Andy Craig for Congress: Statement on Dan Sebring (R) declining to run again in 2016

acprofa

Press Release from Andy Craig for Congress:

Dan Sebring, the 2010, 2012, and 2014 Republican nominee in the 4th Congressional district, announced on Tuesday that he would not be running against Gwen Moore again in 2016. Libertarian candidate Andy Craig of Milwaukee issued the following statement on the news:

“Dan’s three campaigns showed what an opponent of Gwen Moore can accomplish with limited resources, and also the limits of what such a campaign can do while being dragged down by the ‘Republican’ label.

“Milwaukee is ready for an alternative to Gwen Moore, but not an alternative that is a would-be vote for John Boehner and a loyal member of today’s GOP. The national Republican Party will remain uncompetitive in the 4th District, and deservedly so. That doesn’t mean we are forever stuck with the Democratic nominee no matter what. Milwaukee has bucked both major parties before, and we can do it again.

“On issues of mass incarceration, civil liberties, immigration, law enforcement accountability, cronyism, drug policy, and overseas wars, Gwen Moore is more regressive than a majority of her constituents, and voters want something more than just the reliable party-line votes and substance-free grandstanding she has delivered in the past decade. As the Libertarian candidate in 2016, I intend to challenge Gwen Moore on substance and ideas, not to fight the losing battle of personality politics and incendiary bomb-throwing.

“The possibility of there not being a Republican candidate at all, means the 4th District can have something more than another stale and predictable two-party campaign in 2016. Should another Republican enter the race, I welcome them to participate in this debate. Either way, I encourage Milwaukee’s fiscal conservatives and believers in social tolerance and peace, to join me for a campaign that can compete free of the social-conservative and pro-war baggage of the GOP.”

8 thoughts on “Andy Craig for Congress: Statement on Dan Sebring (R) declining to run again in 2016

  1. Andy Craig Post author

    Thanks. I don’t know if another GOP candidate will step up or not, Sebring has openly admitted he was only running so there would be a Republican on the ballot. I’m ready either way, but I do the like the possibility of it being a two-way race, or at least one absent a GOP nominee.

    Chances are more likely than not another Republican will run though, even if they do so without any real party backing.

  2. Gene Berkman

    Excellent statement on the situation! Good to remind voters that Wisconsin has elected candidates who have rejected the bipartisan dominance in the past. And the statement has a good courteous tone to it also.

  3. Andy Craig

    Over on FB, Dan is complaining that calling him a “would-be vote for John Boehner” is “bomb-throwing of my own.”

    That mentioning the name of their current party leader in the House is such an insult, kind of proves my point about how awful the GOP brand is. Not even Republican candidates want to be associated with the reality of a Republican majority.

    I guess he wasn’t impressed by the broader context, which is that I was saying he actually over-performed *in spite of* being a Republican running against a Dem incumbent in the youngest, most immigrant-populated, most racially diverse, most gay-friendly, most pro-choice, most pro-legalization, most anti-war district in the state.

  4. paulie

    Which explains why he runs away from association with Boehner et al. Can’t run too far with that party label dragging him down though.

  5. Andy Craig

    @Colombus Express

    Generally in favor. I do grant that it’s not an unalloyed good (nobody likes to see an actual murderer or violent criminal falsely acquitted just because the jury thought them more sympathetic than their victim). There are also serious problems that need to be addressed regarding the jury selection process.

    But on balance, JN clearly has the potential to do a lot more good than harm, and is ultimately the reason we have juries in the first place. It isn’t because jurors are better finders of fact or interpreters of the law, it’s the check of the community at large on the enforcement of their laws. So when it comes to victimless crimes: nullify away, jurors.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *