Comment by Steve LaBianca

Entered on: 4/11/2008 10:56:04 PM

I commend Ms. Pillsbury-Foster on an article which makes the most sense, on what the most important priorities that LP delegates should heed in nominating the presidential candidate.I have made the comment, regarding Bob Barr, what will he say when the war on drugs is the question, or gays, or the Patriot Act. Well, we now have the answer, as he was asked these types of questions on Hannity and Colmes. I found his answers lacking, with the comment that "Federalism" is what should keep such laws from happening on the federal level. Though I agree that they shouldn't be federal laws, but Barr says he would prohibit drugs (for example) at the state level. Well. Barr did the best he could, without appearing to be a flip-flopper, but I find this type of answer less than acceptable.

No, the LP presidential nominee is not going to be the next president. No, the LP nominee is not going to get millions of votes. Yes, Barr is likely to get more "ink" than Mary Ruwart (though a Ruwart campaign will get a decent amount, if "we" promote it well), but what do we want the "ink" to say? Frankly, I would rather forego the few extra votes (maybe even a few hundred thousand extra votes) and get the right message out there. Mary Ruwart gives the LP the best chance at getting that "Best" message out. I think that that "best message" seed has the best chance of bearing the most abundant fruit. Trees take time to grow and bear fruit, but rotten fruit is not worth the time nurturing, or waiting for.