|
|
03/17/10
|
|||||||||||||
|
|
June 01,
2004 The Libertarian Party had two very qualified Candidates in Nolan and Russo. Nolan the host of a nationally syndicated radio show did not have a great amount of name recognition but had plenty of media experience. Nolan (who is relatively new to the party) launched his campaign early and crisscrossed the US in search of support from potential delegates. If this were a horse race (and in many ways it resembles one) Nolan came out the gate like bat out of hell, and broke ahead of the pack early. Aaron Russo (also relatively new to the party) did not have a lot of name recognition either, but he had big Hollywood contacts and had produced movies like The Rose and Trading Places. Russo was not a household name but he had contacts with the likes of Bette Midler and Jack Nicholson (who had endorsed him and done ads for him in a previous campaign). Mr. Russo received close to thirty percent of the vote in the Nevada Republican gubernatorial primary. This had been the closest the Libertarian Party had come to star power (if not electability) in quite some time. Badnarick was a man on a mission, a modern day "Don Quixote." He headed out on a whim, a prayer and a late model sedan. He drove over 25,000 miles staying in people's homes or the cheapest accommodations possible. He visited local affiliates, state conventions and gave classes on the constitution. He was not the most eloquent, nor the best funded and his media contacts were few if any. Even amongst Libertarians he was not given much of a shot early on, but Mr. Badnarick, much to his credit, labored intensely with his goal firmly in mind. As the convention approached Nolan and Russo sensing that they would be the others greatest obstacle started hurling stones at each other, forgetting they both lived in glass houses. In the end by exposing each other's weaknesses rather than touting their own strengths they opened the door (actually broke it wide open) for Badnarick and in turn yet another electoral disaster. Badnarick was by far the "cleanest" and "purest" of the three, indeed John Calvin would likely smile upon such a virtuous choice. Libertarians, who are often times critical of the blindness of puritanical religious worship, resemble the very puritans they criticize in their exercise of political judgment. Politics are about winning (losers are limited in their effects on government) and political parties are vehicles by which groups with certain ideals (except for the two major parties) seek to win elections. The selection of a Presidential candidate is not equivalent to selecting the parish priest (bad analogy) or canonizing the next saint. Conventions and the parties which hold them should be concerned with two things One; does the candidate espouse the views of the party and Two; which candidate can be the most convincing while having the means (or the ability to garner them) to be able of spreading the word as far and as wide as possible. In this way (realistically) the Libertarian Party delegate's failure is of biblical proportions. Personally Badnarick is more than likely a very nice person (and no one doubts his knowledge and commitment to the constitution). But that's not what's at issue here, what is, is whether those who voted in the Libertarian National Convention did so with the best interest of the party in mind? Or where they out to give the nation the equivalent of an electoral "macho flash?" Unfortunately this November, like many that have preceded it will be a disappointing time for Libertarians and in turn for the cause of liberty and individual freedom thanks in most part to the very people charged with their defense and preservation.
|
Capitalist Eye for the Communist Guys Giving Freedom, Trade and Anarchy A Bad Name
| |||||||||||
|
Submit
Feedback
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
