Yet another piece about what might have been had Bill Bolling run an independent campaign for governor. You know, sort of like Russ Potts did in 2005.
But this is a particularly annoying article. It lingers on the possibility of write-in campaign. Larry Sabato is quoted, saying such efforts must have both professional organization and genuine commitment behind them to come close to success: “Bolling would have to be visible. Front porch campaigns went out with the 19th century.”
They went out with Warren Harding, but let’s not split hairs. If Bolling wants to play Hamlet, then let him. But if he truly wants to run a write-in campaign for governor, then he’d best get busy.
But the real irk doesn’t set in until near the end of the piece, where Mr. Bolling says:
“What I do regret is that people don’t have another choice, I do regret that,” he said. “Whether I would have won or not, I could have given people another choice.”
It’s a toxic combination of vanity and ignorance. Mr. Bolling chose not to offer voters that third option. But one exists in Robert Sarvis, the Libertarian candidate for governor.
Unlike Bolling, Sarvis invested the time and effort to get on the November ballot. He is doing everything a candidate needs to do to win votes — making the rounds, shaking hands…all while being excluded from the major party debates (for more on that travesty, check out Bart Hinkle).
If voters truly pine for another ballot option, Sarvis has done the work to give them one.
