Texas Libertarians to pick candidate for governor

Naureen Khan in the Austin Statesman:

The Libertarian Party of Texas is hoping to kick-start its most successful election cycle to date, beginning with the party’s convention this weekend in Austin.

The state Libertarians will select their candidate for governor and other statewide offices Saturday and make revisions Sunday to the party platform, which is focused on smaller government, lower taxes and more personal liberties.

“We don’t expect overnight success,” state party Chairman Patrick Dixon said. “We are realistic about the situation we’re in — we’re often excluded from debates ,and the incumbents attempt to exclude us from the ballot — but we have demonstrated growth, unlike the other political parties.”

The party has a 2010-11 operating budget of $370,000 — an all-time high, Dixon said. The party counts 800 dues-paying members in Texas, but Dixon said the Libertarians have about 10,000 people in their state party database.

The convention’s guest speakers will include Austin talk radio host Sean Rima; Michael Badnarik, the Libertarian candidate for president in 2004; and Kinky Friedman, the country musician-turned-politician who made an unsuccessful bid for governor in 2006 as an independent. Most recently, Friedman lost the Democratic nomination for Texas agriculture commissioner.

“I don’t know that Kinky agrees with our platform on every issue,” Dixon said. “I think he probably shares a lot of our principles. And just for entertainment value, he’s hard to beat.”

In all, the Texas Libertarians are running about 160 candidates in the November elections, including a candidate for every statewide office, congressional district and about half the seats in the Legislature. Because a Libertarian candidate secured more than 5 percent of the vote in a statewide race in November 2008, they will automatically be included on the November ballot this year.

Nevertheless, the Libertarians face a different political landscape than they did two years ago, the last time the convention was held. In particular, the emergence of the tea party, a fiscally conservative populist movement that came into popularity in 2009 and remains something of a wild card in the upcoming elections.

The tea party is not a political party, but in many races nationwide, it has supported candidates running on a platform of limited government and fiscal responsibility.

“Clearly, the origins of that movement are Libertarian principles. And if those people in November adhere to those principles, they’ll be voting our way,” Dixon said. “It’s hard to know anything until the votes are cast.”

Greg Holloway, a coordinator for the Texas Tea Party, said most of the tea party-affiliated organizations in the state will not be endorsing candidates but will be focusing their efforts on educating voters about which candidates favor “limited government, free markets and fiscal responsibility.”

“We’re nonpartisan. We don’t care in the long run if it’s Democrats, Republicans or Libertarians who win these offices,” he said. “We do care that elected officials espouse the kind of principles that we think are important.”

52 thoughts on “Texas Libertarians to pick candidate for governor

  1. Robert Milnes

    You ever see Chuck Todd on msnbc election night? He & a lot of other people know a lot before the votes are cast. That’s how Obama got elected. They figured out how to get a liberal elected. It had to be a black man. No dreads & manipulate the progressives to support him.etc. Get with the program, losers. They probably already know I’m right with bloc fusion, vote coordination LP & GP. But they are not going to tell you! OR let you use their supercomputers.
    Aren’t you sick & tired of losing?

  2. Third Party Revolution

    I’ve heard recently in Texas that the DPTX is accusing the Greens of going to cost them several races to the Republican Party. Have they ever considered that the Libertarian Party is also in the races?

  3. Robert Milnes

    As far as I am concerned you & Tom K. resident IPR/TPW know-it-alls, have wasted my & everybody’s time for at least 2-3 years by not taking PLAS/fusion/vote coordination & running with it. Instead of dogging & ragging on me. I have no patent on it. Anybody is welcome to comment/constructive criticism/modification etc. But your LOLS & Tom’s benign neglect don’t cut it. I do not get why you 2 do not get it. Every day goes by with further verification like the other day thread about fusion in Oregon. Obama is president because of the progressive vote. You know, the vote I’m just imagining. & Ron Paul, not even a libertarian, got your support & The Libertarian Vote & 35 million in 2008. & Tom still denies The Libertarian Vote is real-it is just a poll, or a predisposition. No proof it actually translates into actual votes.
    As far as I’m concerned that is 27% and 13%. I can add & I did the math. Why can’t you?

  4. Thomas L. Knapp

    “Tom still denies The Libertarian Vote is real”

    No I don’t. I just note that it is the libertarian vote, not the Libertarian vote — it does not belong to the Libertarian Party yet and I’ve seen no evidence that your fusion proposal would magically cause it to move into the LP column. I’ve asked you for that evidence time and again, and when you deign to reply your reply comes down to “because I’m wishing REALLY HARD.”

    Same thing with the progressive vote. As you note, in 2008 it went largely for Obama, it hasn’t gone anywhere BUT to the Democratic candidate in decades (probably since LaFollette’s 1924 campaign), and you’ve yet to offer so much as a crumb of evidence that a progressive/libertarian alliance would cause it to do so.

    I am all for the Libertarian Party and the Green Party working together where they can. If a real “progressive alliance” presidential ticket proves possible, good deal. A “progressive alliance” based on an anti-progressive, anti-libertarian platform like yours, not so much.

  5. NewFederalist

    I am certain in due time that Bob will get around to showing the hard data on why PLAS will work and the demographic data on which he he bases his claims. I am sure he will. Really… he will. Just wait. Be patient. Its coming… really. Soon. Well, pretty soon. Just as soon as he can find it. Its here someplace…

  6. Derek

    Go the way of PLAS! It hasn’t been tried in the US yet, risk it! I’m not a progrssive but rather a moderate libertarian and wouldn’t mind to see a balanced ticket.

  7. Robert Milnes

    Derek, right. It hasn’t been tried. NF is holding me to an impossible requirement. Even Einstein only had a theory in 1905. What if President FDR said in response to his letter, “Show me an atomic explosion. A little one will do.”? Before I authorize a Manhattan Project.
    Where is paulie & LOLS? I guess NF is taking up the slack with some sarcasm.
    & as usual Tom has some facts & history. But no ACTION. Why can’t his name have been Tom Jackson!

  8. Thomas L. Knapp

    Bob,

    I’ll put my record of action next to yours any day.

    In 2007, you outlined two goals to me, one personal, one political. The personal one was to get to California. The political one was to make a real run for the LP’s 2008 presidential nomination.

    I told you how to do it — stop sitting in New Jersey whining about your personal situation and start walking. That was spring of 2007, giving you ample time to get into the warm south on foot before winter and spend the next year walking across America, speaking to every crowd you could get in front of and ending up with you in California where you say you want to be.

    Since then, I’ve twice been a candidate for public office myself, each time receiving more votes than you’ve won in your entire life. I’ve also managed a candidate to a respectable debate showing in the LP’s presidential nomination race and to within about 30 votes of its vice-presidential nomination.

    And you? You’re still sitting in New Jersey, whining about your personal situation, bemoaning the fact that God hasn’t miracled your ass to California yet, and bitching that everybody else won’t drop what they’re doing to do what you say they should do — even though you yourself do NOTHING.

  9. Robert Milnes

    Derek, you are one of few who has spoken up in IPR/TPW for PLAS. & I know from personal experience how unpleasant it is to encounter paulie type LOL derision & Tom’s negativity. BUT everybody who would like to or be willing to try it, you are going to have to speak up. repeatedly, loudly, insistently. & start making waves. emails, letters, phone calls etc. & start rattling the LP & GP. withdraw wherewithall, volunteering, contributing, etc, & join BTP etc. Everybody is in some kind of trance where they have been brainwashed & so used to losing they just keep going through the motions. They aren’t thinking clearly & acting in their & everybody’s best interest. They are feeding a machine.Rattle their cages! PLAS/bloc fusion/vote coordination needs to be tried ASAP. It is not to late for the 2010 election cycle. That could set up a sweep of the dems & reps OUT OF OFFICE in 2012!
    Wouldn’t that be nice?

  10. Thomas L. Knapp

    “you are going to have to speak up. repeatedly, loudly, insistently. & start making waves. emails, letters, phone calls etc. & start rattling the LP & GP. ”

    Actually, it’s a lot easier than that.

    1) Pick a party. File for office on its ticket. Go to the other party and ask that party to nominate or endorse you instead of running its own candidate, if the state’s election laws allow it to do that.

    2) Encourage others to do same.

    Or you can continue to sit on the sidelines complaining that nobody else is doing what you’re not doing either, and holding out for a female running mate and the top slot nomination from two parties whose platforms you don’t support. Good luck with that.

  11. Robert Milnes

    Tom, I’ve been to CA about 10 times. The last time was in 2005 when I got a call from my sister that there was a fire at the house. She couldn’t wait to hand it over to a crooked fire insurance adjustor which was unnecessary. My dad was underinsured. There was no adjustment; he got the max. & crooked adjustor made sure his crooked real estate lawyer buddy got what should have been my house. It’s been spiraling down for me from there. Including my friend in CA who I was supposed to move in with for half the year-the other half in NJ-catching acute diseminating encephalomylitis! The historic house got gutted; I lost it & about 1/2 my stuff. Had to move into a 50 year old trailer which the previous owners were drug addicts.
    & you are going to take credit for campaign 2008? You lost to BARR! You didn’t/couldn’t do anything to stop the Ron Paul mania! You failed to recognized Gravel/Ruwart as a possible fusion ticket. You talked Mary out of having anything to do with me & you all but insured Charles won BTP over me which I would’ve insisted on Mary as VP. Where’s Charles now? I don’t know. 2008 was a total disaster & you want to take credit for your part in it? Now in 2010 we’re headed for another train wreck election cycle. You want extra credit?

  12. Thomas L. Knapp

    Bob,

    I didn’t say anything about “credit.” My point was entirely about “action.”

    I didn’t “ary out of having anything to do with” you. You managed that all by yourself. You could have “insisted” on her as your VP candidate all you wanted. Shit in one hand and insist in the other — see which one gets full first.

    If you want to do something, do something. Sitting around blaming others for not doing what you wanted THEM to do isn’t doing something.

  13. NewFederalist

    Hey, I am kind of sorry I kicked this can down the road. I didn’t really intend to encourage a virtual pissing contest between Tom and Bob.

    As for Tom… I think his record of activism speaks for itself. If he is going to pull back for a bit to recharge and reenergize I thinks that’s great. I never did and burned out 25 years ago.

    As for Bob… Tom is right about you sitting on the sidelines pontificating. If you really believe in coalition politics then run for some local office using your strategy and prove the naysayers (me included) wrong. It is really that simple. I have run for office before (county commissioner among others) and it can be a lot of fun but it is a lot of work. I would think the “progressive” vote in NJ would give you a real opportunity to put PLAS to the test. My guess is that you will find an excuse to not do it.

  14. Thomas L. Knapp

    NewFed,

    Flattery will get you everywhere.

    But, just for the record, I’m not planning to “pull back” from activism — just from party activism.

  15. NewFederalist

    “But, just for the record, I’m not planning to “pull back” from activism — just from party activism.”

    Actually, that’s what I meant. Once an activist always an activist. You just try new adventures to see if anything else works better. Good luck!

  16. Robert Milnes

    One person running one party & getting an endorsement from the other has been tried & failed. The Zeese campaign comes immediately to mind. I’m not going to try something I know is not going to work. Sorry. I’m not that much of a msochist. Go ahead & call it an excuse if you want. One or even a few candidates running fusion campaigns just won’t be enough. Kind of like not having enough fusion material won’t work. might make a nice sizzle though. The voters need to be educated about how to vote in order to make it work also. It could be perfectly set up but if the voters don’t know about it ot somewhat understand it, it won’t work. In 2008 it was simple for blacks of all political parties & pursuasions to vote for Obama. Bloc fusion isn’t so simple. I’ve thought about trying to set an example. Maybe if I was more financially secure like George & could loan my campaign front money or like Gary & mortgage my house. I applied for the governor’s race to the njlp. That was a joke. Of course they chose Ken. & of course he didn’t try bloc fusion even though there was no Green candidate. The GP didn’t endorse Corzine. So much for the progressives in NJ.
    Let’s face it, the situation is a disaster. One person isn’t going to make a difference. It is going to take a movement. & as Tom delights in pointing out, I’m no Teddy Roosevelt.

  17. LibertarianGirl

    TK_But, just for the record, I’m not planning to “pull back” from activism — just from party activism.

    me_LOL , no shit huh? in fact when I was an anti-drug war /anti-prison activist with The November Coalition ( http://www.november.org )I felt more like an ‘activist’ , not sure why I changed to partisan politics , and not sure why Ive stayed this long …

  18. Robert Milnes

    Tom, that comment tells me that on a fundamental, subatomic particle, gut type level, you do not really understand politics. If TR had selected a progressive democrat vp & won, they would hve learned the lesson of bloc fusion. The progressive party would have expanded & suppressed the reactionary parties. This would have led to a golden progressive age of slow revolution. There never would have been an LP. Perhaps a libertarian caucus in the inclusive Progressive Party. Who knows the accomplishments?-avoiding WW2 very possibly one. Like it or not, TR was a left libertarian at the end of his career. I wish he had succeeded.

  19. Joey G. Dauben | The Palmer Post

    And I was appointed chairman of the Republican Liberty Caucus of Texas yesterday as well, so it’s going to be a fun year for our liberty-promoting efforts.

    I plan to reach out to the Libertarians in a lot more ways, as well as independents and Goldwater Republicans and hell, maybe even Eric Dondero 😉

  20. JT

    I know I’m going to regret addressing Milnes in any way, but what were TR’s actual libertarian or even semi-libertarian accomplishments during his presidency?

  21. Robert Milnes

    Tom, JT, just visited twainquotes.com. His quote in this instance alludes that we are all insane in our own way. I suppose you are tied to Twain being from Mo & all. Sure Teddy was insane being a politician and all. & imperialistic. Next time libertarians want to convention in the Sandwich Islands we can object on that ground, ok?
    You still have not explained how TR was involved in progressivism, nowadays a primarily leftist phenomenon. Also nowadays as Donderoo points out, libertarians can almost always trace back to conservatism & GOP. He was a republican who climbed the ladder to the vice presidency in 1900. Became president via assassination. By 1912 he founded the Progressive party. How different these 2 approaches to the presidency are!
    So I guess his libertarian accomplishment would be the founding of the Progressive Party!

  22. Thomas L. Knapp

    Bob,

    The quote I had in mind is not at twainquotes.com. Here it is as I’ve found it, but I haven’t found what the ellipses indicate the omission of:

    “I think the President is clearly insane in several ways, and insanest upon war and its supreme glories. I think he longs for a big war wherein he can spectacularly perform as chief general and chief admiral. … Mr. Roosevelt is the Tom Sawyer of the political world of the twentieth century; always showing off; always hunting for a chance to show off; in his frenzied imagination the Great Republic is a vast Barnum circus with him for a clown and the whole world for an audience.”

    Yes, Roosevelt founded the Progressive Party. Before and after doing so, he stood for the worst and most authoritarian, not the best and most libertarian, aspects of progressivism. He remained a jingoist to the end of his life and called for universal conscription in 1915-16 and US intervention in World War I before 1917.

    Roosevelt was, literally, a fucking maniac. When he came home angry after a fight with a girlfriend, he threw a fit and shot his neighbor’s dog. When he killed his first man in Puerto Rico, his joy literally manifested itself as a seizure.

    His response to America’s libertarian traditions was probably best summarized in his opinion of America’s most libertarian founder, Thomas Paine, whom he referred to as “that filthy little atheist.” He started off as a bureaucratic fussbudget and ended up as a blood-soaked imperialist. “Left-libertarian” my ass.

  23. JT

    So, Milnes, your evidence of TR’s libertarianism is that he founded the Progressive Party? Do you have any clue, as Tom alluded to, that TR embraced the authoritarian aspects of leftism and not the libertarian ones? I’m thinking that because TR was in the Republican Party (which stood for greater statism during TR’s time) and then founded the Progressive Party (which he did because he wanted greater statism), you think that indicates a unity of libertarianism and the libertarian aspects of progressivism. I don’t think you know much about history.

  24. Robert Milnes

    JT, I’m not an expert on a lot of this stuff. I’m mostly going on instinct. This is where that had led me.
    Now I’ve done some more research. Wikepedia-Robert M. LaFollette, SR. 1924 presidential election. 17%; third highest to Ross Perot 1992 19%; TR 1912, 27%. La Follette was a former republican House member. As Roosevelt, formed his own Progressive Party and got its nomination. He had what I would call a fusion executive ticket-a democratic Senator vp.
    Perot seems to be the anomaly of the three. Billionaire, not a politician as far as I know. Seems his politics I would describe as centrist or little right of center.
    I think this deserves further study. I see nothing to nullify my present advocation of PLAS.

  25. Robert Milnes

    Preliminary observations-
    I have rejected forming a new progressive party. This is Milsted’s proposal. I see it as direct competition to the LP & GP & further splitting the progressive/libertarian vote. Also PLAS makes formation of a new party unnecessary.
    Perot had his Reform Party. It also failed & for the most part, disappeared.
    One wonders whether another billionaire-like Bloomberg-could emulate Perot.

  26. Thomas L. Knapp

    Bob,

    Yes, LaFollette was a former House member … and a former DA … and a former governor … and a former US Senator.

    At the time he ran for president in 1924, he had been in public office of one sort or another for 44 years, and had won the governorship he had “traveled to sixty-one counties, gave 216 speeches and spoke to 200,000 people.”

    He had previously sought the Republican Party’s presidential nomination in 1912, winning two primaries and 36 delegates (Roosevelt romped in most of the primaries; the states which chose delegates by convention instead of primary went overwhelmingly to incumbent Howard Taft).

    While it’s true that he “formed his own Progressive Party,” he didn’t do so in a vacuum. He’d effectively been drafted by the Federated Farmer-Labor Party, but that party disintegrated under pressure of a hostile takeover by the Workers Party (a communist party) in 1923. The new “Progressive Party” that LaFollette formed was mostly a reconstruction of the FF-LP’s non-communist elements (AFL, Socialist Party, etc.).

    If you’re serious about a winning strategy, you might want to at least consider the possibility that some of these various and sundry items in La Follette’s background represent advantages in a presidential campaign which will not automatically accrue to some abstract notion of two single-digit parties magically transforming in merger to plurality status behind the candidacy of an unknown candidate who refuses to campaign and whose platform neither party supports.

  27. Robert Milnes

    Tom, why don’t you just admit I’m on to something?
    LaFollette was anti-war(WW1). TR was as you delight in pointing out was pro war. Even present day libs are ambivalent on this issue. In other words the perogressive movement is factional. That seems to be normal for a political party/movement. The problem with the progressive movement is that it is also SPLIT-at anarchism-between left and right. This has resulted in the evolution of 2 separate parties of the same movement-LP & GP. & what could have had a plurality in a three way race caused them both to have not enough votes in their bloc to win. GP 27%, LP 13%.

  28. Robert Milnes

    So, the strategy should be to combine the movement blocs which would form a defacto third party. 3 viable parties sets up a lowered threshold for victory-34%. TR came very close to achieving that at 27%.
    Now, are you going to help with this or are you going to be part of the problem?

  29. Robert Milnes

    The role of the LP is to throw their bloc & their fortunes-in with the GP to form an inclusive progressive-slow revolution-movement. & go for the close 3 way race plurality victory. 40% is very competetive in a 3 way race. They could very well win on most if not all ballots.
    The radicals in the LP are not going to get anarchy now! But they can participate in slow revolutionary change in which their ideas are taken seriously and acted on. Can you do that?

  30. Thomas L. Knapp

    “This has resulted in the evolution of 2 separate parties of the same movement-LP & GP. & what could have had a plurality in a three way race caused them both to have not enough votes in their bloc to win. GP 27%, LP 13%.”

    Still waiting for you to show me the ACTUAL PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION in which the GP has polled 27% and the LP 13%.

    “Progressive Vote” /= “Green Party Vote”

    “Libertarian Vote” /= “Libertarian Party Vote”

    The actual numbers in every case have topped out at about 1% for each party, not 27% and 13%. You’ve yet to offer anyone any reason to believe that that extra 38% will magically move to our ballot lines if we click our heels and wish real hard.

  31. NewFederalist

    Tom- You either have the patience of Job or too much time on your hands… 😉

  32. Robert Milnes

    Tom, just REVERSE the logic of voters as soon as they are presented aV IABLE third alternative & EDUCATED about what WE are doinpresenting them a VIABLE third alternative & what we want THEM to do-go ahead and vote third party. Oh, all of a sudden I don’t feel compelled to choose between the lesser of 2 evils & my vote for this third party candidate won’t be wasted because this is a close election & the polling is close….etc.

  33. Robert Milnes

    Still waiting to show me the actual presidential election in which the GP polled 27% and the LP polled 13%.
    From Mssouri, are you?
    Tom, that is a Catch-22. I can’t. But I can say TR GOT 27% with the Progressive Party in 1912. AND the GP is the present day equivalent to then Progressive Party. AND I can say that DESPITE being not a libertarian, Ron Paul got the libertarian vote equivalent in GOP primaries in 2008. @13% +/-.

  34. Robert Milnes

    + in what was more or less a do-over of 1912 in 1924, LaFollette got 17% with his Progressive Party. Differences-some. LaFollette anti-war, which was an unpopular position generally. Fusion executive ticket with democratic Senator vp. By then the Progressive ERA/movement was waning for whatever reasons. etc.
    Even still & when considered that the only other option is politics as usual in which third parties/Independents will almost certainly LOSE BIG, I say we try it. & we’d do better with you than without you despite your negative naybobism. ///Ha, Ha! is that a coincidental real word?!

  35. Thomas L. Knapp

    “AND I can say that DESPITE being not a libertarian, Ron Paul got the libertarian vote equivalent in GOP primaries in 2008. @13% +/-.”

    Well, yes, you could say that. But it wouldn’t be true. Here are Paul’s actual primary results:

    New Hampshire: 8%
    Michigan: 6%
    South Carolina: 4%
    Florida: 3%
    Average Super Tuesday vote: 4%
    Louisiana: 5%
    Maryland: 6%
    Virginia: 4%
    DC: 8%
    Wisconsin: 5%
    Washington: 8%
    Texas: 5%
    Ohio: 5%
    Vermont: 7%
    Rhode Island: 7%
    Mississippi: 4%
    Pennsylvania: 16%
    Indiana: 8%
    North Carolina: 8%
    West Virginia: 5%
    Oregon: 15%
    Kentucky: 7%
    Idaho: 24%

    I’m not going to bother with a calculator. My on-the-fly calculation is that Paul averaged a little over half your “+/-” claim — but let’s be generous and call it 8%.

    And of course he did so in his own party’s primaries, not among the electorate at large. My guess is that in a hypothetical national “open primary” he’d have pulled more like 5%.

    And, of course, you leave out the part where he’s a ten-term congressman with a previous presidential campaign under his belt and access to the debate media pulpit, because that couldn’t POSSIBLY have contributed in any way to what he accomplished.

  36. Robert Milnes

    Now, do we have anything equivalent or approximately close to TR? Prez or ex prez willing to be labeled Progressive. Obama?Carter? Or maybe ex prez candidate-Gravel? REpublican? Maybe we should ask Donderoo?!
    Anybody willing to be a fusion vp? Depends on who the P. is decided on.
    & we need a website for volunteers to go & help coordinate candidates & voters & fundraise. A nonprofit? A PAC?

  37. Robert Milnes

    Tom, ok. we are dealing with a lot of complex variables & factors. Agreed. But again, the alternative? Politics as usual.
    We’d need to poll 15% to get in the MSM debates, right? How about Free & Equal. We’d get into that. If prior to MSM debates it might spike a fusion executive ticket to 15%.

  38. Thomas L. Knapp

    Bob,

    One of the first things you need is a strategy to sell to a potential high-profile candidate or slate.

    A candidate who already has enough name recognition, etc. to run a viable campaign has to have something offered to him/her/them that he/she/they can’t get without the help of the parties involved.

    Ballot access is one such thing, but that doesn’t require both parties. The LP routinely manages 45-50 state ballot access for its candidates and can do so with or without the Greens, wh

    The problems with your current “PLAS” strategy are probably insurmountable. Those problems, by way of refresher:

    – It can’t be done from the top down nationally. Ballot access is done at the state level and if the state parties don’t agree with a course set by their national umbrellas, they’ll just refuse to follow it.

    – In many, probably most states, it can’t be done top down at the state level, either. In Missouri, for example, the LP’s organization has no choice whatsoever as to whether or not the LP nominates a candidate for Office X. There’s a primary. Anyone can pay the fee and enter it, and if they win it they ARE the LP’s nominee whether the LP’s organization likes it or not. Therefore, the LP’s organization has no way of committing to the Greens not to run a general election opponent for Office X. And if the Greens have achieved ongoing ballot access, they are in no position to make a deal either.

    In order for any “PLAS” to work, it’s probably going to have to be bottom up — a nationwide cross-partisan slate of candidates for office running on a single platform they’ve all signed on to, and running strong enough campaigns that

    a) Their national parties would be inclined to nominate a presidential ticket supporting that same platform;

    b) Their national parties would be willing to co-nominate or cross-endorse with each other in support of that ticket (and able to modify their bylaws to allow them to do so); and

    c) The big name candidate would be willing to run on that platform and on the tickets of those parties.

    Additionally, you write:

    “Anybody willing to be a fusion vp? Depends on who the P. is decided on.”

    No it doesn’t — at least not in the LP. The presidential nominee can ASK for a particular VP nominee, but the party, not the candidate, picks that nominee. I’m not sure if the LP has ever defied a presidential nominee’s endorsement, but it came within about 30 votes of doing so in 2008.

    “But again, the alternative? Politics as usual.”

    There are all kinds of alternatives.

    “We’d need to poll 15% to get in the MSM debates, right? How about Free & Equal”

    Free & Equal does ballot access, not debate access.

    “Are you suggesting Ron Paul on fusion ticket?”

    Nope. I’m not suggesting anything.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.