The Girondin wrote:
> Badnarik very possibly was the best of the three contenders in terms of
> presentation.
He certainly was the best in terms of presentation at the debate the night
before the balloting. I saw him in the hospitality suite afterward and told
him
that he had gotten a 100 MPH fastball right down the middle of the plate, and
had knocked it out of the park. I (correctly, as it turned out) told Michael
that he had been a clear third right up to that evening, but that it was now a
close three-horse race. I don't think even then that it sank in for him that
he
had a chance, until the first ballot was counted the next morning and he was in
second place, just two votes behind Russo.
> My point is that, when offered a wealthy movie mogul, a
> radio host with a national audience, and a computer consultant not
> previously known even to most Libertarians, the LP opted for the one who
> seemed least likely to increase vote totals in November. Now, maybe
> that wasn't the goal, but that's my assessment.
Both the "wealthy movie mogul" (IMHO an overstatement as to both Russo's wealth
and fame -- his last successful movie was many years behind him, and he had
reportedly gone through most of his fortune -- I would guess that the average
"man on the street" would have much less chance of recognizing him than Nolan,
and not much more chance of recognizing him than Badnarik) and the radio host
had substantial negatives.
Nolan's negative was that many perceived him to be too close to the
Browne/Cloud
faction from the previous two campaigns. This did not taint him significantly
in my view, but it obviously did count against him with many others. (Much
more
so than I imagined ... even though I supported Badnarik, I fully expected Nolan
to win the nomination.)
Russo's negative was that he was, well, Russo. His brash, abrasive personality
alienated many Libertarians (who are probably much *more* tolerant of such
behavior than the general public). Many of us who had met him in person
thought
that he was basically a good guy and a good libertarian, but that if he got the
nomination, the first time he opened his mouth with TV cameras rolling he would
make us look crazier than Lyndon LaRouche. No one expected our nominee to win
the election, anyway; and there are worse things than getting well under a
million votes. Such as embarrassing your party's state and local candidates
who
are actually running, in some cases, competitive races.
I know of at least one delegate who chose Badnarik after both Nolan and Russo
expressed privately that they would not accept the VP slot if they did not get
the top spot on the ticket. Only Badnarik expressed a willingness to accept
either position, for the good of the party. It wouldn't have taken more than
one or two other people drawing the same conclusion for that to have been the
deciding factor in a very close race for the nomination.
Whether or not you agree with any of the above reasons, there was a substantial
"anyone but Nolan" faction, most of whom initially supported Russo and who
wouldn't have voted for Nolan on a bet ... and a substantial "anyone but Russo"
faction, most of whom initially supported Nolan and who likewise would never
have supported Russo under any circumstances. Had either Nolan or Russo won
the
nomination, I believe the party would have fragmented and we might have wound
up
with even lower vote totals than Badnarik was able to draw.
Badnarik was the only candidate acceptable to the supporters of all three
candidates; as such, his nomination unified the party (as much as a herd of
cats
can be unified). IMHO that was a good thing; your mileage may vary.
With a Congressional campaign under his belt and much better organization next
time around, and with four more years of personal growth and accumulated wisdom
(plus lots more practice at what he is already an exception practitioner of,
public speaking) I think that, should he decide to run again, Michael will be
an
even more formidable candidate in 2008. Which is not to say that we should not
encourage other good candidates (such as Mary Ruwart) to seek the nomination.
A
little competition is good for everyone.
Joe Dumas
> Trevor Southerland wrote:
>> I have to take issues with you comments about Badnarik.
>>
>> His nomination had nothing to do with "absolute ideological purity"
>> -- it had to do with who the best of our three major possible
>> candidates were.
>>
>> Gary Nolan and Aaron Russo are both fine individuals, please don't
>> think I'd ever say anything other than that... but between our
>> three choices in 2004, the convention nominated the best person to
>> present the Libertarian message to audiences across the nation.
--
"You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something,
sometime in your life." -- Sir Winston Churchill
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/badnarik2008/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
