Bible-beater pilots

In article , "G.R. Patterson III"
writes:

Wdtabor wrote:

Well, would you vote LP if it meant that someone like Ron Paul would be
replaced by someone like Chuck Schummer?

Well, personally, I will vote for *anyone* running against Schumer that has a
chance of winning. With the possible exception of Clinton (either one). Since
I don't live in New York, however, I don't presently have that opportunity.
That also means that I don't have to call him "my" senator.


Yes, but the problem is that an LP party candidate can siphon off enough votes
that would otherwise go to a "Ron Paul Republican" to allow a "Schumer
Democrat" a win in a close race. I advocate, within the LP, that we only run
candidates in races where we either have a real chance of winning, or no chance
of changing the outcome.

We should run someone against Ted Kennedy, who will surely be elected anyway,
to introduce the public to LP ideas, but in the last two elections, we instead
caused two senate seats to go to Dems that otherwise would have been GOP. The
result has been a successful Kennedy led filibuster keeping Strict
Constructionist appointees off the appeals courts, a perfect politcal example
of carefully shooting ourselves in the foot.

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

Wdtabor opined

In article , "G.R. Patterson III"
writes:

Wdtabor wrote:

Well, would you vote LP if it meant that someone like Ron Paul would be
replaced by someone like Chuck Schummer?

Well, personally, I will vote for *anyone* running against Schumer that has
a chance of winning. With the possible exception of Clinton (either one).
Since I don't live in New York, however, I don't presently have that
opportunity. That also means that I don't have to call him "my" senator.


Yes, but the problem is that an LP party candidate can siphon off enough
votes that would otherwise go to a "Ron Paul Republican" to allow a "Schumer
Democrat" a win in a close race. I advocate, within the LP, that we only run
candidates in races where we either have a real chance of winning, or no
chance of changing the outcome.

We should run someone against Ted Kennedy, who will surely be elected anyway,
to introduce the public to LP ideas, but in the last two elections, we
instead caused two senate seats to go to Dems that otherwise would have been
GOP. The result has been a successful Kennedy led filibuster keeping Strict
Constructionist appointees off the appeals courts, a perfect politcal example
of carefully shooting ourselves in the foot.

That is what hapened in the Kennedy's last Mass election ('00 I think). Carla
did not do well .

-ash
for assistance dial MYCROFTXXX

On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 14:34:48 +0000, Wdtabor wrote:

We should run someone against Ted Kennedy, who will surely be elected anyway,
to introduce the public to LP ideas, but in the last two elections, we instead
caused two senate seats to go to Dems that otherwise would have been GOP. The

Running against TK shouldn't be an issue. Nobody will ever win against
him, so go for it.

The way I figure it, he could call everybody a moron, admit to any crime
you care to imagine and he'd be elected. He could run from prison and
win, he's a Kennedy and can not lose. So run against him and put out some
ideas.