The zero dues will help candidates recruit new members and potental contributers. Just because some one does not pay anything when they join does not mean that they will not contribute a year from now.

Imagine that you are a Libertarian candidate and you are giving people the worlds smallest political quiz. They score 100% Libertarian. You talk with them a little about the LP. Then you sign them up as a card carrying member with no oblication. That could help increase our members to 500,000 +. Then when someone asks you how many members your party has you can say 500,000 instead of 22,000.

Ben

Ben,

now think about elimination of the pledge for members. Now there is NOTHING in the way of someone who discovers the LP. It may be a good idea to keep the pledge for LNC Members and Candidates, but having a pledge for general membership is one of the next things to chuck over the fence.

There is no sense in placing a obstacle in someones way if they want to be a part of something.

WOW! Lookit Jessica on the front page! :)

I KNEW I should have pledged more! :D

I need to make a photo trip down there soon for LFS....I want everyone to see that these are people and not just 'staff".

I think you're making a mistake! The Libertarian Party has been very successful at promoting our issues and a dismal failure in winning elections. Membership figures can and have risen, but elections are always depressing. Concentrate on membership development and don't worry about getting the highest number of votes on election day.

This Week was a week in the LP like no other. The Zero Dues Proposal is the best thing for the LP. We now have Shane Cory as the interim Cheif of Staff. I think that was a great decision to have Shane Cory as Interim Cheif of Staff. In 2006 I hope the LP can bring some competition at the polls at any level. We have over 600 elected officials now. In 2006 I guarantee you we will have more elected officials.

This is a lot of good news for libertarian politics at a time when we've been getting a LOT of bad news. Zero Dues is important, and so is the training process. We'll fully be a party of professionals now, not just volunteers with good intentions.

It is my understanding that the LP needed 1700 people a month to either join or renew their dues just to maintain the 22,000 membership.

Now with "Zero Dues" once someone joins the LP they will always be counted, unless they request removal from the LP. I think this will be very, very helpful for the LP. It will save resources, the money going for membership retention can be used somewhere else.

I need to mention that this is very closely matched with what the R's and the D's both do. Both have training programs to teach people how to win elections! So should we!

I'm hoping I will be able to double my pledge to 50 bucks a month after my fiancee moves in here and we double up our income.

I agree with Tim that it's good to have the LP staff pictured on the front page. Now we just need to get Jessica into an LP t-shirt.

A few weeks ago I shelled out $1000 for a life membership. Does that at least still get me a life subscription to LP News?

Ken

This is the best idea the LP has had since I joined. I would've joined years ago while I was in college and learning about the LP. But back then, even $25 bucks sounded like a lot of money, considering we had to keep our fridge stocked with beer.

I agree with Timothy... The next step should be getting rid of the pledge. We need to grow as a party, and quickly remove any and all obstacles that would interfere with reaching this goal.

The LP has had the pledge program for a long time, but it was never moved UP FRONT AND CENTER like it is now. It was almost unseen, a after thought, becuase the over-riding goal was membership, turning other people into libertarians.

Some might say nothing much has changed, just the wording. I dont agree. We will see after a year if anything has really changed or not. I think a primary consideration is who they hire for the ED position and what is their background. There's no political professional in the world that would want to front a party that charges dues or has a pledge obstacle for members. It makes no sense.

What will be interesting is if the Greens follow suit with Zero Dues of their own. I'm sure they are looking at us to see how it is gonna go - they are charging 38 bucks a seat.

I think another idea is to let us know what the money is being used for in regards to advertising re election.

Why is there no mention of or support for the Journey for Justice protest march on August 13. We are against the drug war. We should have a large delegation at the protest explaining that we have been against the drug war since its inception. There will be thousands of potential libertarians there. Buzz Tavik

Zero dues is a huge step in the right direction. Dues has always been the #1 reason that members didn't renew.

Just wanted to voice my support for zero dues. This is the libertarian party, after all. People shouldn't have to give money to join unless they feel like it. The new members and improved numbers (which i'm sure will be followed by improved activism) will be worth a lot more than that $25 membership fee in the long run. This has been on my list of things we should do for a while, and I'm glad someone else had the same idea. Good going LNC.

Bill Wood writes: "Now with 'Zero Dues' once someone joins the LP they will always be counted, unless they request removal from the LP."

I can't think of a more effective way to fill up the membership lists with a lot of dead wood.

Sorry folks, I can't join the zero-dues-a-thon celebration. You get what you pay for. When you pay nothing, you get nothing. Apparently, a lot of you have a few things to learn about this basic truth.

TANSTAAFL

Better dead wood than no wood at all. As soon as it turns January first, I'm planning on joining the party. And once I'm out on my own and am able to start a career, I'm planning on paying regular dues. We must increase card carrying memborship in order to receive state recognition of our party.

How can you not support zero dues? Now everyone that is a libertarian but couldn't or has not wanted to pay dues is counted as a libertarian. Watch as our membership swell. Everyone that has been paying the dues will continue to contribute, maybe even more. That's the point of the pledge program. Haven't you ever almost convinced someone to join the LP, but when you get to, "Okay, now you just need to give twenty-five dollars..." you lose their interest? It's not that twenty-five dollars is a lot of money, but when you're trying to get somone to join something and they hear, "Now, give us money" they tend to think something's fishy. Now that won't happen. They can enjoy being a libertarian, and when the time comes that they believe in our cause strongly enough, they'll start contributing money.

I have heard that the LP didn't make much money on the $25/month membership. With all the renewal letters and DB work, the party basically broke even. Where the LP did make money was when the membership list was mailed a fundraising letter.

The dead wood is not really an issue. The mailings can be targetted to "likely contributors" (say those who contributed within the last year) so that we don't waste money on the dead wood. We will also be able to present ourselves as a much larger party by including the deadwood. It will cost us nothing and give us more political clout.

What will probably happen is the LP's membership will rise, but eventually deadwood will creep in and the numbers will become inflated. National will fundraise from these people anyway and they will know who donates and who doesn't.

If they get enough donations from the expanded membership list, then the dues will be gone for good. If not, they can always reinstutute them at a later date. The number of subscibers to the LP News could be used a proxy figure for the number of 'LP activists' out there.

I'm encouraged that National is now committing to educating its members and candidates in the nuts and bolts of campaign management. We can't have dues, AND have a pledge AND send out unprepared candidates every couple of years. If the pledge and purism is to stay, fine. But the other 'deadwood' that keeps people from joining has to go. This is a net plus IMO.

The State and Local parties can try to get people to join National at no cost. Then they can also try to get them to join their state and local parties, most of which charge dues. It would be a good thing for L/libertarianism in general if 50 state parties and hundreds of county parties collected more local dues and donations.

These changes could lead to stronger local parties. I have been collecting campaign management info and sending it to people for about six months, in my own attempt to cure the LP's knowledge defecit regarding campaigns. I would volunteer to assist National in developing educational materials for board members, candidates and campaign managers.

Shane,
Today, Saturday the 13th, Bush signed a bill establishing grants to states for electronic prescription monitoring. Post that this week. It keeps getting worse!

Mark, we're on it.

Real ID, Patriot Act expansion, TSA, etc.

Yes, freedom is slipping away. That's why it's important that we succeed.

Thanks for being on the ball!

yeah, like we dont have any deadwood now.

Every single organization or club I have EVER been in my whole life has about 90% do nothings or almost nothings and 10% do somethings. Thats just human nature.

I'm mostly a do nothing myself. AND I'M SO ASHAMED! :D

Ken,
I think if you donated a $1,000 for a membership. You should be a life time member or at least a life time subscription to the LP news. That would be unfair to you if the LP staff did not find a way to give you something, that you can that will remain after 1/1/06. You find the contact staff e-mails in the organization section of the website. I think you should get torch club membership if you are donating that much.

Aparently, Libertarian TV, you have a few things to learn about group theory or you would understand exclusive (priviledged) groups and how there limitations preclude success in the context of political parties.

Nothing personal, but if you are going to smear all of the activist members that blog here and offer opinions, you should expect to be called on it. You haven't cornered the market on truth, in fact your OPINION is suspect and, seemingly, uninformed.

Libertarian TV,
How are you going to get members in the first place with a plan like that. The zero-dues plan is the best method. I know other smaller political parties have a membership plan very similar to the zero-dues plan. Free membership with a welcoming pack is a beginners plan. That program will be where the majority of new members will be or start out. The Liberty Pledge is for current members or newer members that do not mind giving monthly donations. If the LP wants future donors then we need the zero-dues plan. The LP news as a seperate subscription is great so everybody can get a subscription reguardless of membership. Bill Wood writes: "Now with 'Zero Dues' once someone joins the LP they will always be counted, unless they request removal from the LP." What Bill Wood said is essential for the zero-dues plan to be successful. I agree 100% with what Bill Wood said and the zero-dues plan.

Mark,

Thanks for bringing up the electronic prescription monitoring program. Outrageous! I wish this had been brought to my attention sooner!

If gov't is going to monitor our prescription drug usage, is this a prelude to socialized medicine? And confidentiality in the Doctor-Patient relationship appears to be gone. Since they want name, address, and phone number in order to issue a prescription...this suggests some type of ID requirement will be mandated as well, because otherwise it would be fairly easy to obfuscate name, etc. and circumvent the intent of the law. And since gov't will know what prescriptions a person is taking, no doubt they'll make assumptions in respect to illness and otherwise misuse the information.

Shane is right...it does keep getting worse!

A list of supporters (or potential supporters) is the best resource a candidate can get! This is, if nothing else, a great way to help candidates to run robust and competative campaigns.

Raiser's Edge is designed to sort the good wood from the bad. I expect national will figure out how to start using the system to intelligently fund raise.

1st rule of fundraising in the political party:

money = political success AND

political success = money.

there are lots of other rules, but thats rule number 1. If you REALLY WANT the LP to get better, PLEDGE!!!!

"Libertarian Reformer" aww shucks you make me blush**grinning**

"Libertarian TV" out of the 22,000 current dues paying members, only about 1,000 members donate to the National Party, other than the $25.00 fee. Should we declare the other 21,000 members as "Deadwood"?

For myself, I don't send alot to the National LP. Most of my LP "donation dollars" go to my local and State Parties. Purchasing LP pamplets, WSPQ poster, banners etc.

I agree that it is important to know how funds raised are being spent. Still strongly in favor of project related fund raising. Best Wishes.

I wish the zero-dues proposal was starting like September 1. There would be an advantage to that. We would not have to worry about LPNC officers changing their vote at the Baltimore conference. I hope the zero-dues proposal is beyond approval phase at the conference. If any LPNC officers who wants to talk about adjustments as for memberships level to see what each level of donors get and LP news subscriptions should wait untill after 1/1/06 so the zero-dues program can be in place. LP staff's version of the zero dues proposal program is the best. The transition is the most important thing to be focused on for now. I encourage everybody who is still a yearly dues member to check out the Liberty Pledge program or at least renew your subscription to LP News. The LP News is a great newspaper. The LP News will be for everyone after 1/1/06 meaning all you have to do is pay $25 for 1 year subscription. which makes it good for all members reguardless of free or liberty pledge membership. I think the Zero- Dues plan worked out for everybody

Shane,

Another issue with the National All Schedules Prescription Electronic Reporting Act...medical marijuana.

With this act in place, there is no way that marijuana can be prescribed or dispensed without outting the doctor, pharmacist, and patient to the government. Congress really pulled the wool on this issue!!

the yearly dues program is outdated. The first time I saw the yearly dues program I was skeptic untill I heard about LP news at the advocates for self-government website. I am still glad we will get rid of the yearly dues program. I believe the yearly dues program should have been eliminated years ago. If there was any other alternatives to the yearly dues program, then the zero dues program with the liberty pledge option was the best choice of all choices. The LP has over 400,000 registered voters and over 600 elected officals, so the zero-dues program came at the right time. alot of LP members don't already know where a fairly good sized political party and it is time to capitialize on it and start winning more elections. I hope in my lifetime I will see LP governors and congressmen. I know we have Ron Paul and a few other ideological libertarians in congress now which is a great start, but we need elected governors and congressmen from the Libertarian Party. We are starting in the right path, but it is our duty as members to make sure the LP continues in the right path and is victorious

I have some good Ideas for goals for the Libertarian Party to try to achieve:

1. get at best 1,000,000 registered Libertarians by 2012.

2. get senatorial candidates to run for a majority amount of seats by 2010.

3. get house of representatives candidates to run for a majority amount of seats by 2010.

4. get gubentorial candidates to run in majority of states by 2010.

5. a presidential candidate to get at least over 600,000 votes in 2012.

These are just a few goals which could be considered. The full extent of accomplishing all goals to become a major political contender will take a 15 or 20 years if we start now. If we hesitate it will take longer than 15 or 20. The longer the LP does not get serious about becoming a political competitor the worse our current situation with big government and intrusion of civil liberities will get. The zero-dues program will help lighten up the focus on recuriting members and will give the LP staff time to train managers for ballot access, FEC compliance, fundraising, database usage, member recruitment and candidate recruitment in order to be successful at wining elections.

Reformer,

I think it's possible for our Presidential Candidate in 2008 to get 2.5% of th popular vote at a MINIMUM with the right foundation laid in Convention 2006. We wont win, but we will start to break out of the "third party pack" in 2008, if we make the needed changes to the bylaws, platform, dump or modify the pledge, and as a result of this, attract a 1st tier candidate for President like Bob Barr or Gary Johnson.

I've been on vacation in the Pacific Northwest for the last ten days, and so had to wait to learn of this interesting LP development until my return. Some comments:

1. I was cheered to see two signs while traveling within the mythical "State of Jefferson" (Southern Oregon and extreme Northern California):

(A fairly big and very legible sign on Hwy 238, a "wine road" between Jacksonville and Medford OR) "Get the US out of the UN!"

(On Hwy 5 as we were passing by Mt. Shasta): "Adopt-a-Highway, sponsored by Libertarian Party of Siskiyou County."

I don't know if Libertarians put up the first sign, but it was great to see it, even so. The second sign is an excellent example of how local Libertarian Parties can be effective in the world and show themselves to be solid citizens deserving of respect and consideration at election time. Kudos! I'd like to think that the signage either represents a population that is receptive to the LP message, or can encourage receptivity among a more indifferent or even hostile population. Anyway, those and other experiences on the road, from Northern California to Seattle WA, encourage ME that there is a fertile ground for libertarianism in this region of the country.

2. There is no magic bullet. It is good that people are trying different things, but if we are going to be a political party, the bottom line must be reckoned in terms of number of Libertarians elected and re-elected to office (especially at higher and higher levels); or the success that we have in influencing legislation and public policy. Sheer membership numbers alone won't do it: members must contribute resources or effort toward strengthening the party and achieving those goals; at very least, they must vote loyally for Libertarians, assuming that the party does its part to field qualified, acceptable candidates.

3. money = electoral success; electoral success = money

I think that most of the truth of that statement comes from the increasingly more restrictive and lopsided election laws, and the ever increasing tendency of government ot restrict behavior and suck up resources. Whoever gets in erects barriers that can only be overcome by spending (= WASTING) vast amounts of money; once they get in, they can dole out the spoils to their supporters, so obviously, such power attracts a lot of money. If Libertarians ever do become sufficiently pervasive in the government, how will we change that situation? If we can't, our effectiveness will be severely limited, regardless of our ability to win elections. If we can, the above equations will change, which will change the nature of the game.

4. Barriers to becoming a Libertarian: As barriers go, "dues" seem fairly practical, tending to discourage the insincere or flighty and enriching the coffers of the party. The so-called "pledge" may turn some people off, but I think its importance as a "barrier" to membership is vastly overrated. I'm open minded to the zero-dues approach, but I doubt that it was implemented to remove a true psychological barrier to entry or retention (the real-world experience of Joseph Knight, whom I respect immensely, notwithstanding), so much as to remove the psychological barrier of LP MEMBERS to donate more to the cause. If you ask me, the $25 yearly dues level established both a floor and a ceiling for many people, who were happy enough to kick in $25, but wanted to see some bang for their buck before going further. If they didn't see results, they could always refuse further donations by saying, "Hey, I'm paid up, leave me alone." Now, with no established minimum "dues," the fund-raisers can try to maximize that all-important "first contribution" from every member. We'll see if this leads to a bigger warchest overall.

You don't have to give ANY money to the party or sign ANY ideological certification to register LIBERTARIAN in states where such registration is possible, or to vote for Libertarians. That's a fact. For MOST people throughout the country, registering as a party-affiliated voter or remaining independent/decline-to-state but consistently voting for candidates and issues supported by their favorite party and chatting-up others to do the same IS the maximum extent of their idea of party membership.

The advantage that our critics and political rivals have is that we use language too precisely! We have tended to base our published "membership numbers" in on those who have signed the certification AND paid dues -- the literal definition of LP membership. The Demos and GOP don't have comparable figures. For them, an habitual Demo or GOP voter, or someone who has registered as Demo or GOP, is counted as a "member." We look much better when we reckon according to that less restrictive standard.

As I have seen it over the years: Giving to the party, in money or in kind, and registering LP or voting for LP candidates are the most common and basic ways that people bond with the LP, in the sense of thinking of themselves as "real" LP members. Working on campaigns or running for office are other, more intense ways of cementing the psychological bond between voter and party. Whatever we can do to encourage those kinds of actions -- to get people to invest themselves in the LP and its success -- is what we need to be doing now, I believe. I am reminded that the (admittedly well-funded) Apple Computer "changed the world" in the 80s and 90s with around 10,000 very talented, highly committed (and well-compensated!) people, so I don't pay much attention to those who criticize the LP for having "only" 20K members or so. By the GOP/Demo standard, we have no fewer than 100,000 "members," and perhaps as many as a million already. I think success will come (or not) from who they are and how they are organized. On the other hand, if the boast of "one million members" (or ten million) can convince people to give due consideration to Libertarians at election time, then, provided we field quality candidates, the approach may serve its purpose to foster greater electoal success. Time will tell.

Tim West: Bob Barr has never, to my knowledge, given up his drug warrior stance. Unless and until he does so, I hope never to see an "L" next to his name on a ballot. Like many GOP, he talks libertarian talk, but in the clutch, allows or encourages the most egregious and flagrant violations of liberty to proceed.

Barr is no more a "top tier" candidate than Ron Paul was when he ran for President on the LP banner. Paul later returned to the House and proved himself to be a real libertarian over and over, regardless of the party label. He is a more credible potential candidate now than Barr. I would like to see Mr. Barr prove himself before considering him as a potential LP candidate for anything, much less President.

As far as using the drug war as a "litmus test" for libertarian bona fides, I can't think of a better one. Prior to the current Iraq Adventure -- for which the Drug War seems to have been a dress rehearsal, at least in terms of domestic preparedness to implement things like the PATRIOT Act -- the Drug War was both a huge sink of resources and the "magic bullet" excuse for a long succession of infringements on personal liberty. It is a metastasizing cancer in the body politic, which has long needed to be excised in its entirity (and, if possible, all at once). I can respect the position of someone who says, "drugs are bad, and people who do bad things under the influence must be punished and make restitution, but we have to handle drug use in a different way." I cannot take seriously as a libertarian anyone who doesn't believe that personal liberty extends to the absolute right of adults to decide for themselves what they are going to put into their bodies as food, drink, or medicine. If we don't have that much freedom from government coercion, we don't really have any, whatever surface appearances may indicate.

Gary Johnson makes more sense to me as a crossover-to-LP candidate, but he has never seemed seriously interested in the LP's endorsement. We'll see what happens in the passage of time.

I've been having conversations with various people about Barr. I agree with you that unless he adopts at bare minimiuum support for legal medical MJ he is a non starter. If he does, he would be a great candidate for the LP.

OT: this really bites.

"The senators' comments followed a report by The Washington Post on Sunday that said the Bush administration is lowering its expectations of what it can achieve in Iraq.

The report quoted an unnamed senior official, who said U.S. officials do not expect Iraq to develop a model democracy, a self-sustained oil industry or a stable society.

"What we expected to achieve was never realistic given the timetable or what unfolded on the ground," the Post report quoted the official as saying."

So now we have 'senior officals' floating balloons that maybe Iraq wasnt such a good idea after all?
Wonder what all the people who have had sons killed in Iraq think about that statement?

HIT THIS HARD. The Republicans are going to go down in 2008, and it's up to us to make sure the Democrats dont get a free ride back into power.

WHAT'S WITH YOU GUYS Just worried about MJ, we REALLY HAVE A BIGGER ISSUE HERE. WAKE UP. The Creditor for one can find out what we buy in the grocery store with our credit card. Namely alcohol, what and how many asprin as well as well as the government, while there is so much talk on MJ there are MAJOR ISSUES OF OUR PRIVACY, TRACKING AND FREEDOM BEING TAKEN. ARE YOU AWARE THAT A NEW RX BILL HAS JUST BEEN PASSED THAT ALL OUR MEDICAL DRUG USE INFORMATION IS TO BE SHARED WITH THE GOVERNMEN so that it can look for doctor shopping, excessive use etc. etc. etc.

Posted by: James Anderson Merritt at August 14, 2005 06:15 PM

"As far as using the drug war as a "litmus test" for libertarian bona fides, I can't think of a better one. Prior to the current Iraq Adventure -- for which the Drug War seems to have been a dress rehearsal, at least in terms of domestic preparedness to implement things like the PATRIOT Act -- the Drug War was both a huge sink of resources and the "magic bullet" excuse for a long succession of infringements on personal liberty. It is a metastasizing cancer in the body politic, which has long needed to be excised in its entirity (and, if possible, all at once).

" I cannot take seriously as a libertarian anyone who doesn't believe that personal liberty extends to the absolute right of adults to decide for themselves what they are going to put into their bodies as food, drink, or medicine. If we don't have that much freedom from government coercion, we don't really have any, whatever surface appearances may indicate"

The idea of a "litmus test" is very encouraging.Certainly, an individual's position on the drug war would be an excellent place to start,but the very concept demands at least something more than merely one issue.

The context could set the criteria.As much of the drug war's negative consequences are domestic, it's a lot easier to demonstrate how evil and unlibertarian it is.

I would, in the light of the fact that at least some additional criteria would be needed, suggest at least one other issue: foreign aid.

While unlike the drug war, the most visible negative domestic impact consists of taxation for the purpose of subsidizing foreign governments.

It's most negative impact is felt by the people in the third world countries, particularly in Africa. There it serves to prop up oppressive dictators with a vested interest in an impoverished populace.

Kenyan free market economist James Shakwati insists that widespread severe and endemic poverty on the continent is directly attributable to foreign aid.

The libertarian literature is voluminous, and invariably damning of foreign aid and rightly so.

Additionally, there is evidence of typical foreign aid failures currently in Iraq.

Therefore,I propose, in addition to support of the war on drugs, that support for foreign aid,such as say, signing the i.e.s.for example, also disqualify one as a libertarian.

---Thank You,
The Bikemessenger

Robert,

You really want to kick this new libertarian out of the party?

"A very wise plan. I think it would work if the democrates and republicans would stop fighting with one another and listen to our plan. I think it is a great idea and I'll be sending it to all my friends and families who will most likely support this. I really hope that President Bush would gain some common sense and listen to the people for once... I really can't stand hearing reports of soldiers dying. I don't know what I'm gonna do if another attack happens like the recent marines attack. It makes me want to cry, leave politics to rot and want to ignore it... but I can't ignore it; It would only make things worse and I my conscience won't let me ignore it. I have to do something to help this world, no matter how small I am. That's why I just officially made my self a Libertarian. I hope my support will do something to help this country and world. Out of all the political parties in the U.S., the Libertarians have the most common sense. I can't stand seeing dumb people make our country worse; let's just stop arguing and start doing something for once. Thanks for all you've done so far for our country. What would we do without the Libertarian Party? "Freedom is not Free", we must work to make it so."

Jenna Crivello

I think she found a political home here. There's other people that have joined directly becuase of the IES. Gonna kick them all out too?

When you finish kicking out all the people who dont agree with you in some manner, how many libertarians will be left? Enough to have a political party?

This person and people like her are this party's future. What disturbs you makes others join.

Tim--

Thank you very much, that was very maudlin of you.If all I wanted is a sincere, passionate anti- war political party the Greens are way ahead of you.

Please recall, I was only extending Mr. Merritt's logic,so perhaps you should argue with him.

Anyway, it seems we've argued around in this circle before, and it does'nt seem to get any wider.

But just to reiterate and sum up, everything you're trying to achieve can be done at the very least, as easily (if not more easily, as you would presumably enjoy the cooperation of those of us who fight you over it, all else being the same)without advocating foreign aid.

Face it, by accepting the i.e.s. you've bought a trojan horse. At the going rate for trojan horses($oo.oo), I've bought a few myself.

The enemy soldiers in the i.e.s. are the dollars moving from your pocket and mine to corrupt politicians in Iraq, with the White House war criminal as the eager middleman.

And this does'nt need your silly little i.e.s., it's already happening.

But that's only the most superficial, most innocent part of the problem.

The real purpose of the i.e.s.,is as part of the Pragmatist effort to subvert the resolve to be the party of principle.

For a clear and frank explanation of what they're up to, go to http://www.davidswanson.org/print.php?

To the Pragmatist, principles are not immutable nor a foundation for rational decision making; but rather at best after the fact rationalizations for their actions.

Having established in your mind a rationale for accepting the most pernicious of socialist programs,your capacity to resist further such sophistry is deminished.

The Pragmatists will have additional socialist proposals in the future,also enclosed in propositions that seem reasonable or necessary; I suggest you be on the alert.

As far as kicking out goes, it seems to me you're the one doing the kicking and I'm the kickee!

I see the i.e.s.'s cute little gangrenesque logo is still on this website's home page, and my name on the party's membership list is still a lie.

(hummm...the logo looks smaller;did someone squeeze some pus out of it?)

---The Bikemessenger

"As far as kicking out goes, it seems to me you're the one doing the kicking and I'm the kickee!"

Yeah, like I have the power or influence to do so. Please. I'm a BLOGGER. I write things, and people either agree with me, or dont agree with me. Any other mental state of mind caused by my activities is totally becuase you allowed it. If a country redneck like me can make you so fearful of change, I should be getting paid for this stuff.

This whole concept of "true" libertarianism is a crock anyway. A political party will have all stripes of libertarians in it, from centrist types like me to full blown ravers like you. That's not a bad thing. It shows the LP is growing.

The Democrats and Republicans have just as much idealogical spread in their membership. How come you dont hear of "true" democrats, or "true" Republicans? How about "true" Greens?

I keep waiting for one of you guys to demand "the LP be kept small and powerless, becuase it keeps our message pure" like that guy in Georgia said.
I'd rather have a political party thats powerful and electable instead, thanks.

I think this zero dues is a great idea, it will signifigantly increase visibility of the libertarian party. The move should make libertarians look more like the actual political party that we are and not the the extremist special interest fundraisers that we are made to appear. When a politcal party sets an ideal based on fullsupport of that ideal and not on the monetary support alone, then the path for success has been paved.

One important question I have is this. What is being done to gain access to the debates for 2008 election? These debates are infinitely important to the parties success, mass media carrying libertarian ideals to all interested americans in a point for point comparison such as a debate would do more to further our causes and put this country back on the path it was intended to be on than anything else I can think of, short of actually winning the election.

reupped to edit my url informayion in the information fields

J,

I have called for the start of a dedicated LP Media Fund to make sure we can have decent TV commercials in 2008. Regarding the debates; I think that we will be excluded no matter what we do in the short term. The way around this is to build lp.org's video broadcasting ability to where we can run a media campaign before each debate advertising our candidate will answer the actual debate questions in real time live over LP.org.

They cant stop us from doing this, becuase they dont (yet) own the internet. If the party is prohibited in some way from doing this, then a specialized company can do it for us. Until we can get 10% to 15% of the popular vote in the polls, we will have to do stuff like this.

While I disagree with publicly funded stations of any kind, when it comes to debates that are broadcast on a publicly fund channel like PBS or NPR, shouldn't they be required to invite all candidates on the ballot? ABC and CNN can do whatever they want, its their company, but for the government to only officially report two out of several candidates seems highly suspect.

YES ADVERTISE ON THE NET< YAHOO NEWS/MSN NEWS VERY POPULAR backdoor advertisment doesn't get enough exposure. We need to focus on things like EMINENT DOMAIN, CHIP TRACKING, PRIVACY ISSUES.
I think this would help a lot in getting people to take another look at us Libertarians to get more VOTES, PROVIDED OUR VOTES ARE REALLY BEING COUNTED. MAYBE THAT IS OWNED BY THE GOVERNMENT NOW AS WELL.

The media companies are scared of being frozen out of sources. The second they let a LP guy in, both of the majors will freeze all access to those that control the levers of power. Meet the Press would have no guests from either side. No more interviews with people in charge. They have both the power and the wherewithal to do this. The media knows it and rolls over like dogs waiting for their tummy to be rubbed. It's disgusting.

But corporate controlled media was never about fairness in politics anyway. They depend on the political advertising windfall every 4 years to make themselves rich.

If you remember, right after the Badnarik ad started showing on TV, he got coverage on MSN or some like channel right away - complete with platform in the background behind his head showing all the extremist elements of our platform and probably losing us tens of thousands of votes as a result. It would have been better for the LP if he had never been on at all!

I wish I knew where the video of that appearance was. If anyone has it, please let me know.

Tim-
We are getting the same coverage on State ran media as we are corporate media. I love the tone you take when you talk about corprations. It is the second time I've seen you use Green like language. I see a pattern developing you seem not to be a big fan of large corpration.

The only "cospiracy" that keeps the LP out of debates is the concerted efforts of libertarian "purists" to determine who is or isn't a libertarian. This paranoid faction of the party acts like some kind of priesthood controlling entry into their fringy little cult.

The plain fact of the matter is that Libertarians don't get good press because Libertarians rarely (if ever) put any real effort into developing media relationships. I have just started this process here in Washington state. So far, all the interactions I have had with the media has been positive. Sure, they don't blaze our name across the front page yet, but why should they?

Of all people, libertarians should recognize that we are not entitled to one sentence (or one second) of media coverage. We must recognize that the media is a commercial enterprise and that "news" is a product. We have to learn to appreciate the market and to respect those who provide that product as business people. If we want coverage, we have to be newsworthy and reliable. The LP in Oregon has figured that out and for the past few years they have been really making progress in terms of getting positive, or at least fair, press coverage. The sooner we stop blaming others for our mistakes the sooner we can make progress.

As for the zero-dues policy, I have mixed feelings. I agree with the plan for all the reasons stated by others in this thread. My only misgivings stem from my understanding of the history of the party. In particular, prior to the dues program and UMP there were actually something like 51 little LPs - one in each state and then national. Members of the state party were not members of national and visa versa. In Washington, for example, there were some 200 state members and some 500+ national members and the two groups never interacted. When the UMP was signed, the Libertarian Party of Washington State instantly had over 700 members and a regular inflow of money which allowed them to budget. Of course, I think the welfare like funding structure may have been more damaging than helpful. Having some minimal but sufficient cashflow was a disincentive to do fundraising. As long as the bills were paid, why bother - especially considering all the paperwork involved to comply with public disclosure laws. Further, because national controlled the membership database there was little direct benefit to having membership drives. Especially given that national has never been able to properly manage the membership database (you'd think with all the computer geeks we have we could at least get that part right :P). Even if you got 100 new members, it would take national months and months to ever figure that out.

Ultimately, I think the outcome will be up to us. If we can get some professional, or at least reliable, guidance regarding party organization and fundraising, we will most certainly benefit from having a zero-dues structure. If we take the time to organize our local and state parties as actual political entities and not just monthly supper clubs and what have you, we can start laying the groundwork to actually get people elected. If we fail to do these things as we have failed to do them up to this point, we will never get off the ground.

I think the greens have some valid points about the status of corps. in today's America. When I see what I believe to be the truth, I support it. If it comes out of the mouth of a Green, so be it. If it comes out of the mouth of a Democrat or a Republican, so be it. I dont reject truth becuase someone in my party didnt speak it first. Truth is however, subjective. One mans truth is another mans lie.

The role the Libertarian Party SHOULD be taking is to be the best friend of small and home based business in America, and to be the greatest enemy of global mega corps in the world. These companies owe allegance to no country; they are nations unto themselves, and attempt to place themselves above the law at every turn.

There's been ample criticism of this approach, from people in the LP who think that if it's private, it's great and there need be no need for the LP to act on it. I say crap on that. I am as against the exploitation of the individual by big business as a I am by government, and these days, there is NO REAL DIFFERENCE. The same Masters that wave the puppet strings flit between government and industry with the speed of light. Today's business exec is tomorrow's Secretary of Defense that sends your children to wars.

Goddamn every last one of them that keeps us down. The only way we will defeat them is a politically relevant and strong LP that can win elections. Without it, we have no hope.

Tim West says, "This whole concept of 'true' libertarianism is a crock anyway. A political party will have all stripes of libertarians in it, from centrist types like me to full blown ravers like you. That's not a bad thing. It shows the LP is growing.

"The Democrats and Republicans have just as much idealogical spread in their membership. How come you dont hear of 'true' democrats, or 'true' Republicans? How about 'true' Greens?"

Did you watch any of the 2004 Green Party convention on C-SPAN? I did, and while I don't recall the use of the actual phrase "true Greens," there was a LOT of discussion and innuendo about relative ideological purity of various candidates or factional representatives. Same thing, as far as I am concerned.

On the GOP side, people carp about "RINOs" who are "Republicans in Name Only." This gets at the concept of a "true republican" by labelling those who AREN'T "true republicans," but it serves the purpose well enough. On the Demo side, people speak of being a "true progressive" or not, rather than a "true Democrat" or not, or they accuse each other of not being a "real progressive." It seems that "Democrat" refers to the big tent, but "progressive" ideology is promoted as the ideal of ideological purity, to which "tentpole" Democrats should aspire.

Of course, the GOP and Demos are power-based organizations, who make noises in respect of ideology, whenever that will gain them advantage. The Greens and LP, in particular, are organized AROUND specific ideologies. The challenge has always been to see how much political power and influence we could amass, while remaining focused on (and true to) our respective ideologies.

Like many here, I am concerned that too much attention to ideological detail and orthodoxy will reduce our ability to attract the numbers and resources necessary to achieve electoral success. There are libertarian think tanks (e.g., Cato) and outreach/education societies (e.g., Advocates for Self Government) for those who would rather travel that road; the LP is a political party. But on the other hand, we have seen over and over that it is all too easy to get wrapped up in the acquisition and retention of power, to the exclusion of ideological goals and principles. Indeed, it often seems that the abandonment of principle is the only way to take or keep political power -- certainly to judge from the examples presented by the GOP and Demos.

I don't have a problem with accepting a half of a loaf or even just a slice or two, if what I am accepting is a real increase in net liberty. Unfortunately, those who would bargain with us, all too often offer something that looks like liberty in one hand, while snatching back with the other even more liberty than we think we are getting. The medical mj issue again provides a great illustration: pols entertain the idea of "legalizing" marijuana, but usually only under conditions that resemble the following:

1. mj would be taxed, and, in the medical case, its distribution would be controlled and restricted by the state
2. the state would retain the authority to rescind mj legalization, and would more vigorously prosecute the drug war on behalf of the "truly dangerous" drugs
3. the state would retain the authority to declare future drugs illegal, and in general tell people what they can and cannot put into their bodies for food, medicine, and recreational purposes

This is just wrong. We get a slice or two in the hand, but the pols go to our cupboards and steal the loaf we haven't even opened yet! If adults aren't competent to decide these issues for themselves, of what point is their right to vote?

The thing that, I feel, distinguishes a "true libertarian" from a poser, is the obstinate insistence that individuals retain the right to make their own decisions, and that such rights can only be abridged or denied by force, to the extent that one's decisionmaking harms others or clearly puts others in harm's way without their knowledge or consent. Other uses of force are avoided and opposed by anyone who wants to be taken seriously as a libertarian.

You learn the limits of someone's personal definition of libertarianism by noticing the circumstances in which they say, "of course, decision xyz can't be left to the individual." Similarly, you get a feeling for how much support libertarians should give to one policy proposal or another by focusing on the scenarios in which that proposal precludes individual choice.

When Democrats or Republicans gang together, they are clearly in search of power -- at very least, by having "their guys" win. Even if their own personal agenda items get watered down or tossed overboard entirely, they take comfort that, at least, "their guy" won (or is feasibly "electable" and "could" win). When Libertarians seek power, it is (one would think) with the idea of increasing personal choice. To the extent that the LP is a "big tent" party, it will embrace people who vary widely in their desire to promote the increase of personal choice. If most of the "libertarians" only want to increase choice just so far (however far that is), I think it is fair to say that we should only expect that much improvement, at best. This is because people will be motivated to provide support to their point of satisfaction. Those who are easily satisfied (or who are, in fact, frightened of "too much liberty") we can expect to retire early from the struggle, or even come to oppose us if they think we go too far. So, unless the party expands to include a LARGE number of people who want a HUGE expansion of personal choice, I expect no more than modest net gains in liberty from a "big tent" approach, even if nominal Libertarian electoral success improves markedly.

The rosier scenario is to presume that a proliferation of even lukewarm libertarians in higher office will yield enough additional liberty, as to whet the public's appetite for it, so that more ambitious progress can be made over time. But I personally think that such momentum can only be achieved if the libertarians we put into office are firmly committed to the concept of personal choice -- even when they might find others' excercise of choice to be inconvenient, distasteful, or even repulsive. In order to lead, "our guys" must be willing to push for as much liberty as they can, something that I'd not expect of people who, too early on, begin to say "of course, we can't leave xyz to individual decision."

That said, can we get a "big tent" of partially-committed "libertarians" to support "full-strength" elected officials (or anything close)? THAT will be an accomplishment! I guess we'll see...

Tim-
The Lp's position on this has always been that the authority to oppress comes from the government. Large Corps bribe government to use authority that they legally don't have to oppress. The problem begins and ends with the government. What steps beyound the LP's current poistion of taken away this illegitimate authority of government to help out big corp at the cost of small business and the American consumer would you want to make. Would you like more regulation? Would you like the lp to become suppoters of class warfare and make laws based solely on the amount of revenue brought in by a company. Or maybe by the amount of jobs these evil large corporations provide. I agree that libertarians come in different strips, but when these strips include green with a touch of red I don't see how they are compatible with libertarian princples.

It begans with the ability of companies to write bills favorable to their industries. They then shill these bills through the legislatures using paid off elected officals who have no idea even whats in the bill they propose.

The recent bankruptcy bill passed was a prime example. It was directly written by leading financial companies who have seen their profits skyrocket, and they want to be able to sell people credit at 21% interest yet have no liability when that person craps out on their bill.

People in debt cannot be free. Neither can nations.

It was a pure payback bill - support us and give us money for our campaigns, and we will make sure you get your payoff in the form of a bankruptcy bill that only attacks individualsyet ensures that corporations get a free ride and get to declare bankruptcy at any time, with the very same taxpayers they just restricted now paying the bailout costs! in many cases!

Whose the fool? Who is writing the law? Not your elected Rep....they are just pass through people, a bunch of bagmen for the industries they sold their souls to.

You cannot and will not be free until you stop mega corps ability to control government. A small government is less buyable, and business would have no need to buy protection and favors in this way. The problem there is, you can always make more money from a riggen game than a fair free market.

Tim-
Who cares if the mega corp. wrote the bill or if they give money to a rep who writes the bill for them the point is the power is in the act of the legislation, that power to central plan is not given to the legislator to start. If the legislator was not trying to use an authority not enumerated to them through the constitution then the pay offs to get special treatment wouldn't be occuring. The problem begins with an authority that shouldn't be given to Congress to begin with. Would it be more moral if we stopped mega corp. from giving so that small business can start getting that speical treatment? Or wouldn't it make better sense to remove the authority of congress to put one group over another to start with?

Who is going to do that? do you believe that these people in Congress who are in the pockets of industry will vote themselves out of power? Not likely.

I say the problem is with treating corporations as living breathing people in the eyes of the law. Corporate Personhood is a lie. Treating a paper entity as if it were a person is a lie.

If a small business cannot obtain the same treatment in the eyes of the law, then big business shouldnt get it either. If a single person cannot get the same treatment as they get, then limit it to what the single person can get. I want a level playing field. I dont want Wal Mart to get billions of special tax breaks that Joe's Barber Shop cant touch. I want equal treatment under the law for both.

Tim-
I agree that the powers that be will fight any decrease in power that they have gained by the death of the republic and the gain of mobocracy. I just don't see how your method of just allowing congress to change the rules on corporations would benefit small business or the American consumer. I also don't see that this would be any easier to do since as you pointed out this doesn't benefit the biggest lobbist causes. So you answer is just as difficult to pull off as mine with the bad side effect of saying that Congress has a legitimate role of leveling the playing field. I'm not sure where you are going with the idea of coporation personhood. The way I see it the rights of the coporation is an extension of the shareholders' property rights.

The issue of Wal mart getting billions in tax breaks is covered with LP's constant push to end coporate welfare.

Posted by: Timothy West at August 15, 2005 08:29 AM

""As far as kicking out goes, it seems to me you're the one doing the kicking and I'm the kickee!""

"Yeah, like I have the power or influence to do so. Please. I'm a BLOGGER. I write things, and people either agree with me, or dont agree with me..."

I did not mean to suggest you had the power to, or would be inclined to act coercively or maliciously against me, or those of my "stripe".I only met that we seemed to be at an ideological impasse, and that it would appear you had the upper hand.

"This whole concept of "true" libertarianism is a crock anyway. A political party will have all stripes of libertarians in it, from centrist types like me to full blown ravers like you."

I'm sorry Tim, but us "full blown ravers"(I don't know if I should take that as a commpliment, but I won't take it as an insult!) just can't countinence the advocacy of foreign aid.I hope I, And others, have made our position on that clear,but to reiterate, it's just too materially harmful(a position I've yet to see questioned, let alone refuted).

I think it's fairly clear that absolutely no concession to those on my side of the argument is forthcoming.

But now given that that's the case, where do you think you have a place for me under your "big tent"?

Posted by: Timothy West at August 15, 2005 02:15 PM

"I think the greens have some valid points about the status of corps. in today's America. When I see what I believe to be the truth, I support it. If it comes out of the mouth of a Green, so be it"

Tim, I think that's a very commendable attitude.Based on that(if you haven't already), may I ask you to consider the following:

GREENS: IMPEACH BUSH NOW!

GREEN PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES
http://www.gp.org

For Immediate Release:
Thursday, June 9, 2005

Contacts:
Scott McLarty, Media Coordinator, 202-518-5624, mclarty@greens.org
Nancy Allen, Media Coordinator, 207-326-4576, nallen@acadia.net

"The Downing Street Memo proves that invasion of Iraq wasn't the 'last resort' but Bush's intent all along, leading to cooked intelligence and other impeachable offenses; Greens note bipartisan and media complicity in overlooking evidence of deceit, urge public protest.

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Green leaders reiterated the party's July 2003 call for impeachment of Bush, and called on all Americans outraged by the Bush Administration's list of deceptions, violations of the U.S. Constitution, the disastrous Iraq occupation, and policies that have disgraced the U.S. to demand that Congress begin the impeachment process.

"The invasion and occupation of Iraq has caused the deaths of over 1,600 U.S. military personnel, as well as untold suffering and tens of thousands of civilian dead in Iraq," said David Cobb, the Green Party's 2004 candidate for President of the United States. "The Downing Street Memo confirms what we already knew -- that a conspiracy to deceive the American people led us into the war, and that this conspiracy constitutes 'high crimes and misdemeanors' according to the U.S. Constitution."
The Green Party of the United States called for the impeachment of George W. Bush during the party's 2003 national meeting ."

{IN PARTICULAR, NOTE THE FOLLOWING}

"Greens have organized and participated in numerous protests against the war since early 2003, and have called for an immediate end to the occupation, cancellation of further war spending, and removal of military recruiters from schools as U.S. troops continue to face death and injury in Iraq."

Now can you dispassionately and objectively say this does'nt beat the i.e.s. decisively?

--Thank You,
and Best Wishes,
The Bikemessenger

Is this suppose to show that the misguided attempt to bring in new members by the IES and Time for Rove to go press releases will only bring in socialistic kooks from the Green party. The only thing that pointing to a stupid memo written by a Minister that was against the war from it's start proves is that the Green Party is in as bad shape as we are when it comes to outreach. Maybe a little bit better because being illogical and ignoring alot of facts in order to back up a point is the only way faith and socialism has survived.
Now I'm not saying that Bush was honest about why he invaded Iraq nor am I saying that I think we should have gone to war. I'm saying this memo does not prove anything. It is an absurd overstatment and it over sales the importance of that document. It makes the Greens look like the irrational reactionaries that they are.

Matt:

You're absolutely right, and that's my point.

As sorry as they may be, on this one matter they're way ahead of us.

I don't lose sight of the fact that I'm refering to a bunch of neo-socialist envior-wackos.

Interesting that you should mention faith, though, because I'm also an admirer of the Constitution Party, which of course surprises people who know me as a hardline atheist.

But the Greens and the Constitutionists, however misguided we may see them as being, must be respected for at least trying to adhere to their principles.(and besides, you have to love the theocrat's anti-statism;THEY can surely be counted on to NEVER advocate foreign aid!)I'll bet you if we started an atheist free-state project, they'd support us in good will.

You would think a party who's ideology is in essense, a practical guide to structuring a society tailored to the human species would have a lot less trouble.

But I guess there are those who can't stand the heat, so they unplug the stove, and still want to be admired as gourmet cooks!

---Thank You for your comments,
The Bikemessenger

Robert,

The Greens are late to the Party. I called for Bush's impeachment over a year ago. It doesnt matter much, becuase I dont have the power to do it.

Tim,
I have proudly supported the libertarians for several years now, but the ill feelings that are constantly expressed towards big business are not only unpopular with the the general public but they are misguided half truths,and libertarians need to take a real introspective look at how they deal with this issue. Libertarians cannot be the party of fairness if it means fair treatment for all unless you are a large corporation.

1.) Corps are using resources that are legal, thus making it a governmental issue not corporate, if the government closes the loopholes that corps use then the corps don't use them anymore.

2.) small business does not generally get run out by large business. The problem with small business is almost always within, they mismanage money or they try to directly compete with large corps. if you open a 2 or 3 thousand sq. ft. facility and try to directly compete with the large chains you will surely lose. much the same if I tried to box with lennox lewis. Millions of mom and pop shops and small businesses all over this country do exceedingly well, and they do it because they offer better services and products then the large corps can or will provide.

I urge libertarians all across this country to stop attacking big business, get your focus back on the government and what the government needs to be doing to ensure that small business has the ability to do well, by making sure there is no government provided advantage to large corps. we cannot and should not provide special rights for one or the other or shut down businesses for being large.

J,

I am concerned about the individual person, first and foremost. Everything starts with them. I have never suggested shutting down any business, no matter how large. It's amazing to me what people come up with that you NEVER SAID when you take a position on something. :)

What I am against is the ability of large corporations to extract concessions from government that Joe's Barber Shop cannot get. I am against unequal treatment and believe that corporations should not have special protections or privledges that human beings cant get for themselves. Attacking this from only the government side is doomed to failure - there is no pol alive making a fat buck off the system in place that will vote to change it.

YOu have to ask yourself a simple question. "Does private industry have the same level of power and control over the individual person that government has?" I believe in specific areas, they do, becuase of the corruption and law writing ability to benefit themselves is used against small business, competition, and the individual citizen.

Libertarians cant have blinders on just becuase some structures that abuse freedom are privately owned.

Rob, is the Constitution actually anti-statist? Every time I try to check out their platform I am put off by all the god and jesus stuff on their front page. I usually run away before getting to their platform. I figured they were just another "our religion should control every aspect of your life," or in other words: social-conservative.

I meant Constitution Party.

Tim ,
thanks for the clarification, it seems we agree.
Jeff

The Constitution Party platform is remarkably libertarian, for example calling for complete privatization of education. It does support the drug war, and oppose the right to die. It probably supports immigration control, though I don't recall offhand. Except for a strong anti-abortion plank, I don't think it supports much of anything that would be worse than what we have now. It does have a quaint demand for return of the Panama Canal.

Robert Noval is complaining that he seems to have been banned from the LP Blog. Anyone know anything about that?

Tim-
The Lp has always been very vocal about ending corporate welfare and removing congress's illegitimate authority to give one group special treatment. As James Madison pointed out this was the point of having a republic v democracy was that he didn't want group rights ,really read group privilege, overriding individual rights. So if you would please avoid being overly vauge how eactly beyond the current lp's position would you change this? I disagree that lp has blinders on with this issue. I want to know what is wrong with this position and how would you change it to make it better? You keep saying that we should go after the corporate abusers of this illegitimate congressional authority. What action against these coporations would you like to take? If you are talking boycotts I'm with you. If you want to give legitimacy to congress's central planning authority by pushing for regulation or giving special treatment to large corporation's competitors then you are working against the exact princple you claim to support. Individual rights.

Matt,

I'll have more to say on that on my blog. I dont think Congress is the real problem. It's much more a Local/State government problem concerning business "incentives" that government has no right to give away in the first place. I'll rap about it later, trust me. It's always bugged me that big global corp's can get handouts that Joe's Barber Shop, or Joe himself, for that matter, cant get.

I believe the last post on Duval's part was about how the Green Party's position on the Iraq War was better and more principled than the IES was, and included a link back to the Greens. My guess is that this was in violation of a blog rule stated way back when of supporting another party on here. Putting a link back to the Greens was what probably sent him over the edge.

It's a bad idea to promote and link another party's solutions in the offical LP Blog.

Shane, it looks like the spam bots have found us. See the traktor backs below this post.

>Timothy West: 'Putting a link back to the Greens was what probably sent him over the edge.'

David Tomlin: That might be so, but it leaves me wondering why the offending post has not itself been deleted.

In any case, if a person is to be banned, I think it would be common courtesy for the person to be notified and informed of the reason.

Sheehan Leaves But Crawford Antiwar Activity Going Up!
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/message/40197

Why are you deleting my attempts at posting an update about the Crawford antiwar protest that the LP should be supporting?

-Terry Liberty Parker
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/message/40213

Terry,
I was removing those posts because the preceding text to the link was gibberish. It was making no sense. I will leave your current one up though. Sorry about the confusion.

Report of Anti Iraq War Activity:

Code(Hot)Pink at Gates of Western Whitehouse

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/message/40213

Where is the Libertarian Party presence in support of America's majority who want US out of Iraq!

Crawford Bush Vigil Hosts Joan Baez and More THIS Weekend

AntiWar Celeb(s) are showing up

Ernest Hancock, Air America Phoenix in Crawford TX
Reports Cindy soon returns and JOAN BAEZ this weekend

MuchMoreAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/message/40239

BoomingIntoBushBedroom: US out of Iraq!
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/message/40240

Republicans AND Democrats continue to advocate 'Stay the course'

Libertarian Party is the on ballot alternative for MOST Americans as they answer with:

US out of Iraq!

So, where is the LP official presence at this popularly inspiring protest?

-Terry Liberty Parker
VoiceCall 1.512.462.1776

SUNDAY Nite Call-in TV:
Crawford Protest(s) Action Report/Videos

This Sunday's installment of the Jeff Davis Show
will air clips of celebs/interviews/activities at Crawford Texas antiwar fallen soldier protest

10pm on TimeWarner Austin TV 10 and
AustinLibertyInterNet TV via www.PeerCast.org

MuchMoreInfoAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/message/40249

Sunday6pm JOAN BAEZ Sings at Crawford Protest

YES! REALLY! COME ONE COME ALL--you missed quite a show last night if you
weren't here...some absolutely fabulous love and support and new alliances
and well, this is NO REHEARSAL folks, as Steve Earle sang, THE REVOLUTION
STARTS NOW!!!!

Joan will play 6-7pm tonite--but PLEASE GET HERE SOONER, MUCH SOONER or you
will be in a traffic jam or waiting on shuttles from Tonkawa Park parking
lots instead of being with the beautiful peeps at sunset listening to JOAN
LIVE IN PERSON!

Cindy will most likely return Wednesday - look for more info tomorrow about
events planned for Wed. evening - the next weekend.

Deb, at REVOLUTION Central!
573-6194 (but reception is UBER sketchy at the new site, so don't expect
much via phone)

PS: Directions to the new site: follow the old ones I've posted - from
Crawford Peace House, go past railroad tracks to thru light to Prairie
Chapel Road--follow around past the counter protesters -and silly banners to
the original Camp Casey, continue past it - no turns - and when you run
smack dab into the barricade set up on the road leading to Bush's ranch,
wave at the SS and turn left, your only option and then at the second street
sign you see, turn right onto Quiet Valley Rd. - it's gravel - and follow it
around to the gigantic tent. Parking attendants will tell you where to park.

SeeMuchMoreAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/message/40257

InterNetPlayback:
JOAN BAEZ & More at Crawford TX Protest

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/message/40279

FreePlayback:

hear JOAN BAEZ Sing & More at Crawford Protest

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/message/40294

Joan Baez Will Remain at Crawford War Protest Thru Thursday

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/message/40347

P2P: Continuous Crawford War Protest InterNet Streaming Media

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/message/40390

I strongly support the $0 for new membership to the party. Although the party obviously needs money to grow, I believe that the parties main priority should be recruiting members. When people see a party that is all about money, that can turn people away.

CrawfordCindyGazette: SHEEhan's baaack!!!

Pics, reports and practical advice for this Saturdays Western Whitehouse Iraq War Protest

at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/message/40448

Bush Rejects Early Crawford Withdrawl as 'Wrong Message'

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/message/40476

Peer 2 Peer:
Continuous Crawford War Protest InterNet Streaming Media NOW!

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TerryLiberty/message/125

SATURDAY: Pro/Anti War Rallies AND 2pm Debate
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TerryLiberty/message/126

Hey! How about ceasing to post other sites in these comments? If you want me to go read another site, forget it! Just tell me briefly what you think I should know.

LIVE Crawford War Protest InterNet Streaming Media NOW!

From Camp Casey in Crawford Texas

AustinLibertyInetNetWarProtestRadio
'Peer to Peer' Continuous Audio 24kbps stream
via 'yellow Pages' at www.PeerCast.org

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/message/40511

CRAWFORD: from a single vigil to 'dueling protets!

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TerryLiberty/message/130

Crawford Protest Central Live Radio at High Noon in Texas

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TerryLiberty/message/134

Cindy Goes to Austin THEN a City Near You

You better watch out, you better not lie
Better not cheat, I'm telling you why
Cindy Sheehan's coming to town

She's making a list and checking it twice
Gonna find out who's violent or nice
Cindy Sheehan's coming to town

She sees you when you're hiding
She knows when you're afraid
She knows if you've been true or false
So be true for goodness sake

Oh! You better watch out, you better not cry
Better not cheat, I'm telling you why
Cindy Sheehan's coming to town

MuchMoreAt
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TerryLiberty/message/137