Kevin Zeese, who ran for US Senate from Maryland in 2006, has written a piece at Op Ed News asking this very question.
The headline calls Zeese a fusion candidate because he tried to run for Senate as the nominee of the Green, Libertarian and Populist parties, only to see the state legislature outlaw fusion, leaving him to run as a Green Party nominee only.
3 responses so far ↓
1 Robert Milnes // Jun 12, 2008 at 12:48 pm
Excellent article by Zeese. Well researched & documented. But in conclusion he advises non-voting action-write the candidates, since the voters are more progressive on the war than the (2 main) candidates. i.e. admitting the third party candidates will lose. Unless “If any of them gain steam…” or “…if they start to get some traction.” This almost certainly will not happen because the usual dynamics are in place. Wasted vote and lesser of 2 evils syndromes. At this late date (post LP and imminent GP nomination), the only alternative would be a progressive independent who managed to get full ballot access to get most of this progressive plurality vote. That is my campaign.
2 Robert Milnes // Jun 12, 2008 at 1:03 pm
Further: A true progressive movement is about 2/3 leftist but also 1/3 rightist (libertarian). After all, Teddy Roosevelt was a republican who split off from them i.e. libertarian equivalent. This is why Nader cannot “get traction”. His vp is also leftist and they do not appeal to the libertarians. Neither will the Green (McKinney). On the other side, Barr is trying to appeal in the opposite direction-towards the rightist conservative republicans and Paulites and those alienated from McCain. What is needed is a “hybrid” ticket capable of appeal to both sides.
3 Peter Orvetti // Jun 12, 2008 at 2:23 pm
Please don’t call Libertarians “rightists” or “conservatives”! It upsets my stomach.
Leave a Comment