El Neil Endorses

The whole piece -- as is the case with anything by L. Neil Smith -- is well worth taking your time to read. So please go do so. I'll wait to discuss it until you're done. And while I do, I guess I'll put on some music to keep me company.




OK, so you're back, right? What did you think?

I'm surprised. Not dismayed, just surprised.

I kind of figured that if Neil endorsed, he'd endorse Darryl W. Perry rather than John McAfee.

Why?

Well, Darryl is far and away the most "purist"/"radical" candidate in the race, and L. Neil Smith both is, and tends to prefer, the genuine libertarian article.

Also, Darryl's campaign finance plan is, in part, a page torn from the 2004 campaign to "draft" Smith for the Libertarian Party's presidential nomination.

I was the self-designated HMFIC (you can look that up if you want) of said "draft" campaign. I was also the self-designated treasurer, specifically so that I could be the one to risk legal sanctions by sending the Federal Elections Commission a note along the lines of "this is the first and only report you're going to get, no matter how much money we raise and spend; if you don't like it, go piss up a rope." IIRC, we raised somewhere in the $3k range, all of which came in the form of in-kind contributions -- people ordering copies of Neil's Lever Action essay collection for placement in public libraries.

Darryl's campaign is accepting donations only in the form of cryptocurrencies and precious metals, and he's sent a similar letter to the FEC.

So they seemed like a good match to me, but heck, what do I know? McAfee is my own third pick, behind NOTA and Darryl, and I do agree with Neil that he'd make a damn good candidate.