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 — ...

Libertarian National Committee Deathwatch Part 1

As the LNC continues to lurch towards collapse, with the latest news of mass layoffs at HQ, I've decided to begin tracking those things leading the national party to irrelevance, even as state and local parties gain power. As news, rumors and rhetoric break out, I shall chronicle them in this ongoing series at Delaware Libertarian. Organizations approaching failure have a number of characteristics. One of the most striking is renunciation of their purpose and effort to reinvent themselves as a "me-too" provider of services in the marketplace. In this, the LNC has been on a collision course with destiny for a while now. Recently, for example, it hired Republican Party web site developer TerraEclipse to redesign the LNC web site . Terra created a web site very similar to those of the clients it brags most about -- far-right Republican conservatives like Tom McClintock and BJ Lawson. A quick look at the web site they built for the LNC is instructive. The tagline on the ...

Soda tax debate reveals fundamental progressive assertions about your lack of individual rights and the "responsiblities" of the State

I thought it would be at least amusing to use the Delawareliberal comments as sub-headings regarding each category of what is wrong with the proposed tax on sodas and juice drinks. But there are so many different little strands of each comment that it would be impossible to pull them all out. So, instead, I'm going to let you read them in more or less the order they appeared, and note the assumptions. pandora: I’m perfectly okay with taxing sodas and juice drinks. Mainly because they’re total crap, and one of the main reasons our country’s children are overweight. They are also dirt cheap. Assumptions here: (1) Because "I" am perfectly okay with a new tax it should be imposed on everybody; (2) it is the government's responsibility to keep children from being obese; (3) the cheapness of the product to be taxed justifies charging people more for it. John Manifold: Soda fattens your kids [and you and your husband], shortens their lives, costs more than water [a...