. . . because now I can really understand your frustration.
For the last couple of days I have been a bit detached as I watched the large herd of Libertarians Presidential wannabes jockey for position at the upcoming Denver convention.
Regular readers know that I have been intrigued by the notion that one or more third-party candidates could be poised to have a direct impact on the outcome in key battleground states.
This possibility has drawn our current wealth (I use the term advisedly) of potential candidates: Bob Barr, Mike Gravel, Wayne Allyn Root, Mary Ruwart, George Phillies, Steve Kubby, Christine Smith, and even Daniel Imperato. . . .
But the problem is not the candidates, it's the idiots in my own party who would rather implode the whole organization than see their candidate lose (or certain other candidates win).
Those who want a candidate with name recognition (and to hell with the ideology) want Gravel or Barr; those who share this interest but want to avoid a late-comer to the party tend toward Root.
The radical purists (sometimes it seems they should be called the Anarchy or Bust! crowd) have lined up for the coronation of Ruwart (and failing that, Kubby).
Pragmatists (like me) who want a long-term, centrist Libertarian prefer someone like George Phillies as a compromise candidate.
But Libertarians apparently don't compromise--even when it would be stupid not to.
The last week has seen a smear campaign against Ruwart for her position on age-of-consent, the expulsion of the LP's Executive Director, and a low level of name-calling, personal invective, and just plain idiotic posts that would cause von Cracker or Delaware's Hottest Blogger to blanch.
You know that question all you Democrats keep asking: how will the Party recover if the fratricidal Clinton-Obama fight goes all the way to the convention? How will the supporters of the losing candidate reconcile themselves to turn out for the winner?
I've been, quite honestly, enjoying the fight between Clinton and Obama with a somewhat smug detachment, and a secret wish to see a real contested Democratic convention since 1968.
Now, watching high-minded, intellectually inflexible morons tearing apart my own party (small though it may be), I finally understand what it must feel like to Jason, dv, geek, Cassandra, and Pandora.
Sorry, guys. Guess I'll try to have some more empathy from here on out.
In the meantime, you can visit here, here, here, and here if you haven't seen enough adults act like children who need time out in the Democratic Party.
For the last couple of days I have been a bit detached as I watched the large herd of Libertarians Presidential wannabes jockey for position at the upcoming Denver convention.
Regular readers know that I have been intrigued by the notion that one or more third-party candidates could be poised to have a direct impact on the outcome in key battleground states.
This possibility has drawn our current wealth (I use the term advisedly) of potential candidates: Bob Barr, Mike Gravel, Wayne Allyn Root, Mary Ruwart, George Phillies, Steve Kubby, Christine Smith, and even Daniel Imperato. . . .
But the problem is not the candidates, it's the idiots in my own party who would rather implode the whole organization than see their candidate lose (or certain other candidates win).
Those who want a candidate with name recognition (and to hell with the ideology) want Gravel or Barr; those who share this interest but want to avoid a late-comer to the party tend toward Root.
The radical purists (sometimes it seems they should be called the Anarchy or Bust! crowd) have lined up for the coronation of Ruwart (and failing that, Kubby).
Pragmatists (like me) who want a long-term, centrist Libertarian prefer someone like George Phillies as a compromise candidate.
But Libertarians apparently don't compromise--even when it would be stupid not to.
The last week has seen a smear campaign against Ruwart for her position on age-of-consent, the expulsion of the LP's Executive Director, and a low level of name-calling, personal invective, and just plain idiotic posts that would cause von Cracker or Delaware's Hottest Blogger to blanch.
You know that question all you Democrats keep asking: how will the Party recover if the fratricidal Clinton-Obama fight goes all the way to the convention? How will the supporters of the losing candidate reconcile themselves to turn out for the winner?
I've been, quite honestly, enjoying the fight between Clinton and Obama with a somewhat smug detachment, and a secret wish to see a real contested Democratic convention since 1968.
Now, watching high-minded, intellectually inflexible morons tearing apart my own party (small though it may be), I finally understand what it must feel like to Jason, dv, geek, Cassandra, and Pandora.
Sorry, guys. Guess I'll try to have some more empathy from here on out.
In the meantime, you can visit here, here, here, and here if you haven't seen enough adults act like children who need time out in the Democratic Party.
Comments
Dean would have been the choice that gave the party a winning theme - but alas we chose poorly.
At least it is not broadcast all over the MSM. I think you are correct that George Phillies has the most practical and least anarchic platform out there, though Christine Smith's positions are not that different. I think there should be more pragmatic candidates out there who can really galvanize the party; Ron Paul would have been a good choice.
On the Democrat side, substantive issues are being ignored and marginal issues are being overhyped to an amazing degree and it gives the impression that “Teflon John McSame” has more appeal than he otherwise would. Dean should focus the conflict on the real areas of difference between McCain and both democratic candidates at this point. One can only guess why he’s not doing that?