Note: this article contains
dead links, the url is still in the hover/alt text. Keep the web working, curate content well!
For the record, a few irregularities that should be addressed, but this is not our battle. It is clear that Bush won. And yeah, this is coming from someone who worked on the Badnarik campaign but has already moved on to address the future.. I will gladly admit there appear to be quite
Let me say this clearly: I do not fight on behalf of those who are too stupid to fight for themselves. If democrats want a recount, they need to go after their own party leaders, not badger us into it. You voted for him, it’s your responsibility to light the fire under your party’s ass. ‘Nuff said.
This is the kind of shit politics that killed the Democratic Party after the 2000 elections, even when it was their battle to rightfully fight.
One thing tips me off about why Libertarians are doing this, and it’s repugnant: milking for more donations.
If the combined pledges to the Badnarik and Cobb campaigns approach the estimated $125,000 that is required, then the people who have made pledges will be contacted to collect their pledged contributions.
Hell, a recount in Ohio costs about
$2000 to file or $8 per county (it’s about $110,000, or $10 per precinct, my mistake). If they wanted to do that simply to ensure accuracy, there would be no need to go through all these motions, instead it reeks of being a publicity stunt to gain more attention. I predict this will backfire.
As much as I like Michael Badnarik, I hope he has the sense to see that there are people in the party who don’t give a damn about his future in politics and are willing to flog his campaign into the ground in order to continue their bizarre agenda of poking from the sidelines while sliding into oblivion.
Again, this is a stupid idea, it’s not our battle. The statistical chance of Kerry winning due to our interference in a recount is slim and none. Even though I would be slightly more at ease with Kerry’s inability to gain support for his plans because of gridlock, his support of the status quo under the banner of U.N. approval gives me shivers. The fact is, this kind of devil-playing-both-sides strategy will only further alienate voters away from libertarianism when our focus should be on pulling disenfranchised voters from both sides of the aisle based on policy issues.
Already, the glue called Kerry is melting away from the Democrat factions and they are breaking into infighting over the direction of the party (this is also happening to a lesser degree with libertarians). Conservative Republicans are rumbling a bit as well over the treatment of Arlen Specter, and though I do see some defections for the 2006 elections, the big tent attitude is likely to persist unless they allow the clowns in the religious faction to have more control. The best attack against Republicans will still be their ties to special interests and their corporate socialism agenda.
As a side note, Harry Browne has an article up on how to grow the Libertarian Party. He essentially breaks in down into 3 possibile actions: celebrity candidates, billionaire candidates, growing the party.
Personally, I abhor the idea of celebrity or billionaire candidates because just as in the case of Perot or Nader, they may come close, but they leave a wake of destruction when they leave. We’re much more likely to succeed if we build a solid base of 500,000 perpetual supporters and build our candidates into celebrities based on their down-to-earth qualities.
Save the billionaires and celebrities for cheerleading, fundraising and motivating voters, but don’t put them on the ticket unless they truly deserve to be there.