Skip to main content

Allen Buckley will not go quietly

Since Allen Buckley's 3.4% take in the Georgia Senatorial race kept either Saxby Chambliss or Jim Martin from scoring 50%, there will be a December run-off. You can expect a lot of national attention, but the fact is that Georgia turn-out was pretty high, and those 126,000 Buckley voters are now a prime commodity. Whoever can pick up the majority of them is probably going to DC.

Which means that both Chambliss and Martin suddenly would like a Libertarian's endorsement.

Not so fast, the AJC reports Buckley as saying,

Buckley said Thursday that by early next week he will have a campaign “commitment” form he will ask the two top vote-getters to sign before getting his endorsement. No signature, no endorsement, said the Smyrna lawyer and CPA.

“It’s going to be mainly financial commitments that are reasonable,” Buckley told The Atlanta Journal Constitution.

Buckley ran an underfunded campaign based on fiscal responsibility. He said that neither Chambliss nor Martin support the massive federal spending cuts that Buckley said are necessary to save the nation from eventual “financial doom.” Buckley contends that the growing federal debt will eventually take down the country’s financial under pinning.

Buckley said Martin called him early Wednesday morning asking for his endorsement, but Buckley said he did not commit.

The Libertarian said he will formally ask Chambliss and Martin to sign his commitment, which he said will be “three or four pages” and list five to 10 commitments. Among them: A promise to cut federal spending, a balanced federal budget, no pork spending and a realistic solution to Social Security.

“If they don’t sign it, they won’t get my endorsement,” he said.


Can we say, "Kingmaker"?

Comments

The Last Ephor said…
Interesting strategery. Become the wedge party. The one that grabs enough of the vote to force themselves in to relevance.

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...