We have taken some flak from some of our libertarian friends because we think that splitting the pro-freedom vote (the anti-socialist vote), the third-party candidate in this case (Marc Victor) could well hand a closely contested election to Democrat Mark Kelly, a man who has voted with Joe Biden, perhaps the worst President in American history, 94% of the time.

Joe Biden is a President who has called half the country terrorists, is using force to cram sexually deviant beliefs into schools, a man who has ignored the law, a man who has unleashed a recession and devastating inflation, and opened our border to millions of illegal immigrants. He uses the Department of Justice as his personal political weapon against opponents. He has degraded our military, got us involved in a war without almost no public comment, and wants those that morally object to abortion to pay for state-sponsored abortions, on demand, with no restrictions whatsoever. This is a President that wants to force local schools to embrace the curriculum of Critical Race Theory and the 1619 Project. Under his direction, the CDC and other health agencies intend to force children to take an experimental vaccine that failed to stop the spread of a virus, a cohort that was never really threatened and are significantly more vulnerable to the side effects than they are to the threat from the virus itself. Oh, and if you are a parent who objects to this, you are a domestic terrorist and your children belong to the government.

Senator Mark Kelly has voted for this agenda 94% of the time. If he does not agree with this agenda, he sure is quiet.

One poll showed that Marc Victor could pull perhaps up to 15% of the vote. Others show it a lot less. In a close race, it may not matter whether it is 3% or 15%.

In the interest of fairness, we present below a special message from Marc Victor concerning his candidacy. He produced this to speak to the public and we have not altered it in any way. We have listened to it several times and we will now share some of our observations with you and you can be the judge by listening to the video yourself. We urge you to do so. We want him to have a fair hearing.

We did find his tone a bit condescending. It sounded somewhere between a sermon and a college bull session conducted at 3AM around a fraternity keg. He has some grand ideas, many of which we can agree with in broad principle. We are not in favor of the use of force except in defense of life and property and think people should be able to get along with each other. Wonderful.

This a great speech for a summer camp of libertarians reading Ayn Rand. He even notes that he is founding a world peace movement based on these principles. It is clear that Marc does not lack confidence!

However, for someone who is running for high federal office and will be dealing with bare-knuckle dealings with Democrats, it struck us as naive, vacuous, and lacking any detail or specificity.

The talk lacked any concrete proposals as to how he as a Senator can move the world toward his lofty goals. It has the intellectual ambiance we would expect from a Miss America contestant, back in the day when there were women who could be in contests.

How do we move specifically towards a non-violent world right now in the middle of a crime wave, a covert war with Russia, and a government that neither respects the law nor applies it equally to all, regardless of race? How do we stop inflation, how do we deal with rising China, and how do we get the Federal Government back to its historical and well-defined, constitutionally limited functions? What are his positions on Global Warming and the Paris Accords and US energy independence? Got any legislative ideas to specifically address problems that our nation is currently facing?

What would Putin and Xi think of his new organization for world peace, the one he is promoting as part of his candidacy? Do you think they would be impressed with him as US Senator or by his lofty goals?

Do you think the Democrats would be impressed by such an array of platitudes? He no doubt is a nice guy, but really, there was not a scintilla of detail in his ramblings. Listen to the broadcast closely and write down the specific details he outlines to achieve his goals. We did not use up much ink ourselves.

His two opponents he suggests are evil and we should not pick the lesser of them. We should choose him. Only he is above the tragedy of the human condition. We should pick him because of his grand, pious, and vague agenda. Other than these homilies about “live and let live”, we can’t figure out where he might be on critical issues that are tough to solve such as – how do we balance the budget, how do we keep the left wing from completely taking over our schools, what do we do about the border, and restoring the rule of law?

The oddity is, for 50 years libertarian think tanks have cranked out papers ranging from how to solve the Social Security crisis, how to reform the Fed, and how to repair the black family. There is a massive libertarian literature brimming with novel and freedom-enhancing ideas. But Marc Victor speaks of only lofty goals with no meat on the skeleton.

For this we are supposed to blow the chance to change the balance of power in the United States Senate and stop Biden before he can do more lasting damage? Really?

He says he might become a Republican, maybe even turn against the Libertarian Party, depending on what advances his vague aspirations for humanity. Does this sound like someone who is going to be effective at draining the swamp in Washington? Effective politicians work with others. Does it sound to you like he would be easy to work with?

In fact, this author has on occasion voted libertarian. I admit it.  I did so as a protest vote because the candidates were so far from my principles, I just got frustrated.

Blake Masters is not a lightweight candidate. He in fact is taking a lot of incoming fire because of his controversial, pro-freedom views. He has specifics and positions and structure to what he offers in his candidacy.

We wish Marc Victor the best of luck convincing the world to treat other humans better. We really do. We just don’t see how that vaguely translates into specific policies that can achieve concrete results either through the repeal of legislation or new laws. And, while his rugged independence is admirable, we just don’t see how this level of political romanticism can translate into actual coalition building to advance a political agenda.

Near the end, he offers to meet with Blake Masters, as long as it is live-streamed and transparent. This is a shrewd idea to promote himself and elevate his role as a potential spoiler. We don’t fault him for that. But it would leave Masters vulnerable to having statements taken out of context and used against him. Remember, Senator Kelly has a huge war chest of funds from a desperate party and would use any opportunity to bury Masters. Besides, as you view this, do you think Marc Victor could be convinced when, in reality, whatever  Masters states publicly must always be presented in a way that it is not exploited by the opposition, in this case, Senator Kelly and the national media?  Since Victor has no chance of winning, he has nothing to lose. Blake Masters does because Kelly will not be part of this live-streamed and transparent exchange of ideas and subject to the same critical inspection. That debate was held several weeks ago. Kelly can simply wait on the sidelines hoping for a statement he can use to club the Republican.

The party that needs to be convinced here is not Marc Victor. It is you the voter.  Are you impressed by this video performance? Do you think Marc Victor is worth the risk to squander your vote with what is at stake?

It was Tip O’Neil who once said politics ain’t bean bag, it is hardball. Well, politics may be all of that and actually always has been, but it is certainly not a dorm room philosophical session either.

Perhaps we were too rash to say you should never vote Libertarian. We already admitted our own guilt. So we will refine the statement: Don’t vote for this libertarian in this critical U.S Senate race in Arizona.