Run In With Mr. Edwards

Well, I'm hoping to see Richard Campagna
(http://www.badnarik.org/campagna_bio.php) in Iowa one of these days.
He
and his running mate, Michael Badnarik, are starting to look like the
only
viable alternatives for my vote.

I think you should vote for him Jay. Be true to your principles.

Heh, good one.

Actually, I may.

It's kinda refreshing to see the Libertarians running a legitimate candidate
for office. Not the usual unelectable nut-case type they've run in the
past...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" wrote

It's kinda refreshing to see the Libertarians running a legitimate candidate
for office. Not the usual unelectable nut-case type they've run in the
past...

It's a little late for a response to this, but I couldn't let it go by
unchallenged. For now any Libertarian running for president is by
definition unelectable so no argument there. But "nut-case type"?
Harry Browne (last two elections) and Ron Paul before that are nothing
of the sort. Browne is one of the most well-reasoned and soft-spoken
politicians I've ever heard. Ron Paul became a Republican US
congressman after his unsuccessful Presidential run. Perhaps you're
thinking of Russel Means, who ran something like 12 years ago but lost
the nomination (to Ron Paul?). Maybe a hothead, but still way better
than anybody the Republicans or Democrats have inflicted on us since.

Jim Rosinski
N3825Q

"Jim Rosinski" wrote in message
m...
Harry Browne (last two elections) and Ron Paul before that are nothing
of the sort. Browne is one of the most well-reasoned and soft-spoken
politicians I've ever heard.

Hmm...I found him loaded with contradictions and his "virtual anarchist"
stance was adolescent at best.

But then, I worked on the 1996 campaign team for Rick Tomkins.

"Tom S." wrote

"Jim Rosinski" wrote in message
m...
Harry Browne (last two elections) and Ron Paul before that are nothing
of the sort. Browne is one of the most well-reasoned and soft-spoken
politicians I've ever heard.

Hmm...I found him loaded with contradictions and his "virtual anarchist"
stance was adolescent at best.

But then, I worked on the 1996 campaign team for Rick Tomkins.

No kidding!?!? YOU worked for THE Rick Tomkins???? I stand in awe!!!
Who is he, anyway?

To state the point of my earlier post more bluntly: I suspect Jay was
just blowing smoke about substantial differences between the current
LP Presidential candidate vs. earlier ones. Call them all nut-cases,
fine. LP principles aren't for everyone. Call them all statesmen,
fine. But a simple assertion that the current candidate is reasonable
while earlier ones were nut-cases needs some substantiation.

Jim Rosinski
N3825Q