Skip to comments.BADNARIK CALLS FOR DEMOCRATIC OPPONENT’S WITHDRAWAL FROM TEXAS CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT 10 RACE
Posted on 08/31/2006 12:41:52 AM PDT by freepatriot32
Austin, Texas - With one day remaining for candidates to withdraw from the race and have their names not appear on the ballot, candidate Michael Badnarik's principal campaign committee, Badnarik for Congress, has asked Democrat Ted Ankrum to withdraw from the race.
"While Mr. Ankrum is definitely a nice guy, that is not enough to win over the Republican incumbent," says campaign manager and committee treasurer Allen Hacker. Hacker expects that the Democrat, who has no party or Political Action Committee support, hasn't raised even $75,000.00 and is very unlikely to break $100,000.00 in the entire campaign. A recent appeal through a prominent liberal blog resulted in next to nothing coming into the Democrat's campaign, Hacker says. In contrast, candidate Michael Badnarik has raised over $350,000.00, with the most recent $17,000.00 coming in over the past five days from a fundraising email sent out to the campaign's email list on Friday.
The Democratic Party is completely disinterested in this district, Hacker asserts. "They've written it off and provided Ankrum nothing more than platitudes. Meanwhile, Badnarik enjoys national and full party support at every level.
Badnarik received a standing ovation upon delivering the keynote opening speech at the Libertarian Party's national convention in July, calling for unity, cooperation, and a return to the traditional American values of freedom, responsibility and vigilance.
Despite the facts that Badnarik enjoys a five-to-one fundraising advantage and a two-to-one name recognition advantage, Hacker reports, the Democrat has so far refused to consider withdrawing, even though his original declared intent was simply to unseat the incumbent.
"Ankrum is staying in this race merely because of whatever level of momentum he has built with his donors and supporters." Hacker continues, "this is not about him having any real hopes of winning, but about his perception of loyalty to his troops, however fruitless the effort will turn out to be. There's no way he can win."
And while Badnarik and Ankrum agree that wars of foreign intervention such as the current US military invasions and occupations in the Middle East are despicable, Badnarik also calls for sound monetary policy, increased reliance on the private sector for charity to the truly needy, and an overall rollback of government intrusion into the lives and private affairs of American citizens. Conversely, Ankrum supports universal health care and the "living wage."
Both of these have been repeatedly criticized by Badnarik as expensive and impossible to manage. The living wage in particular is a disaster, he claims, given that there are more than thirty regions across the US where the cost of living varies substantially from one to the next.
"It would be incredibly expensive just to monitor all the details so that annual adjustments can be made in every region as the economy ebbs and flows. Worse, the facts of history show that every time the minimum wage has been increased, the lower-tier jobs did not enjoy a net increase in pay. Many of them were simply eliminated, as small businesses couldn't cover the additional costs. The free market, not government-enforced 'free trade', is the better mechanism for this, Badnarik says.
"It's important and admirable to care about your fellow person," Badnarik says, "but robbing Peter to pay Paul, and costing Raul and the neighbor's high-school kid their jobs in the process is not the American way."
"We're in an odd role reversal with this race, Hacker notes. "Instead of the third-party candidate splitting off votes from a candidate with whom he agrees on many points, we have a major-party candidate, the Democrat, choosing to stay in the race regardless of the fact that there is no foundation upon which to believe he can win."
Can Michael Badnarik defeat the incumbent in District 10? Absolutely," insists Hacker. According to Hacker, the Republican incumbent has profoundly betrayed his base and party philosophy by championing the single most sweeping violation of the Bill of Rights ever devised, the cynically-named USA Patriot Act.
The freshman incumbent votes liberally for deficit spending and has a dismal rating on fiscal responsibility from conservative watchdogs, so not only is he socially oppressive, he is fiscally irresponsible. Only a principled libertarian of the likes of Ron Paul can challenge such a breadth of malfeasance," Hacker says. "That would be Michael Badnarik: socially tolerant, fiscally responsible."
The issues are all ours. All that is needed is for the voters to look at what's going on, and they have been, declares Hacker. For the first time in history, congress has seen its approval rating go into the low 20s, and 60% of Americans have said they'd consider a third-party candidate if they thought it would restore integrity to government. Hacker concludes, "all this is easy to see when you understand that Michael Badnarik is the only candidate in the race who has committed to signing a legally-enforceable contract with the voters that will guarantee that he keeps his word."
For more info visit http://www.badnarik.org. To schedule an interview with the candidate, contact Jon Airheart at 512-637-6863.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it really seems that the libertarians are working in tandem with the democrats here.
The Libertarian candidate should run the race against opposition. It's VERY hypocitical on his part to whine that Libertarians are cut out of the two party system and would win if only given a chance then whine when he has an opponent.
Okay, I will. You are approaching it from the point of view that the Republican incumbent has some sort of moral claim on his seat. Badnarik, is simply trying to unseat him and is using an age-old tactic to do so: tell the weakest participant that he can't win, so why not withdraw? Democrats and Republicans have both used this tactic on third-party candidates for ages, but anyone who would have the temerity to point out that such tactics would seem to have the Republican or Democrat "working in tandem" with their opposite would be greeted with truckloads of ad hominem.
Furthermore, the tactic is hardly flattering for the Democrat. Badnarik is openly calling him a loser. It is patently silly to suggest that such behavior is collusive.
No, it isn't.
Please remove me from the Libertarian ping list. Thanks.
I disagree with Mike on the war, but his is technically the constitutionally correct position. I believe that it is of the utmost importance to wage and win this war. This is one of the few areas that I support Bush.
I don't believe that Mike's viewpoint will carry the day in congress should he beat the pubbie. Despite the whinings of the dems, there isn't any where near enough support to endanger funding the war to it's necessary conclusion.