John Shuey wrote:
> I know Michael. I like him and have contributed to his congressional
> campaign. He is an excellent speaker...especially one on one.
No doubt. He chose his campaign theme well: "Lighting the fires of Liberty,
one
heart at a time." One on one (or in small groups) he is dynamite. If somehow
Michael could have had a one-on-one conversation with each of the 100 million
or
so voters, I have absolutely no doubt that he would have won the election. The
next best thing would have been a few million to spend on advertising ... or
better yet, to buy network TV time to explain his platform, the way Ross Perot
did.
> But we cannot afford another sub-1 % vote national campaign,
> particularly in light of polls that indicate that up to 30% of the
> American people have "libertarian leanings".
Why not? I'd like to see us elect, or at least seriously challenge for, the
Presidency as much as anyone. But I don't see that as a reasonable first step.
Our Presidential candidate is there for us to rally around (which is why
choosing Michael was so much better than nominating Nolan or Russo, either of
whom would have divided an already too-small party) every four years. But the
real work for the foreseeable future is at the local and state levels. We have
to compete, and win, there before gaining federal office becomes a realistic
possibility. So, to me, it is more important that a candidate for federal
office speak well, articulate libertarian principles clearly, and most of all
not embarrass our local and state candidates, than it is for him (or her) to
get
a certain number or percentage of votes. The top of the ticket is a "loss
leader" to get people to notice us; the serious players and winners, at least
for now, are going to be city councilpersons, county commissioners, and maybe
the occasional state legislator.
Let me put it to you this way: do you think we would have had local victories
such as Ben Brandon becoming County Executive in Dade County, GA if Russo had
been at the head of our ticket? I am convinced that if, by some miracle, Russo
had received significantly more media coverage than Badnarik, Ben would have
had
to have spent a lot of time explaining Russo away and/or disassociating from
him; and, ultimately, it would have cost him votes (maybe enough to make him
lose the race). That brash, in-your-face, controversy-seeking attitude of
Russo's may play on the Left and Right coasts, but I can promise you it doesn't
"sell" in Dade County, Georgia.
> We bitch mightily when the media and Presidential Debate folks won't
> give our guy equal billing, but Why should they. As constituted, at
> least in light of election results, we have a long way to go to reach
> the point of being a marginal consideration...much less a true third
> party.
>
> I'll say it again -- we need a John Mackey, John Stoessel, or person
> of similar stature and appeal. Someone who would attract BIG money
> and media attention from the gitgo.
I think it would be great if we could get a real celebrity (not a very minor
one
like Russo) like Clint Eastwood, or a media figure like Dave Barry, John
Stossel, Walter Williams, or Thomas Sowell to run under the LP banner for
President. No doubt we would finally break the million-vote barrier and get
more coverage than we usually get. We might even poll as many votes as Ralph
Nader got in 2000, and possibly get "balance of power" in enough states to
credibly claim that we influenced the outcome of the election.
But, as others have pointed out, anyone remotely libertarian enough to get the
nomination, and remotely successful enough to get significant media coverage,
is
either too old to run (Eastwood for example) or already has a good job that he
or she would be loath to give up for two years or more to run an almost
certainly losing campaign. What we are left with, realistically, is someone
like Badnarik or Mary Ruwart, who has limited to no fame outside of Libertarian
circles, but who can present our message clearly to as many people as possible
given limited funding, and meanwhile not step on the toes of our lower-level
candidates who actually have a chance of winning.
No one would be more overjoyed than me if I am proven wrong and one of the
above
celebrities decides to run for President in 2008. (In that case, I think
Badnarik or Ruwart would be an excellent choice for the VP slot; and Michael,
once before, has shown his willingness to play second fiddle if necessary for
the good of the party.) But we can't count on that happening. So, over the
next two years, we need to consider which candidate to prefer from among those
who actually have an interest in running.
Joe
--
"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/
