Thomas L. Knapp announces his candidacy for the Reform Party’s vice-presidential nomination

Thomas L. Knapp

IPR contributor, writer and libertarian activist Thomas L. Knapp made the following announcement today at Liberty.me:

Attn: Delegates attending the Reform Party’s 2016 national convention, July 29-31, Bohemia, New York

I, Thomas L. Knapp, hereby declare myself a candidate for the Reform Party‘s 2016 vice-presidential nomination. My declaration to this effect is pursuant to having been named as the preferred running mate of prospective 2016 Reform Party presidential nominee Darcy Richardson.

I aver that I am constitutionally qualified for election to the vice-presidency of the United States, being a natural born citizen thereof, having attained the age of 35 years (turning 50 this November, in fact), and having been 14 years a resident of the United States (the last time I left the United States was in late December of 1990, pursuant to military orders; I returned in late May of 1991).

I am neither wealthy nor famous, but I am an experienced campaigner, going back to 1992 when I gathered ballot access signatures for Reform Party founder Ross Perot’s first presidential campaign and proudly cast my vote for him. I pledge, if nominated, to use such resources as I have at my disposal to actively and energetically campaign on behalf of the party and its presidential ticket, and to help begin the process of rebuilding a Reform Party which can put itsnext presidential ticket on many more ballots and back that ticket with a much higher level financial and volunteer support.

Due to the lateness of this declaration, I do not expect to be able to attend the party’s national convention next weekend. However, I will gladly make myself available via phone or videoconference should my virtual “presence” be required. Between now and the convention I invite delegates to contact me via email (kubby.communications@gmail.com) or on Facebook (thomaslknapp). Said contacts can be escalated to phone or Skype as necessary.

Thank you for your consideration.

Respectfully yours,
Thomas L. Knapp

 

51 thoughts on “Thomas L. Knapp announces his candidacy for the Reform Party’s vice-presidential nomination

  1. Andy

    Tom ended his write in campaign for US House after Gary Johnson and William Weld became the LIp’s presidential ticket.

    Given the dismal state of affairs in this presidential election, I can’t say as I blame Tom for stepping up and running for the Reform Party’s vice presidential nomination.

  2. T Rex

    Richardson-Knapp 2016 is better than the other garbage out there (*cough Gary Johnson cough*). Had to be said!

  3. robert capozzi

    DGR advocates many positions that TK would consider “evil,” I would think.

    How is this ticket going to sort out its messaging? Will TK defer to DGR’s “statist” positions? Or will they not have a unified message?

  4. Thomas Knapp

    Bob,

    I’d be interested in what DGR positions you think I would consider “evil.” I’ve known Darcy for years, we’ve discussed many issues, and while we do not agree on everything he is thoroughly libertarian on social issues and, if often wrong, at least educated, nuanced and pragmatic on economic issues (he tends to focus his attention on finance — and as a former financial analyst for a large firm, he’s eminently qualified to do so; I’ve discussed elsewhere his implied proposal for a “Wall Street sales tax,” why I don’t agree … and why my own proposal would likely disturb and frighten Wall Street at least as much as his).

    Insofar as messaging is concerned, neither of us seems to intend to spend much time talking, as candidates, about things we have dramatic disagreements on. I expect that both of us will likely focus a good deal on a project we were both working on prior to running (themite.org).

    The Reform Party is not an ideological party, so in that sense the messaging isn’t greatly constrained; and the income tax proposal both Darcy and I back is eminently pragmatic in the Reform Party mold.

    The messaging space IS greatly constrained by the lateness of the hour and the likelihood that we will have to fight for every scrap of media we get. There simply won’t be TIME to pick fights over ideological disagreements. With respect to party promotion, the elevator pitch is probably pretty much “America needs a third option; the Reform Party has previously proven itself more viable than any other since Bull Moose as such an option; why not throw in with making it (ahem) great again?”

    I personally don’t plan to break any sweat chasing voters who are already inclined to support the Libertarian Party’s ticket, but to the extent that I might interact with those voters and that they might ask why they should vote Richardson/Knapp, the elevator pitch is pretty simple too: “The vice-president of the United States is the president of the US Senate. Who do you think would be more libertarian if he got a chance to sit his ass in that particular chair, influence debate, break tie votes, etc.: Me or Bill Weld?”

  5. robert capozzi

    tk: …if often wrong…

    me: “Wrong” often means “evil” for Randian/Rothbardians, at least.

    I’ve noticed that WW contradicts GJ on occasion publicly. After a few of those, I felt a twinge, a feeling that “this isn’t done.” OTOH, partly because I tend to agree with WW on those, and partly because the convention of the VP being deferential to the prez candidate may also be something that should be cast off in politics.

    So, maybe you and DGR’s disagreements (him being “wrong”!) might offer voters another breath of fresh air.

  6. Thomas Knapp

    Bob,

    Weld is certainly a mixed bag.

    One positive messaging difference between him and Johnson that I’ve noticed is on the “Fair” Tax — when that comes up, Weld points out that sales taxes are regressive (he may not be aware — or may not agree — that the “prebate” supposedly addresses the regressivity).

    On the other hand, it’s annoying to watch him try to split the militarism/foreign policy baby a la Solomon — maintain a giant military and bomb everyone on Earth from the air, but no boots on the ground means no consequences.

    One thing I’ve noticed about Darcy and myself is that we tend to at least broadly agree on what the problems are.

    I come from a libertarian tradition that regards the state as the problem.

    Darcy comes, or at least I perceive him as coming, from a branch of the progressive tradition that HOPE government can be the solution while understanding that it has, at least often, been the problem — e.g. Eugene McCarthy (one of those presidential campaigns he managed), Barry Commoner (under whose Citizens Party banner he once ran for office), etc. to the extent that these can be seen as hearkening back to the first three decades of the 20th century when there was seemingly a chance that the IWW, rather than the AFL-CIO, would set the ideological line, but perhaps falling on the De Leon 1901 side of the line vis a vis anarchism versus socialism.

  7. Reform Activist

    From a registered and active Reform Party Activist, this is a terrible ticket to have to vote for. Now I know how the Libs feel with Johnson.

  8. Mike K

    Tom, I respect your reasons for being frustrated.

    To advance the ideas of freedom though, it would be way easier to focus on local events, statewide candidates, etc etc.

  9. Thomas Knapp

    Mike,

    I respect your view as to what would be easier — or, to put it differently, offer a better cost/benefit ratio. I disagree, but my reasons for disagreeing are something I’d rather not discuss at this particular moment apart from pointing out the “bully pulpit” aspect of a presidential campaign.

    Just to be clear, though: I did not declare my candidacy out of frustration with the LP’s results.

    I declared my candidacy because a good friend who has, over the years, invested countless hours and thousands of dollars in my own efforts (including a congressional election in which, as the Libertarian candidate, I polled more votes than any third party candidate or aggregate of third party candidates in that district’s history, and by the way nearly seven times as many votes as the only Reform Party candidate to run in that district — something I could not have done without a generous check from Darcy), asked me to.

  10. Root's Teeth Are Awesome

    robert capozzi: “Wrong” often means “evil” for Randian/Rothbardians

    So you’ve read the minds of Randian/Rothbardians?

    Is Robert Capozzi stating for the record that he is a mind reader?

  11. Thomas Knapp

    With respect to Randianism, Bob doesn’t have to read any minds. Rand was quite clear that she considered morality to be a function of, even to map pretty much 100% to, reason:

    “Since reason is man’s basic means of survival, that which is proper to the life of a rational being is the good; that which negates, opposes or destroys it is the evil.” — “The Objectivist Ethics”

    “You who prattle that morality is social and that man would need no morality on a desert island — it is on a desert island that he would need it most. Let him try to claim, when there are no victims to pay for it, that a rock is a house, that sand is clothing, that food will drop into his mouth without cause or effort, that he will collect a harvest tomorrow by devouring his stock seed today — and reality will wipe him out, as he deserves; reality will show him that life is a value to be bought and that thinking is the only coin noble enough to buy it.” — From Galt’s speech in Atlas Shrugged

  12. Thomas L. Knapp

    Reform Activist,

    Well, you don’t “have” to vote for this terrible ticket.

    If you are a delegate next weekend, you can support another presidential candidate, or another vice-presidential candidate, or both. While I would be happy to discuss matters with you with an eye toward earning your delegate vote, I respect your decision in any case.

    If you’re not a delegate, you are of course free to cast your vote for the candidates of another party, or for an independent slate, or for that matter to not vote for president/vice-president at all.

    Richard,

    No, I won’t be able to attend the national convention. I was asked to serve as Darcy’s running mate at a pretty late date — too late for it to be practical for a married man with kids and not a lot of money to make the requisite travel arrangements. I will, however, be available for teleconference or video conference should the delegates so desire.

  13. Trent Hill

    HAHAHAHA.

    Tom doesn’t think GJ is libertarian enough, but is more than happy to marry his politics to Darcy? Darcy is a good man, fantastic writer, and maybe even a social libertarian, but to say he’s more libertarian than GJ is not accurate, I don’t think.

    It’s funny. TK has spent so much time criticizing the LP for running “Republican Retreads” and getting angry about people who are not committed to the party, yet he has just in a few years switched to run in several other parties AGAINST the LP. Hilarious.

  14. Gene Berkman

    ” I gathered ballot access signatures for Reform Party founder Ross Perot’s first presidential campaign and proudly cast my vote for him.”

    When I lived in Texas in 1979, H Ross Perot was chosen by Governor Bill Clements to head the Texas War on Drugs Committee. Clements got the legislature to allocate $645,000 in taxpayers money to fund the War on Drugs Committee. The Committee used this money to lobby the legislature to pass a series of harsh anti-drug laws, including a bill to allow wiretapping in drug trafficking cases; increased penalties for sales and trafficking of various drugs, including marijuana; and a bill to require that every prescription in the state of Texas be filled out in triplicate, with two copies sent to the state, to be put into a permanent computer database.

    Perot’s company, EDS, received the contract to maintain the database, combining crony capitalism with a fascistic attack on privacy rights. In fact, Perot’s fortune, which enabled him to self fund his campaign in 1992, came completely from contracts with government agencies. In his 1992 campaign, Ross Perot advocated higher taxes to deal with the deficit, expansion of federal involvement in education, and a variety of other statist positions.

    I have met libertarians who voted for Ross Perot, but I still don’t understand why.

  15. Krzysztof Lesiak Post author

    “In my imagination, Tom doesn’t think GJ is libertarian enough”

    There, fixed that for ya. No charge.

    – Thomas L. Knapp

    I just want to make sure I read that right. Is this coming from the same creator of whynotgaryjohnson.com?

  16. langa

    I have met libertarians who voted for Ross Perot, but I still don’t understand why.

    Nor do I. Perot, much like Trump, believed that he could run government the same way he ran his business, and in doing so, he could make government “more efficient” in performing its work.

    Why any libertarian would desire for the government to be “more efficient” at taking away our freedom is beyond my comprehension.

  17. Steven Wilson

    I wish Tom all the best. Stepping into a Presidential race this late is an impossible task. I think it can be done if Darcy uses his pull within the Reform Party to ask delegates to vote for someone not attending and with no pedigree of recent Reform Party activities.

    I have seen Tom Knapp campaign in Missouri. Darcy will be lucky to have him along.

    Peace

  18. Thomas L. Knapp

    Krzys,

    Yes, that’s where it’s coming from.

    I would offer to wait while you go look for an instance of me saying anything resembling “Gary Johnson isn’t libertarian enough” on that site, but it would be a looooooooooong wait, since the word “libertarian” was used precisely once on that site, in the header, to wit: “Because the Libertarian Party can’t afford THAT mistake again.”

    The question “is Gary Johnson libertarian enough?” implies a second element. Is Gary Johnson libertarian enough FOR WHAT? To mow my yard? To make a decent pizza? To qualify as a player on Jeopardy?

    While I did not, in fact, think that Gary Johnson was “libertarian enough” to represent the Libertarian Party well, that was not the point of whynotgaryjohnson.com. The point of whynotgaryjohnson.com was to highlight problems with his record — fiscal irresponsibility, bizarre inconsistency, etc. — that weren’t necessarily ideologically specific to libertarianism.

    And he might well be “libertarian enough” for any number of things other than representing the Libertarian Party as a presidential candidate.

    I want the Libertarian Party to run libertarian candidates because that is what the Libertarian Party is about. When any other party runs a non-libertarian, well, why would I expect them to not run a non-libertarian?

  19. robert capozzi

    L: Why any libertarian would desire for the government to be “more efficient” at taking away our freedom is beyond my comprehension.

    me: Which is preferable: X + 1 = Y or X = Y.

    I prefer the latter…it’s more efficient.

  20. Darcy G Richardson

    “I have seen Tom Knapp campaign in Missouri. Darcy will be lucky to have him along.” — Steven Wilson

    Agreed. This might be one of the shortest presidential campaigns in history, but I’m honored that Tom is part of it.

  21. langa

    Gary Johnson has also said that he wants to make government more efficient.

    Yet another reason why he shouldn’t be representing the LP. Reminds me of Barr in ’08, when he said the reason he was running was to (paraphrasing) “restore people’s faith in government” or something like that.

  22. Tony From Long Island

    I wonder . . . let’s say the “reform party” elects a president and majorities of both houses. Do they have to change their name?

    Oh yeah…I was a Lib who voted for Perot in 96. Why? Because I thought Harry Browne was “Too libertarian” (though I did vote for him in 2000) and because – being a New Yorker – I knew Clinton would win in New York. I was 22 years old in 1996.

    This year I am voting for Johnson unless by some miracle, New York will be close. Under no circumstances can Donald Trump become President.

    The comparison someone made between Perot and Trump is not really a fair one. Perot at least made some attempt to actually understand the issues. He had a basic grasp and didn’t speak in demigoguery

  23. robert capozzi

    Tony: Under no circumstances can Donald Trump become President.

    Me: I do hear that. However, I suggest you consider not worrying about the math in your home state. One vote will make no difference.

    Voting for me is a symbolic gesture, and for me I simply want to feel good about my vote.

  24. Thomas Knapp

    Eric,

    Florida, New York, possibly Louisiana, maybe one or two others, perhaps some write-in opportunities.

    If Fuente is the nominee, he has allegedly procured ballot access, either as an independent or under his “Delta Party” label, in some other states. The one I’ve seen mentioned (in Ballot Access News) is Nevada. A quick look at his recent FEC reports doesn’t seem to bear out any filing fees (other than for the Democratic Senate primary in Florida) or petitioning expenses, but I could just be missing them or they might be labeled something else that didn’t catch my eye.

  25. Andy

    Tom, those reports are not up to date. Roque “Rocky” de la Fuente is most definitely petitioning for ballot access in several states, such as Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Washington, and probably some others. He is hiring petitioners and he is likely to appear on the ballot in several states, assuming the states that have sore loser laws do not knock him off (note that Rocky ran for President in the Democratic Party primary earlier this year).

  26. langa

    Voting for me is a symbolic gesture, and for me I simply want to feel good about my vote.

    It doesn’t happen often, but here’s a case where I agree with RC 100%. Your one vote changes nothing, so why would you ever vote for the lesser of evils? (That applies, BTW, not only to people who feel compelled to vote for one of the major party candidates, but also to those who “settle” for a third party candidate that they don’t really like, e.g. “Well, Johnson’s not really libertarian enough for me, but he’s a lot better than Trump or Clinton, so I guess I’ll hold my nose and vote for him.” That just makes no sense at all to me.)

  27. Thomas Knapp

    Andy,

    Well, I can only go by the reports he has actually filed. And as we all know, those reports aren’t always exceptionally informative. You, being in the petition field, have an ear to the ground, and I trust your information on where he’s petitioning. Do you know if he’s trying to get on the ballot in Utah?

    My assumption is that Mr. Fuente is running for the right reasons — that he has beliefs or principles he wants to promote to people who share them by offering himself up as a candidate who represents those beliefs or principles.

    To the extent that he has backers or supporters, I see those as split into two groups — people with the same beliefs/principles as him who want to support him, and people with other motives.

    One such motive, from the Reform Party perspective, would be to maximize the number of ballot lines its candidate is on and hopefully use his campaign to get party organizations up and active again in states where they haven’t been.

    From outside the Reform Party, I can see the possibility of a couple of somewhat nefarious motives on the part of major party operatives.

    One such motive might be to harm ballot access prospects for independent presidential candidates in Florida. Right now if you are not affiliated with a party, it takes nearly 120,000 signatures to get on the ballot in Florida. Fuente is suing against that requirement and the suit seems like a slam dunk. But if the Reform Party nominates him, he doesn’t have to press the suit, he will just get their ballot line. Which means Florida gets to go back to suppressing independent presidential candidates.

    Another such motive might be to see a candidate who has, to date, already spent ten times as much as Gary Johnson and William Weld have raised, and who is probably willing to spend that much all over again, on a number of ballots and associated with a recognized party name. If Mr. Fuente throws $5 million or more into his own campaign and focuses on a few states instead of 50, he might really hurt Johnson’s vote total, or at least balance it out some and reduce his effect on the outcome in key small states (from the point of view who assume that Johnson pulls “from the right” and that Fuente would pull “from the left” — specifically in Utah, the goal might be to make sure Trump carries the state).

  28. robert capozzi

    L: That applies, BTW, not only to people who feel compelled to vote for one of the major party candidates, but also to those who “settle” for a third party candidate that they don’t really like,

    me: Glad we agree. While voting is a symbolic gesture, it does have an element of practicaliity to it, too. I don’t, for ex., write myself in for every office I vote for. My standard for symbolism is not “agrees with me 100% of the time.”

    I take an all-things-considered perspective in such matters. I’ll be voting GJ because I agree with the thrust of his campaign and I actually think that, if he were to somehow win, he’d be able to do the job, and he’d certainly do a better job than HRC or DJT.

  29. Tony From Long Island

    Tony: Under no circumstances can Donald Trump become President.

    Me: I do hear that. However, I suggest you consider not worrying about the math in your home state. One vote will make no difference.

    So I guess none of us should vote – Our vote makes no difference . . . I’ve made it very clear that I am a democrat. However, I’ve only voted for a democrat for president ONCE in the seven presidential elections I voted in.

    I don’t like the Electoral College, but it does exist. So, I can vote my conscience living in New York. There is absolutely no chance Trump challenges in this state, so I will gladly vote for Gov. Johnson

  30. robert capozzi

    Tony, no, that’s not what I’m suggesting. Rather, I suggest that people consider voting as a symbolic gesture rather than as a mathematical calculation BECAUSE the math is indisputable: An individual’s one vote does not matter mathematically.

    Like you have done in the past, it seems, you vote your conscience. I applaud you for it. Voting to game the system is pointless, since one vote almost never swings an election, especially a national election. If it EVER DID swing an election, there would surely be a recount, and almost as surely, the recount would not be decided by one vote.

    In short: Vote your conscience first, with a consideration for the candidate’s competence.

    Just a suggestion, though. Do whatever feels right for you, by all means.

  31. Darcy G Richardson

    “One such motive might be to harm ballot access prospects for independent presidential candidates in Florida. Right now if you are not affiliated with a party, it takes nearly 120,000 signatures to get on the ballot in Florida. Fuente is suing against that requirement and the suit seems like a slam dunk. But if the Reform Party nominates him, he doesn’t have to press the suit, he will just get their ballot line. Which means Florida gets to go back to suppressing independent presidential candidates.” — Thomas Knapp

    Tom, you make a really good point regarding independent presidential candidates in Florida.

    Given the fact that Rocky is currently running for the U.S. Senate here in the Sunshine State, surely those who encouraged him to seek the Reform Party’s presidential nomination are aware of the restrictions on candidates seeking public office in this state, specifically section 99.012 (2) of the Florida Statutes: “No person may qualify as a candidate for more than one public office, whether federal, state, district, county, or municipal, if the terms or any part thereof run concurrently with each other.”

  32. Thomas Knapp

    Darcy,

    Yes, that’s one problem that I’ve brought up before. If the delegates are inclined to support Mr. Fuente — and there are good reasons for them to be so inclined — I hope they will at LEAST call on him to show proof that he has withdrawn from the Florida race for US Senate before voting to nominate him.

    Interestingly, though, that brings up a possibility running in the other direction.

    My initial theory was that Fuente might have “major party” backers who want him to balance out Johnson’s impact on the Trump vote in the southwest.

    But what if someone wanted to PROTECT Johnson’s (or Stein’s) vote totals, by costing the Reform Party its Florida ballot line (and possibly having a Reform Party candidate who loses other prospective ballot lines under “sore loser” laws)?

    That actually sounds a little more probable to me than my original hypothesis. The “major party” players probably consider the idea of throwing yet another third party candidate into the presidential mix to be playing with fire this year. But I could see an activist for one or more of the existing third parties going Svengali on Mr. Fuente, pushing him to seek the Reform Party nomination for the specific purpose of helping out Johnson and/or Stein at the Reform Party’s expense.

    In fact, it’s happened before, and to the Reform Party to boot. Third parties don’t USUALLY try to keep each other off ballots, but in 2008 the Constitution Party acted successfully to block Ted Weill, the Reform Party’s nominee, from ballot access in Kansas. Perhaps the same kind of skulduggery is afoot here.

  33. Andy

    Tom, I know that Rocky is trying to get on the ballot in several states, but I do not know if Utah is one of them.

    I am pretty sure that Rocky was able to get on the ballot in New Mexico under the banner of the American Delta Party, which he formed. His petition drive to get on the ballot in Georgia apparently failed.

  34. Tony From Long Island

    I’m sure I am not the only person who votes with the understanding of how the Electoral College works. So, I do feel that if the race in New York was close, Hillary would get more votes that might have gone elsewhere. I will ALWAYS choose a Dem over a Rep. The only Republican I ever voted for was Rick Lazio over Hillary for senate in 2000 (he’s from my town!!!!!!!!!!!!!!). He’s moderate enough that I don’t really regret it, but I can not forsee another instance where I would vote for a Republican.

    Thankfully, that won’t happen. Despite what the polls say this week, this election will not be close. Hillary will win over The Trumpster Fire by probably 5 or 6 (but with much less than 50%) and by a considerable margin in the Electoral College.

    If Gov. Johnson does somehow get in the debates, he will likely end up with between 10 and 15. If not, between 5 and 10. Hopefully Jill Stein can end up somewhere between 3 and 5

  35. Austin Cassidy

    Tom,

    I don’t think he has any major backers, he’s just a rich guy who is nuts and likes to see his name on the ballot.

    Won’t Rocky have already lost the Democratic primary for U.S. Senate a few days before he officially qualifies to run for President? I’m guessing he’s only running for Senate in Florida because he’s legally allowed to and it only costs $10k to get on the ballot.

  36. robert capozzi

    Tony, correct, agreed. Others think they might vote “strategically” based on likely outcomes in the Electoral College.

    My point is this “strategic” voting is mathematically absurd, particularly if done in isolation by a single voter. One vote will not change the electoral college tally in NY or AK or RI.

    OTOH, I do think that Team J/W could focus resources in lopsided states. Target for ex. R voters in NY and CA, D voters in TX and AL, for ex. If done properly, that could build national vote totals. Might be worth exploring.

  37. robert capozzi

    cm, do you feel that that datapoint is definitive? Badnarik/Cobb received 0.32%, and the prez candidate generally garners more attention than the VP. Something like 0.4% and 0.3% types of results seem inconclusive on their face.

    Not that focusing on swing or safe states is necessarily more effective. I don’t know what Team J/W’s current thinking is, but it seems they are still focusing on earned media and attempting to get in the debates. Presumably they will pivot at some point, but what that will be seems unclear to me.

  38. robert capozzi

    more….

    Although my GUESS is they are leaning to try to win electoral votes in certain states. Perhaps UT, NM, and CO, or something like that.

    I suspect, though, that that sort of outcome will depend mostly on SuperPAC funding and of course execution.

  39. Thomas Knapp

    “Badnarik/Cobb received 0.32%”

    No, Badnarik/Campagna received 0.32%. Cobb wasn’t Badnarik’s VP candidate, he was the Green Party’s presidential candidate.

    Badnarik got more votes than Cobb, but it’s not obvious that that was because of his swing state strategy versus Cobb’s safe state strategy. Lots of things go into a presidential vote total and quantifying the effect of each is difficult, especially with such tiny samples of both instances and votes within instances to try to do so from.

  40. Austin Cassidy

    Robert —

    Cobb was the Green Party’s presidential candidate in 2004.

  41. A Reform Party Dilemma

    “Won’t Rocky have already lost the Democratic primary for U.S. Senate a few days before he officially qualifies to run for President?”

    Well, if he’s nominated by the national Reform Party this weekend (July 30) and will then be seeking ballot access as a presidential candidate in the state of Florida — where he now claims residence, even though he really lives in San Diego — then technically he’s running for President and the U.S. Senate simultaneously, regardless of what date he files his qualifying paperwork in the Sunshine State.

    It’s a clear violation of the spirit and intent of the Florida statute mentioned earlier in this thread, i.e., running for an office in which the term for that office runs concurrently with another office being sought by said candidate.

    That’s why Marco Rubio stated emphatically that he wouldn’t run for his Senate seat when he announced his candidacy for the GOP’s presidential nomination in the spring of 2015. It’s also why he later dropped out of the presidential contest long before reversing course and eventually deciding to seek re-election to the Senate.

    Beyond that, the Reform Party of Florida would have to act with all deliberate speed to qualify Rocky’s 29 presidential electors by the August 31 deadline. That deadline is less than 24 hours after the Democratic U.S. Senate primary.

    Jack be nimble, Jack be quick. Jack shouldn’t listen to the guy who lives near Candlestick (Park).

    And even then Florida election officials will most likely still be counting the votes in the U.S. Senate race, a contest in which the official results (and certification of the winner) won’t be known for some time. While those votes are being counted, Rocky will still legally be considered a candidate for the U.S. Senate.

    Nominating a deep-pocketed vanity candidate for the presidency — a guy who has nothing substantive to say about the issues facing the country and harbors the delusional belief that hundreds of thousands of votes were stolen from him in the recent Democratic presidential primaries — could cost the Reform Party its presidential ballot line in one of the most populous and crucial battleground states in the country.

    The Reform Party should tread carefully when nominating a presidential ticket on Saturday.

Leave a Reply

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