I agree with most of the issues that you have put forth here. The
question that I have for you is, Lets say that you manage to capture a %
of the votes in this election but with no real hope of winning. One of
the major parties come to you and asks if you would step down and
endorse them, in return they would take up your stance on some of the
issues. These issues are important to you and the voters that are
supporting you. As a third party candidate this is not a far fetched
scenario. My question to you is what do you do? Endorse a candidate
that may take on some of the issues or risk that these issues become
marginalized and press on with your candidacy? What is the benefit to
the Party for staying in the race? Is the Party separate from the
people? Is it the case that what is good for the people good for the
Party? I thought about posting this to the blog but I was coming off
as not supportive and that is not what I, or you want on there. So I
pose this directly to the candidate. Isn't freedom great. Thank you,
David S
I assume you mean percentage of the polls before the election. Most Libertarians barely get 1% of the vote let alone even get mentioned in the news. Yet we have to drudge out there and get an ungodly amount of petitions just to get on the ballot. After all that work you better stay in it. Why should I endorse either candidate ? Perhaps if they supported immediate troop withdrawal.
This is an insurgent/protest vote designed to peel away voters from both sides. Enough dissatisfaction should make a point somewhere. I'd say post it it on the blog. This is about the Open Party Campaign. How can you get either side to agree on drugs, guns, abortion and gay marriage ? Only the libertarian stance is consistent on these issues.This candidacy raises the questions that get buried in the media sand. It's a one shot, give it my best deal.
A grassroots, see if we can do it kind of thing. That's the other point, participation for those who never get it.
E