Any presidential candidate on the ballot in states with sufficient electoral votes to win would be allowed to participate in any fair debate. Although I greatly admire Dr. Ruwart and certainly do not doubt that she or other possible lady candidates (Carla Howell, Tamara Millay, Nancy Lord, Sharon Harris) would be the best president in the last 150 years, I believe that Hell-ary Rod-DAMN Clinton will be the Dem nominee and there is better than a fifty percent chance that CFR neocon Condoleezza (I didn't know that you could turn airplanes into bombs) Rice will be the Rep nominee, you should all begin to discuss Isaiah 3:12 with your Christian and Bible-believing Jewish friends, not appear to pander by nominating a lady and support Michael Badnarik with the slogan, "He is the man for the job."
For life and liberty, David Macko ----- Original Message ----- From: "Joe Dumas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[email protected]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 11:11 AM Subject: [Badnarik2006] Re: The "Old Guard" > 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/
