I think I just got push-polled by the Libertarians!! Really!

[Gloria]

The call started by saying it was from "A & S" research (not entirely sure, but I know it was "A" and something) and that the results would be used in the press, radio....etc.

Then they started with questions about Bush and Kerry, then started on the Libertarian candidate ....starts with a "B"....Bednarki??

They asked if I would vote for him if I knew he would have voted against the Iraq war and something else...

They ended with whether I would consider voting for him....

It was an automated poll, push the numbers,,, etc

I was totally surprised...to say the least....I'm here in New Mexico, by the way....

[ButterflyBlood]

1. Badnarik is the candidate, and I'm not suprised

NM is one of the states they're targeting. Some poll had Badnarik getting 5% there.

I hope he continues to surge, and gives any Republican with half a brain someone to vote for.

[bahrbearian]

2. I don't see any Democrates that voted antiwar, on the ticket.

[leftistagitator]

3. Yeah, but to support him would mean

1) Allowing the opposition vote against Bush* to be split.

and

2) Supporting the eradication of progressive taxation, regulation of business, enviromental protection programs, and the social saftey net.

He's not an attactive candidate for liberals, but disaffected Repugs might consider him a good choice.

[bahrbearian]

4. There is no way I'll vote for a candidate that condones War.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

5. So a candidate would have to be a pacifist to get your vote?

[leftistagitator]

6. Well, I'm glad you're so rightous

that you would allow a known war monger with a messiah complex to be re-selected. Especially since John Kerry is a known antiwar activist who'se spent his life making enemies by opposing military action in Vietnam, Grenada, and Iraq. I guess it's easier to meritlessly attack him as prowar since he gave Bush* the authority to invade than it would be to look at the circumstances of that vote and try to understand why Kerry voted the way he did. Bush* promised to invade Iraq if he wasn't given new authority to invade by the Senate which he claimed would be used to pressure Iraq into disarming via the UN. Bush* never needed Senate authority to invade Iraq due to the still active Gulf War resolution, he claimed the new authority might be used to find a political solution to the Iraq problem. Kerry chose the only option which might possibly have not led to war. He's a good and decent man who has always viewed war as the absolute last choice, and he has a 20 year Senate career to prove it.

But even still, if you're a pacifist and a liberal who will not vote Democratic, why would you pick the Libertarian candidate over a socialist or Green candidate, which are anti-war but not anti-poor?

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.