. And that is not good politics.

    But the real problem, as Susan (may I call you Susan?) pointed out it the bombing threat.

    They have what we want. If they wont sell it to us at the price we like then we should initiate force to take it. Real libertarian…

  26. Larry West Says:

    > Whether it racist or not, it will be percieved as racist. And that is not good politics.

    Remember we are talking Kentucky politics here, where there were (unfortunately) many Democrats who freely admitted to polsters, people they didn’t know, that they voted for Clinton because Obama was black. I am guessing that more Kentuckians would have more problems with Landham’s pornographic movie career than they would with any of his racist statements.

    Frankly, I think the only way Landham could even get into double digits would be to for him to invoke “class warfare” (stating that Lunsford (D) and McConnell® are both multi-multi-millionaires, while he isn’t, thus he would be more representative of the average Kentuckian), not “race warfare”, although racist blue-dog Democrats are going to have a hard time this year and he might be trying to tap into them.

    FWIW, I have read that Landham is still having problems getting the 500 signatures STATEWIDE to get on the ballot, while Libertarian Candidate for the 3rd Congressional District, Ed Martin, has filed his 400 needed signatures from Louisville (source: http://polwatchers.typepad.com/pol_watchers/2008/07/libertarian-files-to-run-in-3rd-congressional-district.html).

    Perhaps the party should stop the signature drive before Landham embarasses it further.

    (P.S. You can call me Larry whether you agree with me or not.)

  27. Ragin' Alsatian Says:

    Show me any other LP candidate that has 1/4th the news coverage and influence that landham is getting currently in Kentucky and across America. The LP states it is the largest third party, well it is still far behind the main two. An LP candidate has two choices. Be ignored or be controversial. Which is going to get you a chance of being elected. Landham is doing what he has to in KY. You can suppot “educating” cause that has done so much so far. Mu choice is to be effective. “Go big or go home!”

  28. Mike Gillis Says:


    There’s such a thing as “bad attention” in politics, just as there is for children.

    By your logic, the smartest thing all third party candidates could do is say something racist, offensive and controversial, just to get the press.

    Better yet, why not pull out a gun and shoot someone at a rally for your campaign? That’d REALLY get peoples’ attention.

    It also leaves a bad taste in the mouth of the electorate and it becomes a hurdle that every future candidate in that party will have to clear.

    Whereas the big two can run a nut and people think, “Man, what a nut”, if that same candidate were to run as a Libertarian/Green, they’d think “the Libertarians/Greens are nuts”

    And every KY LPer will have to worry about Landham’s racist aftertaste and it could potentially cost them votes in future elections. Cost them votes from people who hate war and people who hate racism - two groups that the LP should at least have a real shot at winning.

    Because if you’re going to just support sacrificing a party’s principles to get attention, then you sacrifice the whole point of having that party in the first place. If what you promote and get votes with, is antithetical to the party’s real views, that’s no win but a loss.

    And frankly, I have no problem with controversy. Just make sure it’s controversy YOU BELIEVE IN. Otherwise, it’s the political equivalent of that kid in grade school who used to eat bugs and dirt to get attention.

  29. K D Tunstall Says:

    “Ayn R. Key Says:

    July 23rd, 2008 at 12:15 pm
    Ain’t the Reform Caucus great?”

    Mr. Landham is not a member of the LRC as evidenced here:


    With all due respect, if you cannot express yourself in truthfully, perhaps you should not post on the internet.

  30. Joseph Marzullo Says:


  31. Joseph Marzullo Says:


Leave a Reply