I am a strong supporter of 'if you disapprove of it, don't participate in it'.

However, I like to think that I am a man of practicality and understanding that, sometimes, you have to blend in, even if it violates your principles in part or whole.
I am not 'opposed' to the idea of anarchists who truly have the agenda of converting statists and trying to do good through such means, attaining office. If they are true to their principles and trust themselves enough to be able to resist the corruptive nature of politics and government, then go for it.
BUT, but, but, but, they need to be prepared to be seen and treated as a traitor and 'fair weather' anarchist. Spies are often viewed and treated as enemies by their allies because, in order to be effective, they must appear as such.

So, while I DON'T think we should back anyone claiming to be an 'anarchist' running for office, at least not with a vote, I do think that those that can should use their charisma and low profile as an anarchist to get into office and preach the value of self-rule and the like.

It's a risk, however. I am still shocked to this day that Ron is not dead and I await the word that he is everytime I see a new article about him.

YOu make an excellent point. I just think it be prudent that we be realists about this. Any 'anarchist politician' is going to be opposed from all sides and must be prepared to weather a lot of shit from all sides to accomplish this goal.

I would suggest only one thing: don't say you are an anarchist or attempt to encourage anarchists to vote for you. Statists are happy to vote. But to ask the rest of us to violate our principles for your agenda... I think that's a bit much and it doesn't seem to work well.