William H. Magill wrote:
On 24 Oct, 2004, at 18:01, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mr. Badnarik is the presidential candidate of the Libertarian Party, which says he could "Naderize" Mr. Bush. A recent Zogby/Reuters national poll showed him tied with Ralph Nader at one percentage point each - not much, but possibly critical. Unlike Mr. Nader, Mr. Badnarik is on the ballot of every battleground state except New Hampshire.
"If we have a rerun of Florida 2000 in Pennsylvania, Michael Badnarik could be the kingmaker by drawing independent and Republican votes from Bush," said Larry Jacobs, director of the 2004 Election Project at the Humphrey Institute of the University of Minnesota, which has been tracking third-party candidates.
Wishful thinking.
If this were even vaguely true, the DNC, their uncoordinated 527s, and the media would be hard at work promoting Badnarik's candidacy.
Naw. The Democrats are too busy with Nader. Case in point: in Florida, the Republicans got their ballot petitions for Bush in one day after the deadline. Did the Democrats use this perfectly legitimate reason to challenge Bush's being on the ballot? Nope. They spent their time challenging Nader. Frankly, Bill, I'd have to say Badnarisk could be a drain on the Republicans-- but that the Democrats are either too principled or not creative enough to toss some cash his way.
But his candidacy has been suppressed even more than Nader's has.
How often has Badnarik been mentioned by the networks, New York Times, or even the Inquirer.
I'd have to agree. Even the article cited presented Badnarik as more of an oddity or a fluke of the system, rather than as a long-standing third party with a set of core beliefs. Granted, I don't think much of the Libertarians, for lots of reasons which aren't important here. But I can tell bad reporting and political bias when I see it.
---- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see <http://www.purple.com/list.html>.
