Hello Shane. I have read that a Libertarian National Congressional Committee was being formed to target winnable state legislature seats and raise campaign funds for Libertarian candidates in those races. What is the latest on the formation process? When will this project be open for contributions?

POST VOTE LIBERTARIANS ON THE CARS.lp.org
I AM GOING TO KEEP REPEATING THIS SO PEOPLE CAN HAVE THIS PLANTED IN THEIR HEAD AND LOOK AT THE SITE. EVERYONE WHO FEELS GOOD WITH LIBERTARIANS PUT IT IN YOUR WINDOWS OF THE CARS. LET GET THE TREND GOING.

I hope the delegates to the 2008 LNC, Inc. Convention have the guts to REQUIRE that the Presidential candidates in 2008 sign a paper that forces each candidate to make getting new donors to the LNC, Inc. the main priority of their campaign. And that they promise to forward all names and addresses of inquires to LPHQ within 48 hours of receving them.

If we have no acceptable presidential candidates who are willing to sign such a contract, then the delegates should vote for NOTA for the Presidential nominee in 2008.

Some LP members will object that raising money should not be a main priority of the LNC, Inc, and that the Presidential campaign is necessary to "get the message out".

We have been visible to voters for the past 34 years. We have never even come close to electing a Libertarian to Congress, much less President. This is due to the Libertarian Party leadership being unable or unwilling to focus on the Mission Statement. That is due mostly to pressure from LP members who do not want to succeed in the field of politics. Or maybe they want to succeed, but only by playing by THEIR rules. Unfortunately for them, Mother Nature has made the rules of politics, and either you play under those rules, or you don't play at all.

Building a political party takes lots and lots
of money, as Stephen Gordon ably describes above.
Even though I am a Life Member, I managed to contribute money to the National LP this year - I hope everyone reading this does also.

Scott Lieberman
LNC Alternate, Region 2

The LP asking for money--not exactly an exciting topic for a blog. But some points should be made.

LP actions should be a synthesis of two opposing strategies:

--empirical, market-driven approach
--analytical, premise-driven approach

Libertarian premises and analyses should be, as far as practical, stated in general terms. Candidates should have more leeway to be more specific and current topical. Within this framwork, the LP should give top priority to listening to it's customers.

But that hasn't been the LP approach. Extraneous premises have been added to the basic non-aggression principle. Today, the LP gives the impression that to be a good libertarian, one must
agree with non-foreign-interventionism. Simply repeating that non-interventionism is equivalent to non-aggression doesn't prove the point. By conflating the two, the LP has, in effect, written off at least half it's potential supporters.

The Iraq Exit Strategy was an attempt to relate non-interventionism to the real world. To say that this has been a failure, is to understate the case. Not only have extreme liber-doves become alienated, but virtually everyone who isn't a moderate dove has been alienated.

I'm a libertarian hawk, but nobody at the LP asked me if I wanted US troops stationed in Turkey, Egypt, or territory of other corrupt dictatorships in the Middle East. US troops aren't toys to be deployed at a whim, as window-dressing. They have only two possible legitimate purposes: to prop up regimes, or to overthrow them. The regimes mentioned in the plan are despotic, undeserving of US support. Neither does the plan call for their overthrow. For that matter, neither do I, since liberating Syria, Iran, and Yemen should be much higher priorities than occupying Iraq or stationing troops in Turkey or Egypt.

So, basically, LP staff are clueless on foreign policy, both factually and analytically.

FREE ADVERTISEMENT: IT FREEEEE, MINIMAL EFFORT
TAKE A PIECE OF PAPER. TYPE IN BOLD LETTERS AND TAPE IT TO YOUR CAR WINDOW.

VOTE LIBERTARIAN FOR VP, CONGRESS WHATEVER TO YOUR CAR. LP.ORG

CAN WE ADOPT THE TORCH OR AS someone mentioned on another post here. The Statue of Liberty to be our LOGO.

I think the presidential candidate is essential to the party, but unless we land Jessie Ventura, we don't have a chance at this point.

that said, I need to point out that I donated several times to to the Badnarik campaign. Believe it or not, it does draw poeple to the LP.

It is my belief that Badnarik's strategy was a little misplaced. I thought he should have focused on a select few minor states (Montana, Wyoming, Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine) in order to try to "steal" 3-4 electoral votes. 3 electoral votes would have prevented Bush from the requisite 270 and have thrown the election to congress. Heck, even 1 electoral vote (which is possible in Maine) would have done the same thing since Bush only received 270 electoral votes. granted, the Republicans controlled congress so we would still have Bush, but the exposure for the LP would have been astronomical. and the focus of effort would not have been that costly.

but I'm simply spouting off, here. I just want to note that it is good to run a presidential candidate and we should support them financially. But in the future I will push the vast majority (small as it is) to "electable" candidates. We desparately need to get a representative into the House.

I kinda would to like to try what President Washington so wisely counselled, something about no entangling alliances, etc. My personal view is that all U.S. forces, equipment, assets, etc., should be returned to the U.S. immediately. That means closing down all foreign bases and returning them to the sovereignty of their host countries, including returning Guatanamo Bay to the sovereignty and control of Cuba. Returning all naval assets to U.S. home waters. And then, once that is done, reducing active duty military strength to zero. Yes zero. Standing army's are one of the biggest banes of liberty and in any event, I am not expecting any land invasion of the U.S. Any attack that may happen on U.S. soil is not the type that could be repelled by foot soldiers anyhow.
Lets go to a non-interventionist foreign policy, limiting our intercourse with foreign countries to matters of trade and tariffs only. No alliances, no U.N., world bank, criminal court, ad nauseum.
Not to mention the massive savings and the removal of the associated tax burden on the economy.
I am quite aware that there is a wide variety of viewpoints on this issue in the L.P. Hawks all the way to Doves. In in the attempt to please everybody, well, you all saw the result.

The Socialists were able to get themselves a Congressman, Bernie Sanders, from Vermont. I think New Hampshire would probably be one of the best locations to try for a Libertarian Congressman.

Actually, Bush received 286 electoral votes, so it would have taken a lot more to move the election to the US House.

Besides, the GOP dominated the House elections.

Two points on the Badnarik campaign...

1. I was majorly turned off in the last few weeks when the whole focus turned to spoiling the election and electing Kerry. If I wanted Kerry to win, I'd have voted for him...

2. Instead of dumping a fortune into a very tight state like New Mexico... put that money into a blow-out that neither major party was focusing on. Take it up to Alaska or to Utah or something... and get on the map at least. In 2004, Badnarik failed to break the 1% mark in any state. That's only happened with Andre Marrou in 1992 and John Hospers in 1972. No one could fault Hospers, and hell... he won an electoral vote. But to be noticed at all, the party needs to start polling a little better than a fraction of one percent. Ed Clark passed the 1% mark in 23 states, and Ron Paul did it in 11.

From all I've read, I find it hard for a Libertarian candidate to *not* take New Hampshire's electoral votes.

Badnarik wasn't even on the ballot... we're still light years from winning electoral votes!

As a member of the Free State Project I have visted New Hampshire a couple of times and will be moving there later this year. It is a very libertarian leaning State which leads me to the question how the hell did Badnarik fail to get on the ballot in a State that has elected many Libertarians to their State House?

Shane,
I support a Libertarian National Congressional Committee 100% and it is one of the best ideas i ever heard when will the website be available for to make donations and subscribe to mailinglists. Will Ron Paul or Bob Barr be the Chairmen of The Libertarian National Congressional Comittee?. If anyone of them agree to do it that will open up doors for the LP to new members and more elected officials. A Bob Barr or Ron Paul endorsement of The LP and leadership of the commitee will attract more people than let's say me or Shane Cory. That is the best thing going for the LP is Bob Barr and Ron Paul because they know politics of Washington,DC inside and out.

George and Josh, the LNCC to my knowledge is still in formation. I'll have Daniel Cloud find out a bit more and post an article on the site and in LP News.

Scott Lieberman wrote: "I hope the delegates to the 2008 LNC, Inc. Convention have the guts to REQUIRE that the Presidential candidates in 2008 sign a paper that forces each candidate to make getting new donors to the LNC, Inc. the main priority of their campaign."

Aren't you forgetting your pledge, Scott? Under Article 7, Section 1 of the Bylaws, "Members of the Party shall be those persons who have certified in writing that they oppose the initiation of force to achieve political or social goals."

Forcing LP presidential candidates to do any particular thing violates that pledge. Changing your goal to "inducing" or "encouraging" would be acceptable. A contract signed under duress is not a valid contract.

Of course some of us didnt agree to that pledge in the same way you did, Walt. Force means violence to me, and that's what I pledged to. Thats what you get when you have double meanings to something - some people might not "get it".

I do not share any sort of anarchist goal beyond reducing government to it's Constitutional foundations. Beyond that, we dont have anything in common, nor do I need to adopt such views. I didnt pledge to adopt your principles, I pledged to the one I already agreed with, that using violent means to overthrow government is wrong.

Some of us believe that making members of the LP be forced to sign anything at all is utterly and completely stupid. How one can justify forcing a pledge for people that says they wont use force is beyond me. It's never been able to be explained to me in a coherent manner.

You dont speak for me. I never agreed to the "principle" in question, nor will I ever agree to it with the meaning you give it, mostly becuase the guy that wrote it ( David Nolan ) doesnt agree with your interpretation and does agree with mine.
At least that's what he said - and I believe him.

Having said that, I dont think Scott's deal should be the primary focus of LP campaigns - the only objective a political campaign has is to vin enough votes to win office. Anything else is secondary. Money is important, but it's not the solution. If the public wont vote for you, it's probably becuase they dont want what you are selling. You can either wallow in self imposed isolation or you can modify your positions consistant with your beliefs to try for better.

I wonder if anyone could convince Clint Eastwood to run for president as a Libertarian? Everyone loves Clint Eastwood, and he's a Libertarian! It's perfect!

OK SAN DIEGO CALIFORNIA is up for VOTES on a NEW MAYOR do we have someone from the LIBERTARIAN party?
Also, after what happened in New England with Eminent Domain, how possible is it to get people votes on Libertarians.
2008 is just around the Corner.

And as for not using Force, does this also dissalow Jedi to join our party? The Force is strong with them.

Where is the post that will address Seehusen's sudden resignation? That is more immediately significant-remember the push to 5,000!

More money always helps in politics, but barring a 5000% increase in membership, the LP will have to continue to campaign wisely to maximize votes.

If having campaign HQ in Austin helped cut costs down, but was inconvenient for travel, the next presidential candidate should set up shop in Dallas, or St. Louis, somewhere that has a direct flight to anywhere in the US.

Badnarik's focus on swing states was a gamble, and unfortunately it didn't work. The next candidate should focus on smaller states that aren't close, states the Democrats and Republicans ignore.

Wyoming and Montana might welcome a Libertarian candidate. Alaska and Hawaii might be interested in hearing from someone who supports their right to self-determination (as we do for all people.)

As for marketing, does anyone have a great window sticker design? These are more popular than bumper stickers now -- you know, the kind parents put up that show what activities their kids are in....

If Badnarik wins again, how about this one:

"Don't blame me, I voted for Badnarik!"

For Freedom, here is some info on the Libertarian for Mayor of San Diego. In some of the press I've read he has a good chance of winning.

San Diego County, CA July 26, 2005 Election

Richard Rider
Candidate for
Mayor; City of San Diego



The information on this page and on all pages linked below is provided by the candidate.
The League of Women Voters does not support or oppose any candidate or political party.
Biographical Highlights

Occupation: Small Businessman
Taxpayer Activist
B.A. Economics, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, 1968
U.S. Naval Reserve, Commander, Supply Corps.
Retired stockbroker and financial planner
Lifetime member of International Association of Financial Planners
National Taxpayers Union

Top Priorities if Elected

NO NEW TAXES!
Force labor union concessions by letting private companies provide city services
Run the city as a business, not as a sugar daddy serving special interests

Key Endorsements

Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
Joe Cobb; Professor, Former Chief Economist for the United States Senate
Howard Kaloogian; retired State Assemblyman, Defend Reagan Committee Chair

Position Papers

Richard Rider's Plan for Saving San Diego
Richard Rider's Plan for Saving San Diego

How about a more mainstream campaign message in 2008, one that deals with the concerns of mainstream voters, while moving gradually in a libertarian direction? Something like this:

1. Cut government spending by 5% a year for 4 years. (Too gradual? Compare the results to 4 years of 8% increases, as Bush has given us.)

2. Balance the budget. (Without raising taxes.)

3. Bring our troops home from Iraq (they will still be there in 2008, and the Democrats are going to call for 100,000 MORE troops.)

4. Protect the entire Bill of Rights -- Americans want financial, medical, and Internet privacy. They want their basic human right to self defense, to keep and bear arms, to be protected. They don't want Americans hauled off to concentration camps without a trial, simply on the government's say-so that someone is a "terrorist suspect." Democrats and Republicans have proven they can't be trusted to defend the ENTIRE Bill of Rights -- Libertarians can.

5. Set up "USAs" -- "unlimited savings accounts," like the popular IRA's and 401(k)s, but with no limit. Who would need Social Security then?

6. Let people opt out of Social Security, in exchange for giving up any "benefits" so far "earned." (i.e., a promise not to sue to reclaim stolen money, since no government court would take that case anyway.)

7. Promise to veto any spending increases, any tax increases, and any new taxes.

Americans want peace, smaller government, and individual liberties. How can the LP not succeed in giving it to them, when the Democrats and Republicans are both going in the wrong direction on all of these?

Tim wrote: "Force means violence to me."

I guess then if someone points a gun at you and uses its threat to steal your property, then they haven't actually used force under your view because they didn't do any real violence. They only threatened it.

Also, if someone threatens you with prison if you choose to take marijuana medically, then under your view so long as they don't physically beat you up when they arrest you, then they haven't used force against you, because there is no violence involved in sending someone to prison, right?

I agree with you on one point, Tim. You and I have very different views on the word "force."

Oh and one more plank:

8. Repeal the AMT (Alternative Minimum Tax) -- this is a stealth tax that is going to start hitting more and more middle class Americans.

I agree with most of your points Lex, but how do we decrease government spending, allow people to opt out of social security, and still pay what's owed from social security to retired persons at the same time? The government has done a brilliant job of setting up a crazy pyramid scheme and if anyone tries to mess with it it'll fall on their heads! I would love to do those three things, but a solid more detailed plan of how that is accomplished would be needed. I myself am no economist, so I have no idea how that would work.

As for Tax Reform, to reduce taxes, what about that Fair Tax that Boortz is pushing? It gets rid of the income tax, death tax, and payroll taxes and the Social security tax. It does replace it with a new sales tax, but the tax itself would be offset by new lower prices thanks to the corporations no longer being taxed to death. Has the LP considered Fair Tax as a plan or is anything with the word "tax" automatically out of the running? I've done some reading on it and it seems like it may be a huge tax cut that actually works, and is actually fair in a non-socialist way.

MINIMUM STEALTH TAX!!!!!!!! next it will be tax on toilet paper for every time you wipe.

I hope RICHARD RIDER wins, make sure everyone knows.

1. WE need Flat tax rate.
2. Eliminate Property tax for elderly, and cap on working citizens.
3. Goverment cannot give 12% raises and then claim we have a deficeit.

Ok regarding Window Sticker, YES YES YES I have been trying to say that. YES CLEAR WINDOW CAR STICKER with a LOGO of Liberty and VOTE LIBERTARIAN lp.org.

Dont put words in my mouth, Walt. I agree perfectly that the use of force is counterproductive and against libertarian goals. The problem I have with the non aggression principle is that it is like everything libertarians do - they take it to the absolute extreme in every instance, and proudly declare that those that dont think like them arent "true" libertarians.

I have a message for you: If you are to agree that there must be a government of some kind, then the absolute perfection of the non-aggression principle cant hold. Government, no matter how small, has to have the power to force people to do things. Otherwise, there is no purpose to having a government, since it would have no authority.

If government had no ability to enforce the laws that it makes, there would be no protection of private property beyond what weapons you could afford to protect it. No rule of law. None of it.

I happen to like those things like the rule of law and the principle that no kings or warlords can come blow me away and take my stuff becuase they have a private army and I dont. I like the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, even if they have been debased. If more libertarians would fight to protect and defend those documents instead of thinking they are inferior to a visionary perfect anarchist world of mutual cooperation, we would all be better off.

Lets worry about getting back to Constitutional freedoms first, and persue what will get us there, then the anarchists can take it from there once we do succeed. Dont bitch at us reform types, we're the only hope any of you who dig anarchism will ever have to reverse the present trend. When we get what we want, you'll be 80% farther along to want you say you want too.

Paul wrote: "...how do we decrease government spending, allow people to opt out of social security, and still pay what's owed from social security to retired persons at the same time?"

This is a valid question. I think it begins by feigning ignorance of the actual consequences of social security and taking the politicians at their word, at least at first. The politicians claim that social security is solvent. OK, if that's true, then there is no reason not to let people opt out of it. After all, solvency implies the idea that it has sufficient revenues and assets on hand to meet its obligations. Removing workers from the system won't affect current retirees, because their money is already there.

Of course, at this point the politicians will cry that you can't remove workers from the system, because then Social Security will no longer be solvent. We counter, "Well, if that's the case, then you're basing your definition of solvency not on funds and assets on hand but rather on the assumption that you're going to fund it from the contributions made by future retirees. In other words, you're claiming that borrowing from Peter to pay Paul constitutes solvency. In the real world, it constitutes bankruptcy. Therefore, Social Security is bankrupt RIGHT NOW, not in 10-20 years, and it should be treated as such."

This isn't an easy message to send, but it's the necessary one. Until Americans realize that Social Security is insolvent RIGHT NOW and not 20 years from now, there can be no possibility of selling them on the idea that it needs drastic change.

Let's assume for the sake of discussion that American understanding of Social Security changes and they agree that it is insolvent right now. The next step is to allow people to opt out and to find a way to provide for those who currently depend upon it for their economic survival. After all, in many cases, it's too late for them to go back to work. No matter how we slice it, there's going to be pain. However, I think there are a few things that can be done.

First, we declare Social Security to be bankrupt, and we start the process of moving volunteers out of the system.

Second, we implement Harry Browne proposal of selling off government property and assets to fund the balance.

Third, if the HB plan proves to be insufficient, I propose that we should also approach corporate America and ask (not require) that they donate to a "save the seniors" fund. Famous wealthy people could also be induced to give to the fund, as could wealthy people unknown to the public. This should be more than enough to fill in the gaps left by HB's plan.

This approach also makes it possible to start taking a serious look at budget cutting.

While I have paid most of my working life into social security, I am going to get it back, why should I keep paying if I am not going to get social security when I retire. Isn't that stealing, oh I see, the big shots can do that, but little peons like us get abuse and thrown in the cell if we do it. All that happens to them is if they are lucky is just a bad name. All the clicks protect each other.

That sounds like a good approach. One I've though of that takes a longer time, is to keep Social security as it is temporarily, and during this time you really cut government waste and spending, and taxes, which will increase revenue and create a surplus. You take this surplus and invest it right back into the US economy(by investment I mean actual investment in stocks, mutual funds, and what nots, not government handouts). The returns on such an investment could be enough to pay off the rest of social security while getting people out of it. Basically the same way an individual makes a retirement portfolio, but on a much larger scale.

I noticed someone mentioned a flat tax up there. I hate to repeat myself but I'd really encourage taking a look at the Fair Tax.

My approach to Social Security and Medicare.

Terminate both programs immediately, that is, stop the collection of all payroll taxes and stop the payment of all benefits.

At this point you will have remaining FICA and Medicare trust funds, plus the respective IOU's in both funds. Forgive the IOU's, which would immediately erase a large portion of the National Debt, great benefit in and of itself. Take the remaining funds in both accounts and arrange for a one time payment, on a sliding scale. That is, low income seniors either at or just post retirement, i.e. from around 65 to 70 years of age would receive the largest payout. The payout would reduce as age and income increase. The payout would also be made in the opposite direction, that is for those in the work force approaching retirement. Again, payout would decrease as age decreases and income increases.

The exact details would depend on the amount of funds in the trust fund at program termination.

Obviously VERY painful, but any solution to this mess is going to be very painful. You can thank FDR and Johnson for inflicting these moronic programs on us in the first place. I hope that the redistributive aspects of my solution will be forgiven, on the premise that Social Security has been redistributive in practice and it seems the most just way of solving the mess. A small enough price to rid the country of these socialist programs.

AMEN Brother Timothy!

The hypocracy of anarchists demanding a voice in a political process while denouncing political means is one of the great absurdities of the LP.

I respect people who don't want to dirty their hands with politics on principles, but don't hijack a political party and try to use it as a vessel for your philosophy. The results are, well....evident.

With respect to ballot access, the 2008 effort would be well advised to totally ignore the LPNH, which also appears to have supported a Republican governor by not running their own candidate, and do ballot access totally independently of whatever the LPNH is doing.

They should be willing to interact positively with real LPNH candidates. (In NH, the nominating paper is signed by one voter, and helps put on the ballot all the candidates listed on the ballot, so you can support several people at the same time.)

Tim: okay, I won't put words in your mouth. But if you're going to claim that force is violence, then I think you should have to defend that statement. Perhaps you had better define what you mean by "violence," because at this point I really have no idea what you mean by either that word or by the word "force." It seems that there is no way to pin you down on either word, because your definition keeps changing to suit your mood of the moment.

I notice on a post, that I tend to agree with and it makes logic sense. That the democins and Republicrate learn to supress our freedom with learning from the Libertarians and they are ahead of the game which in turns we the people cause us to fight to overturn or change things that should not been an issue in the first place.

Also I would like to stress that some good ideas should be announce by the Libertarian parties and not the democins or Republicrates to make it look like it came from them to win over votes.

As far as fair tax, the flat tax rate I was refering to would be a certain percent that never changes, if you make more money the tax would relate to that. And I think with that idea and changing the property tax, if we can get rid of property tax for the elderly and cap a low amount on working people so they don't get raise that they have to be forced out of their homes. I think that eliminating write off in exchanged for very low capped property tax for working citizens and none on Disability people or senior citizens. This should apply to your primary resident.
I think that the write off is a crap because of what people do and how easy for a mistake to happen and then the irs can come after them because there are to many laws that is up to the ying yang, the cost of papers to do all this and court cost and etc could be eliminated and the games that go along with it.

I LOVE HOW THE YAHOO NEWS doesn't mention our Libertarian running for Mayor in San Diego, California.

Not my mood of the moment - the context in which the word is USED. Forcing your son to eat his peas on his plate or he gets no dessert is not the same level of force as the government used at Waco. Both are forceful actions, but one is 10,000X worse than the other.

If you truly beleive in a the anarchist ideal of all human interaction being through cooperation, then there is no child under the age of reason ( around age 7 ) that should be restrained for any reason. If they start to climb out a open 50 story window, let them - you would be applying force to stop them after all.

Words not only have meaning, they have context. "Force" as a description could be applied equally to each scenario, but the "force" used at Waco is much different in nature. Applying the same meaning to the first instance does not mean the same as applying it to the second. Thus, we have CONTEXT - where and how a word is used can subtract or amplify it's meaning.

Violence to me means that I wont pick up a gun or a bomb and try to overthrow the government, or use weapons or other instruments of destruction in a attempt to force my will upon anyone. I wont kill or hurt anyone. Thats what that word means. Thats what David Nolan SAID IT MEANT. If anyone should know what was intended, he would know. When he says that the pledge was intended to keep Nixon from lumping the LP in with the "revolutionary" styled groups of the 70's.

How this became a universal pledge for the anarchist idealist non-aggression principle is truly one of the great frauds of the libertarian movement. Since it didnt start out that way, it had to added on somewhere. Who were those masked men?

"Forcing your son to eat his peas on his plate or he gets no dessert is not the same level of force as the government used at Waco. Both are forceful actions, but one is 10,000X worse than the other."

So where do you draw the line? At what point is force unacceptable to you? That's what I meant when I said your definition seems to shift, and anyone who doesn't adhere to your shifting line gets accused of being an anarchist.

Also, I really don't give a damn what David Nolan said or didn't say. I signed a pledge that says what it says. I meant it when I signed it, without reservations and without any knowledge of what David Nolan said or thought about it.

I also disagree that it is a fraud, but there's no point in discussing that aspect of it further until you narrow down exactly where you draw the line on acceptable force vs unacceptable force.

Walt,

I'll pick this back up with you later. I have some research to do that cant wait. Stay tuned.

It seems to me that the problem with our party is that we're not behaving like one politically. No amount of money is going to help us get larger vote tallies if we don't do the following:
1) Find moderates to run for office. Most of the political movement in this country takes place between the 40 yard lines of the political spectrum. We need to stop throwing hail marys to the end zone and be content with a moderate in office who could at least put the ball on our side of the field. Other parties have figured it out, and we should to.
2) Get more talking heads. Other third parties have political types on cable news programing all the time, especially the green party. As laughable as some of these programs can be, people do listen to them, and it would make us seem less ignored by the general population than we actually are (people love a bandwagon, lets make them think we have one). We need to take seats on crossfire before we can take seats in congress.
3) Get out and defuse this image our more radical elements have pushed us into. Most people see us as gun toting, drug using, anarchist crazies (which we may secretly be). This image has been fostered by the media, and until we get some people in suits who have shaved in the last three days to stand up and say "I'm a Libertarian", it's going to stick around. Americans will be put off by us until we show them that we're not going to blow up office buildings and release some crazy virus into their water supplies.
4) Advertise our presence. Adds in newspapers, etc. are actually pretty cheap. 90% of americans don't know that we exist, or they do and have no idea what we actually think. How many of them would agree with what we have to say if they'd actually heard it? Maybe we should just tell them, and try to do it without coming off as militant or radical. It sounds simple, but we haven't been doing it.
We could pour a billion dollars into this party, and in my opinion it wouldn't do anything for us unless we start behaving more like a political party and less like a radical social movement.

GOOD POST CHANCE KRAMER, PEOPLE ARE YOU LISTENING.
The yahoo polls are saying that John Roberts is favorable and Gonzales says he is not bound by what he says. He can change things if he feels different. Does the news say what we think we should believe in order to manipulate us, because half the time they don't tell the truth anyways. I also notice that YAHOO DOES NOT TALK MUCH about Libertarian and this is a popular advertisement.

Why do we not have links on this site to
Bill Handel from KFI, Freestarmedia.com
Rush Limbaugh. TV adds that show the Libertarian Parties when signing on, on AOL. EARTHLINK, NETZERO, JUNO, ROADRUNNER, HOW about an advertising on MTV where a lot of young people needs to get interested, I am sure they are tired of their brothers or young to be husband in wars and realize that their freedoms are being taken.
How about certain ethic groups such as african american who had their freedom taken, in the same direction I see us all peons heading. We could use their votes.

Chance,

I like the fact that you were writing about the importance of learning to win elections. However, I must disagree with your analysis. The research I've been doing from actual, winning campaigns shows that winning has very little to do with being "moderate" or advertising in newspapers. In fact, of the four books I've read so far by Republicans and Democrats who have won local and state legislative offices as "upstarts"...and who have all been reelected at least twice more...the candidates' stands on the issue have relatively little to do with winning elections.

Instead, it has much more to do with identifying specific voters in the electoral region to target, energize, and then get them to the polls. This is what we need to learn to do as a party, and so far only a tiny few have done so. These few are the small minority of Libertarians who have won competitive local races.

We must learn to win at the local and state levels. That's what it's going to take before we can win at the national level. Coincidentally, if we can learn to do that, the money will start to appear.

Tim:

Understood. I'll wait until you have more time.

I hope by the time we get to the national levels its not way to late for us.

Libertarian Tv,

I don't know if you remember discussing my friend running for office a couple of months ago. If you do I would like you to know that I talked to her last Thursday and she is looking into running for school board. She was very happy about the books that you recomended for her to read. Thanks for your help.

Libertarian TV, it was very refreshing to read your post regarding what it takes to get elected. If only the LP and it's affiliates would elect leaders with the experience and knowledge to know the truth in what you're describing, there would be many fewer battles between LP "pragmatists" and "purists," and many more Libertarians elected to partisan offices.

It all comes down to working the precincts, and getting the relevant voters to the polls, period.

Guns and Dope,
John

I think in politics, the more you spend, the less efficient it( cost per vote) will naturally be.

The reality is, the current LP message will not result in victory, no matter how much it is advertised or how much money is spent pushing it.

If the LP candidate could spend $1 BILLION, he would still probably finish 3rd or 4th.

In fact the last election, it seemed to me the More coverage Badnarik received, the more likely it was to be negative. it was more opportunity to be hanged with the platform. He could be on national TV for a few minutes of an interview and the whole time the TV graphics showed the least sypathetic and most controversial bullet points pulled directly from the Platform; and all people wanted to ask about were the most controversial and kooky-sounding (as perceived by nonlibs, as an election is won by getting votes from NONLIBS) planks and issues.

I agree more money can be useful. though there is most certainly a point of diminishing returns. frankly I think with the current platform, issues,etc that the typical LP candidate pushes, anymore than a few million bucks is probably not needed. Unless someone thinks its a great deal to spend millions to get 0.5 instead of 0.4% of the vote.

If on the otherhand, someone is serious about getting elected and engaging mainstream voters,etc......

John,

You'll never sell America on defaulting on legitimate debt incurred, or on legalizing meth, totally open borders, or on several other platform planks in desperate need of revision. There's not enough voters in any district in America I'm aware of that would agree with the LP on some of these things, regardless of any GOTV campaign, to make a majority vote total.

If voters dont want what you sell, you can try a lot of things. Almost anything that can be done has been done to try to sell LP positions on these issues, and the majority of them simply are not electable positions to have. The last thing you can do is actually redefine yourself and what you stand for. Thats where leadership makes a difference. Leaders dont follow the crowd, and they dont repeat failure over and over and expect a different result. They lead, even if it's unpopular. They may fail, but they know they did the best they could instead of cowering in the corner, afraid to move.

There's at least 19% out there that will vote for a tinhorn little annoying guy with big ears from Texas whose a certified loon - who made the public debt front and center and correctly identified it as a biggest threat to the country then, and it's much larger threat than terrorism. The LP needs to assume that mantle. It's a large block of voters just there for the taking, with very little effort on our part.

Gotta get back to work.

Tim:

What you say may be true, but until the LP starts acting like a serious political party by stressing, above all else, getting the vote out on a precinct level, I'm going to continue to support the views expressed in Libertarian TV's post. My twenty-five years of playing in politics, most of it with a successful Power Party, tells me that LTV's GOTV statements are the way to go.

BTW, Tim, your post mentions "sales" and "selling" a lot. I here those terms used often by LP strategists. However, winning elections is not sales. Sales requires the salesperson to be there to close the deal. In our secret ballot electoral system, that is not possible. It has been shown to me that Libertarian TV's GOTV strategy is the way to go. That is how Power Party candidates I've worked for have been elected.

Also, I've never seen a block of voters "just there for the taking," for any candidate. It takes a lot of effort, to GOTV for a candidate, no matter who the candidate. That little tinhorn spent a lot of money and built a very substantial grassroots organization, multiple time larger than the LP grassroots activists (the ones that GOTV in their precincts), to get out 19% of the vote.

Guns and Dope,
John

Medical Marijuana?

I don't give a hoot about medical marijuana.

I can about the legalization of all drugs including marijauna, crack, cocaine, and all others.

Personally, I am against the use of those drugs. But politically and ethically I realize that everyone has the right to own any substance they desire and to consume it as long as they do not violate the rights of others.

To say the Libertarian Party supports medical marijuana is to say a PETA vegatarian supports reducing red meat from your diet.

If we are real Libertarians then we cannot claim support for medical marijuana.

And about the Michael Badnarik campaign... There were a few issues that hurt him very badly.

1) He started the campaign with NO money, barely a functioning website, and almost no staff (or very little). Near the end he was gaining more support and recognition. If he had a top notch website at the start I believe that he would have obtained another million votes.

2) The national media repeats Bush, Kerry, and even Nader again and again and again. Do you realize how much this is worth? Do you? It's worth billions of dollars! Bush, Kerry, and Nader could never have purchased that much advertising! For any LP candidate to potentially win his or her name must be repeated over, and over, and over again.

He or she must be such a SENSATION (whether the press love him, hate him, or both) that our candidate is mentioned over and over again.

Even if an LP candidate is seen by the average person three, four, or even ten times by a voter there is a 95% chance he or she will vote for a Republican or Democrat because they are ALWAYS talked about.

The average voter will hear the names of the Republican and Democrat thousands of times. Until a LP candidate can get that much recognition it will be tough to win a presidential race.

3) Our message is not the problem! If anything, our message of DRASTICALLY and QUICKLY reducing the size, scope, cost, and power of government is something that can DRAW US ATTENSION if we are NOT AFRAID to be BOLD about it. But again, we have to be noticed by the media.

Force?!

It is that little pledge that has kept me from becoming a member of the LP party, although I have supported a number of Libertarian candidates in my area.

The Declaration of Independence States "....That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men......" . The sole legitimite function of government is to preserve liberty. Without government liberty would not exist. But for government to restrain those persons or entities who would intrude on or violate the liberties of others, necessarily entails force. That level of force may be verbal, for example, telling a trespasser to move along. It may very well be lethal, blowing the brains out of some maniac on crack that is shooting up the neighborhood. Certainly the level of force should be kept to the absolute minimum to protect the liberty of others, but to debate "acceptable" levels of force is pointless.

I don't think liberty is possible in the absence of government, so I personally disassociate myself from anarchist elements in the Libertarian movement. Until the Libertarian Party removes that essentially anarchist pledge from its membership requirements, it may find its membership growth stunted. I will certainly promote and contribute to individual libertarian candidates and will promote libertarian issues, I will just do it outside of membership of the party.

Mark B,

I can understand your view on that.

I may need to refresh myself with that pledge, but my take on it is this:

Not initiating force doesn't mean to never use force, it means you apply it in self defense only. Otherwise, force is being used to violate one's inalienable rights. If it's not defense then it's criminal.

Perhaps there is a segment that believes in absolutely no force in any situation. They must be relying on luck to get them by.

somehow, I think we're gonna miss that membership goal.

I did my part. did you do yours?

I skimmed past most of the posts.

QUOTE: "I think the presidential candidate is essential to the party, but unless we land Jessie Ventura, we don't have a chance at this point."

I definitely think the LP should run presidential candidates. I agree with you there. If nothing else, it at least keeps the label "Libertarian" fresh in people's minds, which helps to encourage people to vote for local Libertarian candidates.

There is, however, an example I can think of in which I would hope the LP doesn't run a Presidential candidate.

I hope Ron Paul doesn't retire any time soon. He's a voice of reason in Congress. But, when he does retire, I hope he runs for the Presidency again. This time, however, as a Republican. And, I hope the LP endorses his candidacy.

QUOTE: "If we are real Libertarians then we cannot claim support for medical marijuana."

Yes we can. Supporting medical marijuana doesn't exclude supporting all drug decriminalisation.

I know yahoo does not show Richard Rider or Libertarians, but If we remain proactive and get more candidates elected at higher levels like governor or congress then the LP will be on yahoo news. We are the only ones who can decide if we want to be successful, but it will take all of us to make it happen through donations, memberships, outreach programs etc.

The polls just closed and Richard Rider is in 5th out of 11 with just 1% reporting so far. That is over 35000 votes for the leader and just over 1000 for Richard Rider or 2% of reporting precincts.

I think "pragmatist" and "purist" need to take equal blame for acting more like a debate club then a political party. Forget about the debate about being "moderate" or "radical" we did not support a candidate that had some momentum a month ago. The LP and us here on the blog and the bloghsphere gave Richard Rider no help. One article is next to nothing. This happens time and time again. We talk about grassroot efforts but what do you think that is. We had a chance to help build a grassroot effort in San Degio and did nothing but argue silly abstract points.

They are now counted 106 precints out of 721 precients. Richard Rider now has 1,704 votes still remaining in 5th place. not all precients have been counted yet and the election is not over yet.

New results just in 115 out of 721 precients have been counted and Richard Rider is now at 1736 votes .

He ran an excellent campaign, but he aimed too high. City council or a vulnerable state house seat would have been better. A highly competitive mayoral race with 3 extremely well funded major party candidates was an unwinnable situation.

Matt,
You are absolutly right Me and Others have been bickering like a debate club instead of trying to help Richard Rider and keep to being proactive during this mayorial election. We may not live in san diego ,But we could have gave Richard Rider's campaign some money even if it was 5 or 10 dollars from each person it would go a long way. I was saying that eariler in the civil liberties update section of the blog we need to be more proactive instead of doing nothing and complaining.

Richard Rider is going up against 3 Republicans and 1 Democrat. Which party has a better chance of winning the mayorial election. Richard Rider could make a huge comback it has happen before in elections.

All,

When I learned about Richard Rider running for Mayor of San diego I posted his press release far and wide along with other candidates that needed our time and money abd obviously those calls for action were unanswered. I tried posting some here but Shane Cory deleted my post.

I think Shane Cory should answer why he appears to be working against members efforts to elect Libertarian candidates.

Chris Bennet,
The Reason why that Shane Cory deleted the message is beacuse of rule 4 in the setting some policy for the blog section. The LP posted a rule against asking for money on the blog because of the federal government's election reform laws that prohibit solicitation in public forums. It is a unconstitutional law and that campaign reform law hurts US because it stomps the first amendement right to advirtise for money for candidates on the blog. The LP staff did not want to put that rule there but they did to comply with federal law

So let me get this straight. We can't raise funds for Libertarian candidates on the Libertarian Party Web site.What da f@#k!

Matt,
It is in not in Shane Cory's controll. It the Federal Government's election reform laws that is making things hard for us. Shane Cory is just a law-bidding citizen that wants the LP to comply with federal laws even though we think it the law is wrong. If we did not comply with that law the LP might be several fined or shut down and what party would stand up for freedom if the government yanked the cord on our party. I wan't the LP to remain legimite in order to remain successful. That's why Shane Cory is being that way to make sure we comply with the government's law, so we can continue our mission.

Matt,
The Person who is behind the Federal election reform law is Senator Russ Feingold (D). The ACLU's website has opposed the law because it stomps on our first amendment right to raise funds for candidates on website like this. I am opposed to the campaign reform law as you are. The governement is the most unpopular people on this blog because of their actions like the campaign reform act and patriot act and others. The Federal Government likes getting the best of people usually crooks like them doing that.

Yeah and don't forget to give Sen. Mccain (R) his just due. I just thought the law was limited to groups like moveon.org not actual political parties

no everyone including the LP are under the Mc Cain- Feingold Election Reform ACT. Democrats and Republicans unite to ruin US, so they can keep there spot in power. For Them it is all about money and power. Like The Bible says " The love of money is the root of all evil" meaning what the bible means being greedy can cause bad things to happen. The Democrats and Republicans have showed it.

QUOTE: "If we are real Libertarians then we cannot claim support for medical marijuana."

Back to this point again. When it comes to drugs, I have a purist Libertarian stance. I oppose the war on drugs 100%. But, that doesn't stop me from being pragmatic as well. For example, I oppose the war on drugs at every level of government. But often in debates, I focus on the fact that it's unconstitutional at the federal level. This doesn't undermine my argument against the state sphere of my argument, it just reinforces the federal sphere of my argument. Also, I have no objection to engaging in a debate with someone regarding medical marijuana. This is because medical marijuana is the easiest section of the drug war to convince people to oppose. Once I've convinced them to support medical marijuana, it's easier to convince them to support the full decriminalisation of marijuana, and then other drugs as well.

QUOTE: "The Reason why that Shane Cory deleted the message is beacuse of rule 4 in the setting some policy for the blog section. The LP posted a rule against asking for money on the blog because of the federal government's election reform laws that prohibit solicitation in public forums. It is a unconstitutional law and that campaign reform law hurts US because it stomps the first amendement right to advirtise for money for candidates on the blog. The LP staff did not want to put that rule there but they did to comply with federal law"

Stupid Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (a.k.a. the McCain/Feingold Bill)! Stupid F.E.C.!

First Amendment Restoration Act: http://action.downsizedc.org/wyc.php?cid=17

Online Freedom of Speech Act: http://action.downsizedc.org/wyc.php?cid=22

John Teschky wrote: "My twenty-five years of playing in politics, most of it with a successful Power Party, tells me that LTV's GOTV statements are the way to go."

Interesting! I've been pushing the idea of GOTV (Get Out The Vote) for awhile now, but I think the message is stronger coming from someone who has had success with that formula, even if that success has been with one of the Republicrat parties.

Given the tendency of some people to attack on this board no matter what, I'd understand if you didn't want to talk about your experiences in this forum, John. But I also know that some of us would be very interested in learning more about that experience, in particular as it relates to GOTV. Are you willing to share any campaign stories with us?

Building the LP would be a heck of a lot easier if most of our members would read and understand the LP campaign manual that is posted on lp.org.

IMO the LP makes a lot of naive mistakes at the county and even the state level that could be avoided by RTFM, if you know what I mean.

Here is a random excerpt from the LP manual.

Precinct Walking

Walking should be a major activity of the campaign,especially in evenings and on weekends. It is easy, can be fun, and it is the most productive way you can spend your time early in the campaign. The best way to reach a voter is
through personal contact. Repeatedly, candidates have
succeeded when they have walked door-to-door, talking with each voter and distributing literature.

Precinct walking is the single best campaign technique for overcoming the built-in advantages of the older parties. It is not costly, but it is time-consuming.

The importance of personal contact can't be overemphasized. Think about it: Most voters have been conditioned to think of third-parties and their candidates as extremists or lunatics.

Libertarians must counteract and overcome this
conditioning, and the best way to do that is to personally demonstrate to each voter that Libertarians are perfectly normal people who happen to believe strongly in their political viewpoint. That's why it's so important to
establish non-threatening neighborhood visibility wherever and whenever possible.

Your entire campaign must be aimed at the truly undecided voters. Most campaigns do not do this. Think about this:
Most campaign hoopla is aimed at voters who have already decided.

Now is the Time,Folks.

We need to start working on finding someone to run for President. We can't wait six months before the election. I think we need to start a "Draft Norman Schwarzkopf for President, former Gov. Gary Johnson for VP". We need to get a Staff together, start raising funds etc.

It hurts the LP Candidate to just be getting into the "Blocks" when the other Candidates are in the "Home Sretch"

QUOTE: “We need to start working on finding someone to run for President.”

I agree. Think of how many more votes Badnarik would have gotten if people had just six or twelve more months to hear his name, his positions, etc. We could have surpassed Nader, which in itself would have garnered some additional media exposure.

(I would also suggest, if you live in a solidly blue state or a solidly red state, to ask your friends, "What have you got to lose? Consider voting Libertarian.")

Scott Bludorn, a longtime political activist, former LP candidate (and county LP chair), and now a GOP'er, said something very interesting, with which I agree, in relation to building network of precinct workers: "Precinct workers are motivated by ideology." I think the LP can to well to remember that if it wishes to get down to business and do the first thing it needs to do: build a ground-up precinct activist network. This has nothing to do with a candidate, or the party, modifying a platform for mass consumption.

Tim:

Excellent point. For some reason, I had little (actually, no) success enticing LP candidates (when I was a county LP president and was often asked for advice) to read that material. IMO, the LP has put together some of the best primers on campaigning I've seen--and they're free.

Ironically, when a friend of mine decided to run for county board last year as a Dem (in his first attempt ever as a candidate, about a year into becoming a political activist), he asked for advice and I told him about the LP's primers. He devoured them, followed their advice, and lost (no surprise--it is one of the most Republican counties in the country), but (most importantly), he developed a strong, personal, network or people and resources, and showed that he can use campaign resources efficiently. He's now his township party's treasurer, and is poised to run an even stronger campaign next time.

Libertarian TV:

Here's a great example for LP candidates (who really don't have any party network of workers and donors to draw upon). The first campaign I became involved with (on top of being a GOP precinct captain) was a state rep race in 1982, I think--maybe 1984. The candidate was a private college professor (not a wealthy guy). Earlier, he ran with a non-incumbent slate and won a village trustee position (I think it was on his second attempt--I'm not sure). He maintained, and built upon, that network, to run against a long-time, and "good" Republican State Rep.

He ran a good, grassroots campaign, respectfully working alongside the GOP establishment in the township, but contininually developing a PERSONAL network of workers, donors, advisors, etc. He started just as the LP manual suggest: neighborhood coffee's, small meet-the-candidate meetings, etc., and his campaign steamrolled.

When it appeared that he was a force to be reckoned with, the incumbent and he met with the precinct captains at a township meeting. When the incumbent, standing there with his wife and children, actually began to cry a bit (in realization that his time as a State Rep was ending, I think), it made a real impression on me that ALL politics is personal. This incumbent was a "good" conservative in a "good" conservative district. The upstart candidate was pretty much a RINO. But, IMO, the savvy, grassroots, personal campaign the upstart ran trumped all of that.

Over the next ten or so years, this upstart continued to run for higher and higher office, successfully. At each level, he would evolve his personal network. That personal network is really, IMO, what got him elected. Along the way, he seemed to alienate the party regulars a bit with his views, and his agressiveness for higher office, and the sense that they were being left behind. But, the party was just one of many tools in his campaign tool kit.

At each level, he would develop a new set of core supporters--on his own, basically outside of the party structure. This was smart, IMO. Just as the staff that can bring your business to a $5mil level may not be the same staff that can bring your business to a $15mil level (and so on), the network that can get you elected village trustee may not be the same network that can get you elected to state-wide office. The skill sets are slightly different.

(What "did him in," in the end, IMO, was that he was never to able to successfully integrate his personal network with the party network, which seems to be essential when you're running for top, statewide or national, office)

Also, one thing I've noticed with LP candidates (a bit related to their lack of commitment to fundraising*) is, IMO, a basic lack of respect for the grassroots, and precinct, worker. What I mean is that one of the first things a candidate should spend money on is supplies for the precinct worker. In my five years involved with the LP, I have yet to encounter a candidate that made it easy for me to get his/her literature for precinct distribution (if s/he even had such literature). In the LP, either I've had to create it myself (and incur the costs, with less-than-stellar results, I might add), or jump through hoops to get it.

A candidate should always have worker supplies on hand, and make it easy for the worker to get those supplies. As a kid, I remember riding my bike over to the campaign office of a congressional candidate, and asking if I could help. Immediately, I was given a stapler, a stack of signs, and a bundle of lath (wooden sign posts). Even in college, I could stop into the campaign office of a candidate (I'm really embarassed to say the candidate was Sensenbrenner), say I had a few hours to help, and be given a task collating fliers or creating walking lists. As somebody else here said (above), newspaper ads are not what wins elections. I'd add: especially when activists who want to help do not have easy access to basic campaigning materials.

Anyway, that's my $0.02 FRN, for now. I've only encountered two LP candidates that understood what I've written, above. One of them bolted to the GOP after three, well-run campaigns (even though he remains a hardcore libertarian), because, IMO, the GOP understands everything written above while the LP, institutionally, not only does not understand it, but seems, institutionally, to sabotage itself regarding the above. The other, after one outstanding, but losing, campaign left the LP for essentially the same reasons. At this point in the LP, it's not about reaching out to other beltway groups, or revising the platform, or branding, or policy manuals, or management structures, or purist v. pragmatist, or get-elected (or get-ballot-access) -quick schemes. It's about developing and respecting the precinct-level workers.

Guns and Dope,
John

*In relation to fundraising, an experienced, bull-of-the-woods type GOP leader once told me, "The church always needs a new roof." A candidate and a political organization must ALWAYS fundraise. They must ALWAYS be shaking hands with the right hand, and asking for money with the left hand.

John,

In my race for House of Delegates in 2000 I mailed every single registered libertarian in the district I live in announcing my candidacy. This was about 60 people at the time.

I got back 3 responses by mail and 1 by phone. Some folks up in Martinsburg asked me if I wanted all my tri folds for free. I of course said sure. They never delivered. I had to go get them done myself. I sent out a specific fundraising letter - and got no money.

In my experience, the libertarians in my district didnt really give a damn whether they had a libertarian to vote for or not. I did it all myself, knocked on 700 doors, and gave out 5000 tri folds. I used the manual myself, but if nobody cares about supporting libertarians, none of this matters, and GOTV is meaningless.

There are plenty of districts that are not like mine that the good GOTV plan would help. No GOTV plan would have helped me. The libertarians in my area are totally apathetic about political matters. I even had one of them tell me that the LP did'nt do politics and he liked it that way - he said a REAL libertarian lived to educate others about liberty, not get elected. Same old crap.

Another guy in my areas tried to start a local chapter of the LP here in my county. He likewise mailed a letter of invite to every single registered libertarian in the county, about 80 people, to show up at a dinner in a local resturant to meet and discuss starting a local county LP. He got exactly 2 people.

Maybe I just live in a bad area, but the libertarians here havent shown any interest in political affairs at any level.

I forgot to mention that I also set up a tent at the County Fair and 3000 of my fliers got windshielded during 2 days of the event. Our Candidate for Governor campaigned with me, we got on the Hagerstown 6 o clock news and again at 11.

I would bet money that 80% of my votes came from Independents. I got 650+ (3%) in a county with 60 registered libs.

I got *ZERO* support from the local poeple in my own party - and no GOTV will solve that. I've been warned many times that at the core, libertarians really just dont give a damn about politics. I think there's some truth to it.

TO: TIM WEST sorry to hear about your experience. Yes it is very hard.
I want to express the Democin and Republicrate has already made their mark and they get away with a lot more then they should.

To the comment regarding Medical drugs and etc, we need to lay low on the drug issues. Right now this is not what people want to hear. We have bigger issues to deal with. The one that really hit to the core and I would say 98% of the people agree with, is the Eminent domain.

The other comment about keeping certain things has to be kept legal regarding fundings. Being the 3rd party that has not even made a strong mark. Yes if we get a bigger percent of the vote or even have a chance at it. The other party would be looking for anything negative to put a damper on this party so we are left out in the cold. Right now we have to look near perfect in most people eyes, because people remember negative more then positive and we have to work harder, especially now in these rough times.

The other comment about getting someone to run for LP President, good, yes! we need to work on that. But we also need to look at LP running for Congress and anything else, don't limit ourselves, we have to get in somewhere. I think we would have a better chance with more people running, more names out there and with good candidates.

It might not be a bad idea that Richard who is running for Mayor to be used as an example that the Libertarian party is alive and well and there is another choice and to get more news media on him. He has to realize that he is going to have to work very hard to prove himself to the people and be a good example so it makes it easier for the rest of the LP Party to get notice. This is a very hard step and people will remember.

Maybe we need to create a blog or website designed to support LP candidates across the country starting with 2006...something that is seperate from the LP and that us Libertarians can fund ourselves? The LP is a nationwide party and since we don't have millions to drop, if we can get the ball rolling today...we can get dozens of LP candidates elected next year!

I WANT TO ADD, YAHOO NEWS AND MSN NEWS ARE VERY POPULAR web sites and they cover a lot of ground and get out to numerious people. The Libertarian parties need to be mentioned in there.

I want to express, that on the other post. Some Libertarian Judges were named. Why are these not mentioned in the Media on Yahoo or MSN. To let people know.

I don't think we should be looking ahead to 2008 when we should be running or recruiting for the 2006 elections. We will not be a succesful party until we build grassroots. I gave money to Badnarik campaign a few times but the fact is the man did not have the resume to be running for president. Neither did Aaron or Nolan. We should focus on non- state wide elections. State or US reps, County and City wide seats. Anything larger is a complete waste of very limited resources. Libertarians fiscal poilcy could have came out of an economic text book yet we act like we don't understand terms like scarcity and maximizing utilty with a limited amount of resource. We also have to find a way to pool our resources here. We may need help from Shane about how far we can go and still stay with in federal law. Can we metion a web site if we don't offer a link? I read an article in the National Review that the LP is nothing but a great recruiting tool for the GOP. I think eveybody here can appreciate the frustration felt by people that see political parties as what they are vehicles that get their ideas into action. The problem is the Libertarian Party has contunied to show itself as a poor vehicle. Republican Party (Ron Paul, Gary Johnson) and the Reform Party (Jesse Venture) has shown to be better vehicles to get libertarian ideals into public office. This needs to be a wake up call. The problem is not the platform, the problem is a lack of volunteers at the grassroot level.

MATT while you make a valid point. on the 2006 election. WE still need to look ahead, actually both. Because we need to do everything we can every which way.
PEOPLE ARE YOU LISTENING, WE NEED STRONG VOLUNTEERS. Everyone is important, the more people and so on and so on. I know this can be tiresome. But we really need a strong fight this time. These are very serious critical times.

My Fellow Libertarians,
As you may know, there is a gubanetorial election in my home state of New Jersey. On the Democratic side, there is Senator Jon Corzine. On the Republican side, Doug Forrester. Both candidates are multi-millionaries. Both have the resources to spend any amount of money for the purposes of getting elected.

On the Libertarian side, there is Jeff Pawlowski, a former City Councilman. Mr. Pawlowski is an experienced veteran in New Jersey politics. At this time, he, as well as the New Jersey Libertarian Party, are doing what they can to get him into the debates. Mr Pawlowski requests and needs $300,000 dollars to be qualified there in order to be competive. He has to receieve the funds by September.

I have already made my contribution to his campaign. Mr. Pawlowski needs more, however. He needs 10,000 people to donate a mimimum of just $30.00. This is a fantastic opportunity for those whom believe in liberty to have their voices be heard in the Garden State, and elsewhere. He needs support, though. He needs libertarians to donate, educate and engage in activism. If you would like to donate to his campaign, or want to know more, you can do so by contacting the following:

Pawlowski For Governor
P.O. Box 117
South Amboy, N.J. 08879

Phone# 732.208.8155

Fax# 800.547.2147

e-mail: info@pawlowskiforgovernor.org

2005 can be an outstanding year for libertarians, liberty lovers and for the state of New Jersey. However, to get Mr. Pawlowski to qualify for the debates, and for all to hear his message, he needs support and activism.

Thank You For Your Time
Alex P.

In regards to electing Libs to office, we need to realize that certain states are never going to be receptive to our message. Too many states have high rolls of people at the government trough A-Z. Realistically, only 1% of voters are actually libertarian enough to vote our way and alot less will contribute. The FSP is really the only way for liberty to ever work. The entrenched pols are continually curtailing our rights and our money--so our lack of success over the last 34 years will not get better as the American police state is strengthened in the coming years. Then throw in the Supreme CT. which is essentially used to rubber-stamp each and every intrusion into our lives. One can place bets when figuring out which way the Court will rule on certain issues. They haven't ruled any portion of the patriot Act unconstitutional and they've continually watered down each one of the Bill Of Rights. And the way the media has clogged up the average American's thinking process with all of their chosen news, it's easy to see why the effort for Liberty needs to be consolidated in a state that is pro-Liberty already and a state that will have the cajones to turn down federal mandates. So, if you don't want your Nat'l ID card or further erosion of our rights--the only chance is to make our own Dec. of Ind. pledge and move to New Hampshire.

TO ALEX, you know to try raising that kind of money with such SHORT NOTICE is going to be very hard. This is what I mean, we need to things like this way ahead of the game in order to have a chance at succeeding.
I think there should be a SECTION on this WEB site for nomination or people running for election. The sole purpose for that, people can quickly see the list of running candidate without having to find through all our conversation blogs. The list could be the section called LIST OF LIBERTARIAN CANDIDATE or something.

The following appeared on a blog site in April of this year, and refers to the Libertarian Reform Caucas as well as the LP. I am sorry, but due to a bunch of "cutting and pasting", I apparently cut out the source. I did not copy it to use like this, but for personal reference. That said, it is apropos to this discussion:

"Reform school:
Having decided some time back to take my own political activities in a different direction, I'm somewhat hesitant to comment on reform efforts in the Libertarian Party. However, Brad Spangler asked for my opinion on his own thoughts. And my thoughts on the subject are too long to constrain to a mere comment response. So. Here we go.

The Libertarian Reform Caucus's prescriptions seem very internally focused on the party -- on its platforms, its bylaws, its membership oath ... on the organization.

Brad's critique seems, at first blush, to take the opposite tack. He thinks that what's needed is not a "softening" of approach, but rather a concentration on creating more people who like the party's ideology.

What's missing here?

To explain, I'm going to have to descend into marketing-speak. I hate to do that, because there's great potential for misunderstanding. A political party is not a sixpack of beer or a food processor or a knick-knack. It is not obvious that the techniques used to sell any of those things can be easily adapted to the use of a political party. Nonetheless, there are parallels -- and one of the problems is that the analogies are misunderstood.

Both the LRC and Brad seem to think that the party is the product.

It isn't. It's the store.

The platform isn't the product, either. It's the store's mission statement.

The bylaws aren't the product -- they're the operations manual.

The oath ... well, let's just leave the oath alone for now. It's a subject of interest, but not especially relevant to where I'm going with this.

The party is the store.

The products on the shelves are candidates, policy proposals and such.

You don't sell the store. You sell the products.

You don't sell the store's mission statement. You sell the store's products.

You don't sell the store's policy manual. You sell the store's products.

And, in the case of a political party, we're talking mail order, not retail floor space. The customer doesn't -- or at least shouldn't -- have to actually visit the store to get the products. They're available at finer polling places everywhere.

Are we on the same page so far? Okay. Point two:

One of the basics of sales doctrine is that you sell benefits, not features.

Kentucky Tavern is straight bourbon whiskey. By volume, it's 40% alcohol (80 proof). It's bottled by Glenmore Distilleries of Owensboro, Kentucky. Those are its features.

Kentucky Tavern tastes good, it's cheap and it gets me plonked (says the review: "Bright amber hue. Fiery wood-accented aromas. A soft attack leads to a medium-bodied palate. Slightly hot, woody finish. Straightforward.") Those are its benefits.

Read the two paragraphs above. Think real hard. Try to figure out which paragraph describes my reasons for purchasing a bottle of Kentucky Tavern.

Harry Browne gets this one right with The Great Libertarian Offer. Instead of flogging the features of libertarianism -- the ideological fine points, the philosophical highlights -- he tries to explain to his readers what's in it for them. If the book has a failing, it's that Harry is still trying to sell the store -- the Libertarian Party or libertarian ideology -- rather than the product. But at least he's selling benefits instead of features, and that's a start.

Any approach that focuses on:

a)selling ideology (feature) instead of policy outcomes (benefits); and
b) selling the party (store) instead of its candidates and policies (products)
... is doomed to fail.

Especially in politics, because there's a third element involved.

The fact is that most people aren't ideologues or intellectuals. It's difficult for those of us who are ideologues or intellectuals to see that -- we assume that most people are like us. That assumption is incorrect.

Ideologues and intellectuals are the shopkeepers of politics. We keep the store open. We stock the shelves. We sweep the floors.

Most people don't want to "join" a party. They don't want to man the cash register, unload the truck, put the food in the freezers or mop. They want to walk in, buy what they came for and get the hell out. They are customers, not shopkeepers. They want to vote for candidates whom they believe are on their side ... and then they want to go home and tune in to the latest episode of American Idol.

There is such a thing as party identification, of course. Many people classify themselves as Democrats or Republicans. A few of them are the shopkeepers -- the ideologues and intellectuals -- of those parties. Most of them are just frequent customers who've developed a habit of going to the store where they think they're getting the best deal. Just as they do most of their shopping at Wal-Mart or buy most of their burgers from McDonald's, they "buy" most of their political representation from the GOP or the Democrats.

That might be habit -- daddy shopped there, grandpa shopped there, why go anywhere else? Or, in all too many cases, it may be because only one party has a well-stocked "store" -- candidates, policy proposals and signage to call attention to them -- in the neighborhood.

The LP can't count on habit to drive party allegiance, because the Democrats and Republicans have a 150+ year head start. And all the neighborhood locations, signage and advertising in the world won't get the job done unless you've got the goods. "Branding" is only effective if there's something to "brand" that's saleable in its own right. Nike brand shoes sell like hotcakes. Nike brand air wouldn't sell at all.
If the LP is to succeed, it needs to start recruiting customers instead of shopkeepers.

It needs to sell the products instead of the store. And it needs to sell the benefits instead of the features."

Tim:

The percentage responses you received are typical for any direct mail or volunteer request effort, whether it is for a political group or a car club.

I'd argue that, to expect to run a respectable (voter turnout) House of Delegates (I assume that's like the Legislature in my state) campaign when your starting out with sixty names on a list of possible donors or workers is unrealistic. Sixty ACTIVE people (precinct workers), wouldn't even put one worker in each precinct in a township in my area, and would make a successful campaign difficult.

This is why the LP needs to concentrate on developing the precinct and township level organizations, period. Start small...very small. It might take a few years to get a relatively active township group going. Take on local issues--forget about runnnig for office. IMO, running for any office before you have active, dedicated workers in the precincts is a waste of time.

Of course, some of us tried to do this in my area a few years ago. It fell apart primarily because of petty political meddling and get-elected-quick plans by our state party, and because, IMO, I didn't impress people well enough what a slow, tedious, work-intensive process it would be.

Guns and Dope,
John

John,

All you say is true, but what I say is also true: there's something terribly mixed up when you cant get 1 person out of 60 to help you run for office FROM YOUR OWN PARTY, IN THE COUNTY YOU LIVE IN. That's just weird.

House oF Delegates here in WV is not a full time position and pays only 15K a year. It's the bottom of the barrel for state office. Local office might have been a better choice, but the slate was very limited in 2000. Most of our local elections get held in off years.

I cant find any fault with what you say, it's the absolute truth. But in my case, the libertarains around me just didnt care if I was on the ballot or not. Not typical of everywhere....I hope.

I'm not part of the LNC but I think John would make great ED or PD.

Why do you say that Matt? Or are you saying that sarcastically?

Tim-
My brother ran for State rep. and we couldn't even get our LP County Chair to help. It is ran like a local debate club not a political party.

John,

You're right on - but I dont care if you are worlds greatest salesman, you cant sell what people will not buy. If I had a dime for every time someone said "sell the sizzle, not the steak!" or something along those lines, I have to gently remind them that about 2000 libertarians before them have said the exact same thing over the last 25 years, came up with various plans, agendas, documents, etc. and together, all these things have had virtually no effect.

If they had, we would be a 10% party at least. We're not.

I find amazing the inability among libertarians to simply look at past history of the last 25 years and conclude that what we have done has been successful - AT ANY LEVEL. It's just a flat out lie to say that we have been, easily refuted with factual history and election results.

The real problem is that no one has the BALLS to stand up and say that's it's our product that sucks, and nobody wants what we have to offer them. Except me, and I'll say it right here in front of God + party.

Until we can admit that we have failed as a body to increase liberty, nothing positive will ever happen. To stop failing, you first have to admit that you have failed. We havent even been able to do that yet.

I guess this post will hasten my road to hell in the LP, but I'll go there with a good conscience. :D

No, I'm serious. I guess I'm just a sucker for a good analogy.

Tim:

That must have been very discouraging...very discouraging.

But, I think the "get on the ballot" strategy is counter-productive, unless a strong, active, very local organization(s) is built, first. Build it up around fighting local tax increases and government inefficiency. Maybe, eventually, enough local people will equate "Libertarian" with honest, efficient government (as much as honest, efficient government is possible). If enough local people eventually see that, then a very local election is the place to start your candidate career.

BTW, I'm far from an expert on this stuff. I'm more of a political gadfly, really. I'm learning this stuff and developing these ideas over time.

Also, whether the comment about me being an ED or a PD was serious or not, I'd definitely quickly fail in such a job. I'm not cut out for the ambitions and egos one needs to deal with when one gets much above the township level. Even there, it's rough going for me.

As I told the LP state chair in my area five years ago, all I want to do is work my precinct. Of course, I could have been speaking Martian, for all of the understanding he had of that desire. A year and a half later, he was still asking me (and everyone) why they aren't running for an office.

Guns and Dope,
John

Tim:

Regarding your 02:20 PM post: As I said, what you say may be true. But, until the LP decides to do what the Power Parties do, and work on building the very local organizations first, I think all talk of platform revisions, purity v. pragmatism, running multiple candidates, etc., is putting the cart before the horse. I've experienced, read, or heard nothing that has convinced me otherwise.

I speak regularly with many charter LP members. If what they tell me is true, the LP has never focused a concerted, lasting effort on building a strong, precinct-level organization. It always gets distracted by a few charismatic people with grand plans that draw resources away from the very local level.

Just a few years ago (after Shrub's first Presidential win), the Dems in my county finally decided a really organize and build, from the precincts up, a party in this VERY Republican county. They did this by doing exactly what I'm proposing for the LP.

They didn't get distracted, even by Obama's candidacy, into throwing most of their resources toward their immediate goal of building the local organiations. They didn't reform their positions to fit more closely appeal to the largely Christian conservative voting masses in this area. They still haven't done that, but they have now have a relatively strong, growing party in this county. They're still concentrating on recruiting precinct workers and building the townships, instead of getting distracted by trying to run as many State Reps and County Board candidates as they can. If a few years, I'll bet they will elect, and keep elected some Democrats in this very conservative and Christian right-wing area.

Also, as I've said before, politics has very little to do with "sales." If it did, the Dems in this area would have been out of business the day they opened their office. It's all personal, and all local.

Guns and Dope,
John

Tim-
I love your liberty for sale blog. When you say product are you saying candidates. Because I would agree. If you mean platform or phlisophy, I would say it has more to do with a culture that does not want to roll up their sleeves and work on campaigns lower then gubernatorial or US Senate. These non-statewide seats are the ones we could win if we concentrated our limted resources here. We could start to build resumes that would not be laughed at when they run for higher office.

Matt,

it's not any ONE thing....lots of little things, some medium sized things, and one huge thing. The huge thing is that we are the only political party in the United States that tries to get CONVERTS instead of VOTES.

Thats really the absolute issue right there. Everything else is just fluff of one kind or another. When the party is ready to decide which is more important to them, then they can have a measure of success, no matter which way they choose.

John,

Thanks so much for all the great tidbits, stories, details, and opinions. Your experience carries a lot of weight, as the response you've received shows.

I want to emphasize a point you made. You wrote, "...the LP needs to concentrate on developing the precinct and township level organizations, period. Start small...very small."

That's exactly right.

I also understand what Tim is saying when he talks about lack of energy from local LP members. I have no doubt that what he is saying is true. I also have no doubt that there is a great deal of pessimism among those in the party who have been involved for a long time, and I'm certain that there are many who are only interested in educating the public and nothing more.

But more than anything else, I think the lack of activity has more to do with not seeing any results. People who serve on state party SCC's typically look at your cross-eyed when you mention things like spending money on signs. They don't get it because they've never seen it work. If you haven't experienced a successful campaign, you can't really appreciate what makes it work.

I have a very limited experience of my own with the Democrats in the late 1970s, so I understand exactly what you're talking about. I think what it's going to take in the LP is to have a small cadre pursue a traditional political GOTV campaign and document their experience for others in the party to read and study. It's not enough to see the theory, and it's not enough to see the results. You have to see both. You have to see the theory of GOTV as it leads to winning an election in order to appreciate it...at least, that seems to be true for most people (both libertarians and non-libertarians).

Tim,

I notice that you have a lot of time for posts now. This suggests that you've finished your major project. Perhaps now you can answer my question I raised on the other blog page about the limits of force?

Walt,

I'll make a blog post out of it. I finished my other stuff last night.

Lock and Load.

Walt,

It's gonna be tomorrow sometime. I dont want to just throw out something without thinking about it a bit.

Tim: sounds good. Let me know.

To For Freedom,
Your idea that the LP web site should contain a section for candidates, is very much a great idea. As to asking for donations for a candidate a month and a half before the deadline, I believe it is doable. It can be done, provided that you want to achieve the will to succeed. I believe that there are many people in all fifty-states that want to hear the Libertarian Party's message. The people want to hear the message of freedom and personal reponsibility. To make that happen, however, activism and education is required. There has to be an elimination of pessimism, negativity and defeatism. I am willing to do my share to achieve the goal, and leave the rest to aa higher authority.

OK logic has it, it takes awhile for things to sink in peoples head and realize who and what we truly are about. We really need more time to get the word out and as for donation it will take a lot more time where the Libertarians are concerned. For example Hillary has already started her campaining now for 2008 and she has a lot more exposure by far. So if she starting her campain now and a lot more exposure what does that tell you about us.

A little off subject. I'm watching Kudlow and company Steve Forbes is talking about repelling the 16th amendment and replacing it with a flat tax. I say lets draft him for 2008. With Mccain and that Nazi ex-mayor of NY leading in early polls for the GOP nomination a informed well known free market guy could take alot of votes from big spend republicans. Does anybody know anything about Forbes position on social issues?