From
the Reduct Box, we learn that "Louisiana voters will not be able to vote for Libertarian Presidential Candidate Bob Barr."
So, let's see. Conservative Louisianans
voted in the primary for Mike Huckabee, but those votes didn't count for
a hill of beans.And now they won't have the opportunity to vote for Libertarian Bob Barr. My friend Medium Jim was going to support Barr. Now what? I think LA conservatives who are not enthralled by McCain should find a fringe protest candidate to support. Demand more voices, more choices. Not some orchestrated selection by the powers-that-be.
---
Update: Socialists are off the ballot, too. More
here.Labels: Elections and Campaigns, GOP
14 Comments:
The Barr campaign was given incorrect information from the state; because of that, one court reversed the decision and put Barr/Root on the ballot. However, a higher court reversed that and took them off again. The case is going to SCOTUS.
If Barr doesn't make the ballot, I'd advise his supporters to vote for Ron Paul and Barry Goldwater Jr., who are on the Louisiana ballot for the Taxpayers' Party.
If the state gave correct information then I would say it is not the fault of the candidate and the candidate should be allowed on the ticket.
However, don't expect the Supreme Court to hold the state responsible for giving incorrect information.
I don't know the details of the case, but it seems to me that when there's even a smidgen of doubt courts usually rule to allow the person on the ballot. That way people will get the opportunity to vote for the person they like. If they lack popular support that person will lose anyway so, as they say, no harm no foul.
Peace,
Tim
And this matters because......................
Lots of folks consider Ron Paul certifiable...and its a shame that I honestly feel like a guy most think is crazy probably tells you the truth moreso than any other politician on the planet...
But, who cares whether Barr's on the ballot or not? Since when can't you write in your choice?
I have no qualms using it...This election year, I'm voting for the a male/female ticket of Chris Farley, as channeled by Shirley MacLaine for POTUS, with MacLaine as his VPOTUS...
Since WHEN have any of our votes for President mattered?
If I am a member of the Electoral College, I serve at the pleasure (or leisure, more like it) of the Louisiana Legislature, and if I wanted to throw my votes for The Gret Stet of Looziana behind Ted Williams cryogenically frozen head, or Miss Cleo, I could...and you guys couldn't say a frickin frackin thing...
Unless I'm wrong...
Actually, I'd like more choice in my US Rep's race. Remind me again, who are the Democrats running against Alexander?
"But, who cares whether Barr's on the ballot or not? Since when can't you write in your choice?"
In Louisiana (from what I've read), since at least 1997:
http://tinyurl.com/4np5yv
No one. I'm reliably informed that there was a backroom deal on that one.
The above post refers to Pawpaw's comment.
Pawpaw:
There is some 25 yr. old kid challenging Alexander as a Republican. Part of his platform appears to be drawing awareness to Alexander's earmark abuse.
Oyster:
As someone who is a McCain voter and has no intention of voting for Barr, I still say you are correct that he should be allowed on the ballot.
The ultimate result of the State GOP Primary was disgusting, in my opinion. I probably prefer McCain as opposed to Huckabee, (I voted for Hunter, though he had bowed out at that point), however, Huckabee was obviously the choice that more voters in Louisiana wanted. The fact he ended up with zero delegates is a shame.
Go: why is it every time we get an exciting independent candidate, suddenly he/she is "Crazy"? The big two parties love to do this. Ross Perot? Oh, he's crazy! Ron Paul? Crazy! Ralph Nader? Egotistical AND crazy. Cynthia McKinney? Crazy!
Why debate your challengers on the merits when you can get away with just calling them names?
I don't suppose I'm the only one who sees this pattern and understands how contrived it is. Or, perhaps I'M crazy, too.
Peace,
Tim
Tim: Maybe it is because the third party candidates (and third parties in general) do not act as if they actually want to win an election.
EVEN IF Perot had managed to win some states. EVEN IF Perot had won a plurality of the Electoral votes, had he not won a majority of the electoral votes, the election would have went to the Republican.
So part of the problem is that third party candidates don't campaign like they want to win. They try and go after every state and try to gain popular votes instead of consolodating their efforts to try and win electoral votes. This makes them nothing but spoilers.
The other part of the problem is that the third parties are not starting from the bottom up. Where is the Constitution party running for city council seats? How many libertarian congressmen are there? If you don't have the support of districts, you will not have a good get out the vote operation AND if you lack people in the House of Representitives and the vote goes to Congress because nobody has a majority, you have no chance of actually winning the Presidency.
So if third party candidates refuse to campaign smart and keep insisting on only playing the part of spoiler, why should we give them any consideration?
You make some very good points, Dan.
What?? I agree with you?
During the Fall last year, this group called GOOOH started an independent "grass roots" campaign.
The founder, first name is Tim, I believe, received some attention from decent media outlets, and he a chance to raise some money. He developed a strategy to seek out independent candidates, however, the problem is he wanted to field a candidate in EVERY U.S. Congressional District.
I e-mailed him with a suggestion to pool all their money behind one candidate in one toss-up district, because there was no way they could field a serious candidate in all districts. In my district, the run-off candidates in 2004, Rep. Boustany and State Sen. Mount, EACH spent around 2 million.
His reply was basically that I don't know what I'm talking about. Of course, he's not the first or the last person to say that about me.
Some 3rd party candidates are kooks, i.e. Nader and McKinney. Others, like Paul and Perrot, raise the level of debate, and it would be nice for them to rise up to more national prominance.
I don't think Ron Paul is a kook, however, many of his die-hard supporters are (9/11 truthers), and he seemed to almost embrace them. That gave many so-called conservatives the ammo they needed to disregard him as a loon, rather than admitting that he was more conservative than many of the candidates the right-wing talking heads praise.
Imagine that!
