Round 3 Results

Moving right along, Mary Ruwart did benefit significantly from Steve Kubby's exit endorsement. It's a dead heat again- a tie!

Bob Barr 186 (-2)

Mary Ruwart 186 (+24)

Wayne Root 146 (+8)

Mike Gravel 78 (+5)

George Phillies 31 (-5)

Phillies is eliminated, and I did not hear him throw his support behind anyone, so where those 31 votes land is anyone's guess.

That's getting to be true of Gravel's and even Root's totals. Funny things can happen on convention floors. A candidate can decide he's tired and wants out, throwing support to someone at a key moment, becoming the kingmaker. 78 or 146 votes are huge at this point. This is where the lobbying really intensifies, and again I kinda wish I was there to feel the buzz of horse trading for liberty.

Round 2

Here's the vote after the second ballot:

Bob Barr 188 (+35)

Mary Ruwart 162 (+10)

Wayne Root 138 (+15)

Mike Gravel 73 (+2)

George Phillies 36 (-13)

Steve Kubby 32  (-9)

Kubby was eliminated, and Barr gained significant separation between himself and Mary Ruwart, taking a number nearly equal to the votes put up for grabs by the elimination after the first ballot. This becomes a nervous time for Mike Gravel, and the pit in the stomach forms for Phillies.

Kubby threw his support behind Mary Ruwart after this ballot, so we'll see if she reclaims some ground.

First Ballot In

Another convention, another close first-round finish:

Bob Barr 153 votes

Mary Ruwart 152

Wayne Root 123

Mike Gravel 71

George Phillies 49

Steve Kubby 41

Mike Jingozian 23

Christine Smith  6

Daniel Imperato 1

None of the Above 2

Comically, there were write-in votes cast for Penn Gillette (3) and Ron Paul (6), plus one other whose name I didn't catch.

Only Jingozian and Smith are eliminated from this ballot, and a new vote is taken. Due to the closeness and the lack of surprises here, I would expect the numbers to look very similar, as only 39 delegate votes are up for grabs. That said, some who voted for Kubby or Phillies may decide the writing is on the wall, and put their votes up for grabs. This where it gets to be very exciting to be on the floor. In 2002, I was filmed by C-SPAN standing on a chair and stumping before our regional caucus for Gary Nolan, right after the first vote.

At this point, anyone can switch at any time. Sometimes delegates vote with their state or regional delegation the first time, and then go their own way for subsequent balloting. 

I was struck that Georgia really turned up for Bob Barr, delivering 33 votes for him, with just two else cast (for Ruwart). California showed up for Wayne Allyn Root, with 38 votes. It will be interesting to see if those numbers change. Alaska did not support its' own Mike Gravel, casting its' four votes elsewhere. 

I watched Rob Kampia of the Marijuana Policy Project represent DC and announce the casting of its' three votes for Bob Barr, the erstwhile drug warrior, and wondered if Kampia had to choke down some cognitive dissonance on the vote. Apparently not, though. Kampia was one of the three.

Indiana's 22 delegates voted thusly:

Root 6

Gravel 5

Barr 4

Phillies 3

Jingozian 2

Root 2

Hopefully this vote will pare it down to two. I do not see a clear victory coming on the second ballot. 

Libertarian Party Convention Underway

I'm not in Denver today, but I am keeping a close eye on the Libertarian convention, as a nominee for President will emerge. Here are my main interests in a nominee:

1. Carry no baggage. I was cheering Ron Paul until his ties to racist garbage were revealed. At that point, Paul became something worse than a poor ambassador for liberty. He tarnished the very idea, because people associated Paul as liberty itself. We can't have that in the Libertarian nominee.

2. Be a real communicator. Michael Badnarik won the 2004 nomination on the strength of one performance at the Libertarian convention in Atlanta, sweeping many delegates off their feet. We soon learned that one speech does not a communicator make, as Badnarik was not covered by the media, and worse, he opted to sit at "the kiddie table" of debates- the forums for the excluded minor party candidates. Our nominee cannot be one who self-marginalizes by accepting exclusion. Our nominee must make America take notice. Most of our candidates are not capable of that, frankly.

3. Focus on real campaigning issues. I love the Constitution, but the American public neither knows about it nor cares. Our nominee has to get over this, and get to topics of substance that the public does care about. In my opinion, a winning trio is Iraq, our financial crisis/jobs, and health care. I don't want a nominee who is talking to me. You already have me. I hope our delegates have this wisdom, for once.

Overall, Bob Barr is my #1 choice, because he can fulfill #2 & 3 better than any of our candidates. However, he does have baggage, both ideological and in act, and running as the most conservative, "I'm more Republican than the Republicans" candidate in a year where the Republican brand is the greatest possible albatross is a very bad idea. Barr needs to change his tactics.

Mike Gravel is the other big name, and I have to say that I was impressed with his fire and his clarity when speaking at the Indiana Libertarian convention recently. Unfortunately, Gravel does have some baggage, in the sad image of being a doddering old man. I'm sure that's why he came out to Indy with such spunk. I don't see Libertarians nominating him, though, as the Democratic Party is such a pariah within the LP because of Dems' positions on all things economic, and Gravel will be met with great suspicion accordingly. Gravel is my #2 choice, though.

Mary Ruwart is a favorite of many Libertarians, because of her ability to communicate ideas, but her baggage is so overwhelming that she would make Ron Paul's racist connections look very welcome by comparison. I think most people who read regularly know that I would support almost any Libertarian candidate come November. Not this one. The media will never give her a chance to talk about anything but her stupid, foolish comments about child pornography. She can't pull a Ron Paul on them and say she didn't know they were written. They're in her book, "Short Answers to Tough Questions".

Apart from that, I find that the remaining candidates are all very similar. Sure, they differ on this issue or that, but what they have in common is this: They aren't raising big money. They don't sweep you off your feet. They haven't gotten any noteworthy positive media attention, no matter how long they've been at it. They are run-of-the-mill candidates for the Libertarian nomination. If any of them win, we are guaranteed continued obscurity in a year when the nation needs liberty more than ever.