I concur with these insights from Michael's message of 11/8/06 (below).
<<< starchild >>>
I second Starchild's and Michael's E.'s excellent discussion as to
why we Libertarians run for office. We have a two-party system. This
is not Europe. We can win posts in School Boards. We can win posts
in any number of non-partisan political districts. But winning
major, especially partisan posts, remains difficult. However, our
candidacies, regardless of our chances for victory, offer us a
platform from which we can convey the unique Libertarian principles
to the general public. Yes, of course, run for major, partisan or
non-partisan office, with all the resources available; but focus on
the message, not the outcome.
Marcy
I concur with these insights from Michael's message of
11/8/06 (below).
<<< starchild >>>
> The Badnarik campaign throughout spoke confidently (but
foolishly,
> IMO) of their chances of victory. They scorned the doubters.
>
> I've been with the LP for 25 years and have repeatedly witnessed
this
> pattern among LPers in partisan races. When reality sets in on
> election day these Libertarians with visions of winning, too
often
> crash and burn out.
>
> Here's a valuable lesson for us all. The purpose of the LP
running
> candidates involves having access to a pulpit to educate the
public of
> the benefits of liberty and the viciousness of the State.
>
> Running to win, OTOH, encourages diluting this radical message
with
> the temptation to campaign like efficiency experts for the State.
Then
> when the meager tallies come in, concluding all electoral efforts
are
> hopeless and abandoning LP activism.
>
> An education in liberty consists of a long, slow process, which
> requires great patience and long-range planning. There are no
silver
> bullets or quick fixes.
>
> Michael Badnarik finished third with 4% of the vote. Not a poor
> showing for a Libertarian candidate, if you weren't expecting to
win