The first rule of building a organization is being followed for the first time in my memory for the LP. I've never seen a genuine attempt to poll the membership before on the future direction of the party that didnt have some type of ulterior motive attached before now.

Thanks for making the results public. The results on the last 2 questions are very revealing. ( and good to see )

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/10/06/D8D2IU703.html
Gore on democracy

Bush says G-d told him to invade iraq?
is this a joke?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2005/10_october/06/bush.shtml

The LP has since inception regularly polled or involved members in bottom-up consensus. The current project is primarily member initiated after a process of consultation that took several years. The latest mode of fundraising for ballot access was a pilot for this contribution funding.

The current Strategic Plan was created after soliciting all-party comment and involvement of hundreds of activists who actually had experience in what worked. Member-driven projects such as the current Libertarian Program are being created in a 6 year research, polling and testing process.

Funding at national and many state LP's has always to a great degree and now is more consciously project specific, and thus to based on what contributors want done and will fund plus what volunteers will actually do. This may create the impression of surveys with ulterior motives for people unaware of the process. The motive is straightforward: to see if people will actually support, not just discuss, a project.

Eventually the hope is all projects are funded on a specific contribution basis. Staff seems to be working very hard here under less than ideal circumstances.

What the party should be doing is teaching our members how to emulate the successes of the hundreds of Libertarian campaigns across this country.

When the LP had a professional staff focused on getting Libertarians elected there were campaign training courses instructing the committed in the tools of political success. Seminars were held accross the land.

These training sessions dealt in the basics of campaigning. Some little time was spent on party issues but the staff back then understood that the activists had a grasp of LP fundementals. The brunt of the training was focused on technique.

These courses were instructed, in person, by Libertarians that had run campaigns. Michael
Cloud, Barb Goushaw, all of the greats put their experience and their passion into the instruction and this face to face contact motivated hundreds of Libertarians to campaign to win.

This sorry online motivational program offered by the present administration is too lame for words. It reminds me of the drivel farmed out by corporate hr hacks, designed to mollify the workers and present an image of progess.

Here in Oakland County, Michigan, we are getting Libertarians elected and re-elected by using the successful training of the past administrations.

I can only hope that the current administration will focus on what has worked instead of what they hope will be.

Bruce Hoepner

Hundreds of libertarian campaign successes?

Where? The only success in politics is if your candidate wins. The LP has hundreds of people in positions, but most of them are appointed ( which is fine ) but we have maybe a few dozen people that actually won a contested electoral race at best. The highest current *LP* officeholder right now is Brandon in GA, is it not? He's a County Executive.

The days of Michael Cloud and Company were the WORST days for the LP. I'm curious to know where all this "2000" era LP worship is coming from. Don't you remember that the LP wound up over $500,000 in debt as a result of all that, and the people that did this to the LP through manipulation and fraud were let off scot free by certain people who desired to sweep it under the rug after the deed was done? I do. The LP was run lock stock and barrel by professional fundraisers; it wasn't a political party. The hype in the fundraising letters then was incredible - and NONE of the things in those letters ever came true, NOT ONE OF THEM. It was all garbage designed to seperate libertarians from their money as soon as they could. I am glad to be rid of the whole lot.

Re the LP Program: Wasn't the Libertarian Program voted to be discontinued by the LNC at the last meeting or the one before that?

I want to voice my support for the Voter Identification Project. I wish there were more details about how they propose to do it, but I'm glad there is at least a recognition by the staff at national headquarters that such information is vital in any election the LP wants to win.

In reference to Mr. West's question: "Re the LP Program: Wasn't the Libertarian Program voted to be discontinued by the LNC at the last meeting or the one before that? "

The LNC voted to recommend to the 2006 Convention By-Laws Committee to do away with the by-law which mentions the program, a motion to do such that will be in front of the by-laws committee in Portland.

DC uses eminent domain to take peoples home and use it for a ballpark.

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20051006-120902-5838r.htm

TERRIBLE

Trevor, thanks for the info.

The days of Michael Cloud were the days of our greatest numbers and highest recognition. The lessons of that era are still getting Libertarians elected in Michigan. This in spite of the past reformist leadership's do nothing policies whittling down our exposure and activism.

The professional fundraisers gave the LP the highest level of recognition in it's history, compared with the obscurity we now enjoy. Our candidates were on national television Tim. When I told people that I was a Libertarian no one asked, "what's that?" They ask that now.

Obfuscate the past as you wish. Even with it's flaws, that era is worlds better than the digrace of our current staus.

In most of Michigan we will still practice the old regime and continue to get Libertarians elected.

Tim? How many Libertarians have you got elected?

Tim: Could you please provide the URL of the FEC report that shows we were over $500,000 in debt at one time?

On a slightly different note, have you all noticed how bad Bush's approval rating has gotten? See the article at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/07/AR2005100701233.html which reports that:

"Only 28 percent say the country is headed in the right direction while two-thirds, 66 percent, say it is on the wrong track, the poll found."

"Among those most likely to have lost confidence about the nation's direction over the past year are white evangelicals, down 30 percentage points since November, Republican women, down 28 points, Southerners, down 26 points, and suburban men, down 20 points."

We now need an effective Voter Identification Project more than ever before, because we're missing a golden opportunity as a party to take advantage of Bush's weakness. Don't be surprised if the Democrats take back Congress in 2006.

Just one of the many URLS showing the truth about the post 2000-2002 record of the LNC:

http://world.std.com/~mhuben/oconnell

lots of other ones out there. The reason why the Party went to crap in that time period was directly caused by the crimes of Browne. Willis, and the resulting membership quitting in droves after the 2000 campaign. I was one of them - I left in 2000 and didnt rejoin until 2003.

I'm with you on the voter ID project Walt. Sorely needed.

The above posts by Mr. West are amusing for their foolishness.

EXPERT SEZ: "The days of Michael Cloud and Company were the WORST days for the LP."

Maybe so, if one were a sit-on-the-couch kind of person.

Those who chose to get up off the couch and commit political acts actually found having 33,000 members and plenty of money around for projects and activity rather refreshing.

EXPERT SEZ: "I'm curious to know where all this "2000" era LP worship is coming from."

We're not the ones who keep bringing up the ancient past, Mr. Expert.

EXPERT SEZ: "Don't you remember that the LP wound up over $500,000 in debt as a result of all that,"

Mr. Expert, please check your facts before you ruin your credibility. Ooops. Too late.

Your $500,000 claim is so far off, both in amount and who was "responsible" for the rather small debt the LP was faced with at the end of 2001, that it's really not even worth responding to in any detail. No one is obligated to check the facts posted by others who are too lazy to check for themselves.

EXPERT SEZ: "... and the people that did this to the LP through manipulation and fraud "

There was no fraud. Manipulation? How about what is said on Mr. Expert's own website? I see lots of claims made that definitely qualify as minipulative, if not fraudulent. Those without sin may cast the first stones...

EXPERT SEZ: "... were let off scot free by certain people who desired to sweep it under the rug after the deed was done?"

Names?

EXPERT SEZ: "I do."

Memories are an amazing thing. They can pull events that never happened right out of thin air.

EXPERT SEZ: "The LP was run lock stock and barrel by professional fundraisers; it wasn't a political party. "

So now we're raising less money than we have in a decade and a half, we're running fewer political campaigns than we have in years, and yet NOW we're a political party?

EXPERT SEZ: "The hype in the fundraising letters then was incredible - and NONE of the things in those letters ever came true, NOT ONE OF THEM. "

Maybe Mr. Expert would like to quote specific text from one of those fundraisers, IN CONTEXT, and show us what was PROMISED that didn't come true.

EXPERT SEZ: "It was all garbage designed to seperate libertarians from their money as soon as they could. I am glad to be rid of the whole lot."

And so, these folks who you love to accuse of high crimes have been replaced by ... experts in building a political party?

And four years after they were purged, you still talk about them with hatred? They are still the center of your life?

EXPERT SEZ: "Just one of the many URLS showing the truth about the post 2000-2002 record of the LNC: http://world.std.com/~mhuben/oconnell "

What a great link. Between the incredible inability of the author to conduct a simple spellcheck and grammar check, much less do any fact-checking, this article makes your case about as well as anything I've yet seen from you.

Maybe the fact that the person (Huben) on whose website you saw that article is fanatically opposed to libertarianism might suggest "agenda" to the logical reader:

http://world.std.com/~mhuben/

A lot of the misinformation and loaded commentary in O'Connel's article were lifted directly from the wildly-flung accusations of a two-time LP presidential candidate wannabe. Most members who can read long ago realized this man's campaign of destruction was just that. Eventually, even he gave up the fight perhaps seeing that he had irretrievably ruined his own stature within the LP.

In any case, perhaps the source of your link doesn't bother you. However, I can think of no compelling reason for the LP to listen to criticism from any Democrat or Republican hack. They are out there to promote themselves, not us.

Both Huben and O'Connel state plainly that they are opposed to libertarianism.

EXPERT SEZ: "lots of other ones out there. The reason why the Party went to crap in that time period was directly caused by the crimes of Browne. Willis, and the resulting membership quitting in droves after the 2000 campaign. I was one of them - I left in 2000 and didnt rejoin until 2003."

So let's see if we have this straight. You were brought into the LP by some means. I assume by your statements on your website that you're a fairly youthful fellow (I don't believe I've ever met you, so I wouldn't know). In any case, your relative youthfulness likely means you came to the LP sometime in the 1995 to 1999 timeframe - in other words, the banner years for the evil cabal you hate so much.

Yet rather than do anything productive, you chose to leave the LP in 2000 because it wasn't perfect-according-to-Expert.

The casual reader should recognize that those who are currently dragging the LP into bankruptcy are usually the folks who keep breaking open the ancient history toolbox and dredging up past arguments. Maybe it's a desperate attempt to divert attention from the very real negative impact they have had upon the LP.

There were no "crimes" committed by Browne or Willis. The only criminal action that actually injured the Party was committed not by Browne or Willis, but rather by one of their most vocal opponents. That crime was theivery, plain and simple, and it was admitted by the defendant.

It's time to move on. Stop dragging up the past and instead focus on what you can do to promote the Party's ideas *now*. Stop attacking other people who are, in contrast to the couch potato "experts", trying to promote the Party's ideas.

Attacking others does not qualify as promoting the LP.

Actually, it got brought up by others. I just hate to see revisionist history represented as fact for those who came in late.

Some members of the LP who voted on various iterations of the Libertarian Party platform might be interested to know what some think of their work. For instance:

"I think the current platform is a bucket of foul fecal matter dripped from the behind of a Musk Ox."

This is how the product of your labor is characterized by at least one person who posts here.

One wonders if the individual who utters such poetry ever directs any of his immense talent towards the Democrats or Republicans.

EXPERT SEZ: "Actually, it got brought up by others."

If you think so, go back and re-read the thread. *You* brought up your "high crimes" issues, no one else did. Hoepner was talking about some first-class training that had been given.

EXPERT SEZ: "I just hate to see revisionist history represented as fact for those who came in late."

Revisionist history?

So the Success97/99 seminars and training materials - most offered at no cost to the activist, and often featuring real political advice from real, highly-sought-after, honest-to-goodness political consultants - didn't really happen?

That might come as a surprise to some of the folks who attended those seminars and received the training materials. Guess we were all under a collective hallucination.

I guess even though at least a couple of the handouts are still in my LP resources notebook and referred to even to this day, that I must be imagining that they are there.

I got the same handouts when I ran in 2000. They were not of much help explaining the LP platform of 2000 in public, especially the "childrens rights" plank. You can have all the training in the world and if the product you are trying to sell sucks, no one will buy it. The LP "product" of 2000 sucked. The "product" we have today only slightly sucks a bit less, becuase some of the absolute worst crap in the platform has been removed, and we have some folks in charge now that are not concerned with making the LP their own personal cash cow for their election campaign.

I stand by every word. The current platform of the LP is a utter and complete piece of junk, and the quicker it gets changed, the better it will be for the LP and for you.

Expert signing off. :D

BTW, we have a new PAC!

http://libertyforsale.com/2005/10/10/new-libertarian-reform-pac/

I just know you are going to the first to donate, right?

Mr. Walter, I appreciate and agree with your posts above. But you probably shouldn't waste your time with such detailed responses.

One thing I've learned since joining the LP is that some Libertarians just like pointing fingers. They aren't at all concerned about making serious accusations against other Libertarians in public forums (e.g., "fraud"). They use language very loosely and act indignant when they're called on it.

Obviously, no one in the LP committed "fraud" or "crimes" during the time in question. At worst, some LP leaders were guilty of an overly optimistic view of what was possible for the party to achieve. As a result, some Libertarians were very disappointed when things didn't pan out that way, and they still feel bitterness toward those individuals.

In my view, spending much time addressing warped charges gives the Libertarians who are making the charges attention that they don't deserve.

Yeah, that crew was so trustworthy the Pennsylvania LP renounced the whole lot by resolution:

At the Libertarian Party of Pennsylvania Board of Directors meeting, on Sunday, September 23, 2001 the Board of Directors passed the following resolution.

QUOTE

=====LP of Pa. Board of Directors resolution passed 3:01pm 9/23/2001====

"Whereas, certain individuals associated with the Libertarian Party conspired to violate National Libertarian Party policy, libertarian principles, and normal standards of business ethics, and

Whereas, we have in the past supported, promoted and endorsed these individuals by our official actions and in our publications and appeals, and

Whereas, we have an obligation to keep our membership informed;

Therefore, we the Libertarian Party of Pennsylvania withdraw any expressed or implied endorsement of any of these individuals or organizations or projects in which they are involved. The individuals are, in alphabetical order:
Sharon Ayres
David Bergland
Harry Browne
Michael (Emerling) Cloud
Jack Harris Dean
Perry Willis

Additional people may be named as future evidence warrants."

======end of motion========

Based on the discussion during the meeting, members of the board consider the resolution a first -- rather than final -- step in encouraging libertarians across the nation to withdraw their endorsement and support of those who violated our trust.

Their continued denials, attempts to cover-up, obfuscate and misdirect attention from their actions continue even now. They arrogantly refused to cooperate with any LNC investigation or present themselves to the same body from which they continually seek favors and support. Their refusal to answer would be more than sufficient evidence to withdraw any endorsement or support.

UNQUOTE

These are the people that you are touting as the greatest in LP history, responsible for the LP being in much better shape than it is today??? I dont see State LP's passing resolutions against National today. Warped charges indeed.

Like I said, the LP dont need no revisionist history. The real thing is bad enough. Thank God we are clear of it now and moving on.

Here's another "warped charge". This explains the membership numbers of 1996-2000 : pure manipulation by systematic means.

June 18, 1996 EC Meeting

Willis demands “P” transaction

The “P” transaction installation on or about June 19th, 1996. The “P” transaction request was made by Perry Willis and backed up by the EC, which would allow the processing of Harry Browne campaign donations against the membership database thereby advancing all membership expiration dates one year or reinstating memberships that had expired for all those donors who had membership signatures on file. JDF objected to this because Harry Browne had not been nominated yet and the double processing of campaign donations would skew the membership numbers. JDF did make the changes to the system and tested it in a separate testing environment but refused to put that version into production before the July convention. Perry Willis got Stuart Reges to move the test program into the production system one week before the convention. JDF assumed that this was done to pump up the membership and subscription numbers to impress the convention delegates.

Yeah, that's warped all right. These guys were SO GOOD! We want the LP to be more like the 1996~2000 LP, dont we?........dont we?

How about using the Harry Browne campaign as a mealticket and charging absurd "consulting" fees against the Harry Browne campaign? Is that a warped charge?

Of the Browne campaign expenditures of approximately $1.5 million as of November, FEC reports showed under the category of "consulting" a total of $614,385. Specific individuals breakdown as follows (amounts over $10,000 only):

Sharon Ayres $127,722

Michael Emerling Cloud $ 85,943

Stuart Reges $ 60,334

Terry Bronson $ 57,666

Jack Dean $ 53,251

Robert Martin $ 42,527

Lisa Paley $ 38,664

Jack Williams $ 29,948

Kiana Delmare $ 25,239

Autumn Wilson $ 19,940

I contributed to the Browne Campaign of both 1996 and 2000, but had I known that most of the officals of the campaign were charging big time fees against the donations I might not have been so ready to support Browne. Some of these people were charging more in fees than I make in a year!!

Now all this is about 5% of the materials I have relating to that time period of the LP, and I lived through it as well. I only post it becuase at some point one has to respond to even crap debates lest someone think the silence from the other side means they dont have a good case to be made. I wouldnt want that to happen. :)

This will be my final post here in the interest of letting everyone move on down the road.

I'm sorry you felt the need to post all that here, Tim. For the uninitiated who want to know the truth, go to www.harrybrowne.org/2000/toc.htm. You can read the section titled "Controversy in the Libertarian Party" and decide for yourself.

EXPERT SEZ: "These are the people that you are touting as the greatest in LP history, responsible for the LP being in much better shape than it is today??? I dont see State LP's passing resolutions against National today."

If you haven't seen it, you're not looking.

Several states and locals either passed or seriously considered resolutions regarding LNC actions in the past eight to ten months. A big one was the dues increase, another big one was a so-called "secret ballot" taken on the dues increase; and then several statements have been bandied about regarding zero dues and the abolition of UMP.

In fact, this year has probably seen a record amount of backlash against LNC actions.

Oh -- and the PA leaders who so self-righteously made that statement were themselves turned out by Pennsylvanians after the home team got tired of their petty warring against others who weren't as perfect as they.

EXPERT SEZ: "Like I said, the LP dont need no revisionist history."

You're right, there. Too bad that's an example of the pot calling the kettle black.

EXPERT SEZ: "The real thing is bad enough. Thank God we are clear of it now and moving on."

Obviously, since you spent several hours today composing these witty responses, perhaps "moving on" is something of a misstatement.

Okay gentlemen... I have to speak up.

I belong to no inside group of the party, some of both like me, some of both hate me... big deal.

Here's the issue: all of what you are talking about is in the PAST. It happened; we can't undo it, we can't go back, we can only just let it sit there and go forward.

If the LP is ever going to have a major breakthough we can't keep talking about the same old crap.

We have a national staff now that is committed and that is working its tails off. It's a far more responsive staff then we've had nad it's a staff that is committed to the success of the LP.

We have an LNC that wants to have the memberships opinion and that wants to do what is best for the party. Some still disagree as to what that is; but the LNC does want to improve.

We have a membership that is stepping up by joining the pledge program and supporting their state and local parties. Our membership is ready to do what needs to be done to win.

Now, if you don't mind... I'm asking you (I can't order, demand or enforce) but this is our national web site... can we give it a little respect? There are plenty of blogs, web sites, etc... that take one side or another to party disputes, but here: we need to set those aside and work to advance the Libertarian cause... not one part of the cause, but the whole cause.

Thank you.

I have to add my 2 cents.

I don't know about what happened with Harry Browne, et al. Frankly, I don't care.

In my humble opinion, whether they were honest or dishonest at this point is moot.

The point is they were ineffective.

Michael Badnarik, despite not having much money and despite being from the "eccentric" wing of the party (I'll put it politely) got more votes than Browne did in 2000, and almost as many as he did in 1996.

So, even if they were as pure as the wind-driven snow, they were ineffective leaders, ineffective campaigners, and Harry Browne was not a good candidate.

Further, Michael is using his name recognition to run for Congress - a winnable race - which is something no LP presidential candidate besides Ron Paul has done (that I'm aware of, anyway).

This shows leadership, in my opinion, and Michael should be commended for it.

Whatever the LP has done wrong in the past, we have to hang together and quit it with these internal squabbles.

Trevor said: "Here's the issue: all of what you are talking about is in the PAST. It happened; we can't undo it, we can't go back, we can only just let it sit there and go forward."

Except sometimes the past has good things to teach us, which is what Hoepner pointed out in speaking of the training the national staff did six years ago.

I find it offensive that some pretend to speak for LP members yet the only thing they want to talk about is the myriad of "crimes" they are convinced everyone except themselves committed. Especially when much of their opinion was fostered by sheer imagination and wasted hubris on their own part.

Trevor said: "If the LP is ever going to have a major breakthough we can't keep talking about the same old crap."

Agreed. Mr. Hoepner had no intention of bringing up "the same old crap". He spoke instead of a positive contribution former staffers had made to the party: an excellent training series. The response was the equivalent of three or four printed pages of sheer vitriol. Much of it peppered with exxaggerations and inaccuracies.

Those who live to scandalize hard-working and committed Libertarians for perceived mistakes need to resign and spend their ire on Democrats and Republicans instead. We don't need them in the LP.

Trevor said: "We have an LNC that wants to have the memberships opinion ... "

Interesting, because several folks have now reported that more than one LNC member has asked not to be contacted.

Trevor said: "and that wants to do what is best for the party."

Then maybe the LNC should consider more carefully how its decisions will be perceived by outsiders. Perhaps you aren't aware of the level of discontent by the rank and file. Perhaps you haven't been listening to the reaction to the decision to double dues, and then doing a back flip and eliminating them. Most members who are paying attention -- usually the folks in volunteer positions in the state parties -- don't understand what it is you guys think you are accomplishing.

Trevor said: "We have a membership that is stepping up by joining the pledge program ..."

That's great news. The last anyone heard, the number of pledgers, and the amounts being collected, had fallen drastically.

Trevor said: "... and supporting their state and local parties."

That's great news. Perhaps you'd like to share a report showing how state and local parties are doing financially this year compared to last year. Some believe that the wheel-spinning at the national level is dragging down morale and fundraising at the affiliate level too; some hard figures might help to alleviate that concern.

Trevor said: "Our membership is ready to do what needs to be done to win."

As always. But they also need to see honesty and consistency - and above all responsiveness - from the leadership before they will step up.

Trevor said: "Now, if you don't mind... I'm asking you (I can't order, demand or enforce) but this is our national web site... can we give it a little respect? There are plenty of blogs, web sites, etc... that take one side or another to party disputes, but here: we need to set those aside and work to advance the Libertarian cause... not one part of the cause, but the whole cause."

This is a little late, Trevor. Those of us in the "loyal opposition" watched silently as the blogs were taken over by the PC faction of the day. For example, I didn't start posting until the blog had been up for months.

Meanwhile, many discussions were dominated by couch potatos who were telling active people that they were doing everything wrong and everything they had done in the past was wrong, too.

Maybe if some could have restrained themselves restricted their vitriol to things the vast majority of libertarians would agree on (like the lunatic actions of the majority parties), most of the "loyal opposition" would not have become stoked enough to start offering counterpoint.

YOU KNOW PEOPLE there are corruption in all parties unfortunately. But RIGHT NOW HOPEFULLY WE HAVE some good people doing the right things.

WE HAVE AN importaint issues, that IS we need to get on the MOVE ON with 2006 elections and 2008 elections. Get a clue, we do not have a lot of TIME to waste.

Hillary Clinton is all over the place and people are deperate enough right now she just MIGHT WIN. Then we are in more trouble. People do you want that. Our health care added to the right of the bunch, more areas of socialism.

While they were sooooo on Mr. Clinton for the Monica situation. I do not think he came anywhere near what Bush and the rest is doing now. Ruining our LIVES.

PEOPLE GET OVER IT> can we TALK AND WORK ON RIGHT NOW WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO ABOUT ELECTION AND WHO is running.

Suggestions. When people advertise themselves. They should not say I promise or no new taxes.

But things like, I want to change and overturn and it will take help from the people and the people in the White house as it takes more then one person to change things. Also it would sound more realistic to say my goal is, we need to give back the people the freedom, we need to work on issues such as property taxes, eminent domain.
What also especially important in promoting is. I would like not to impress you people with how much money I spend in fancy advertising and driving a fancy car. But I want to impress you with what is right, OUR FREEDOM. I want to win you over in votes in getting back our freedom which is going to take a lot of work to undue the damage that has been done.

So people (The voters) what is important to you, working to get our freedom back, and I tell you with words. Or trying to win you over with expensive fancy parties and advertising. I am just like you. The average joe who wants the same things as you. A loving home, family and a place that is safe.

Ok that is my 2 cents worth. Maybe I should run.
lol lol. just kidding.

Oh man, you mean I'm not in the loyal opposition anymore... dern. :-)

One statement really stuck out to me that I have to respond to: "Interesting, because several folks have now reported that more than one LNC member has asked not to be contacted."

I don't know who these people are, but it's sad and pathetic if any member of the LNC would ask not to be contacted. All LNC members should be open to hearing and talking with members... I'm always open to civil discussion and debate with people I represent in Region 4 or anywhere else.

I can see activity increasing in Region 4, especially in Tennessee... and it makes me glad.

I'm proud of what the LP has accomplished, but know we can do so much more if we work together and apply ourselves.

Chris in NJ said: "Michael Badnarik, despite not having much money and despite being from the "eccentric" wing of the party (I'll put it politely) got more votes than Browne did in 2000, and almost as many as he did in 1996."

And once again, if you don't want to dredge up past issues, don't make claims about the past that beg to be refuted.

It's not particularly meaningful to measure up one of these races against another.

In 1996, Browne faced off against six other parties in most states. In only one state did he have as few as four opponents. Here are the candidates who were on the ballot in most states, with their percentages:

01 49.17% Democratic(Clinton)
02 40.66% Republican (Dole)
03 8.39% Reform (Perot)
04 .71% Green (Nader)
05 .50% Libertarian (Browne)
06 .19% U.S. Taxpayers (Phillips)
07 .12% Natural Law (Hagelin)

If memory serves me, all of the above also raised more money for the presidential campaign than the LP did except for the Taxpayers Party. Note, BTW, that Nader watchers suggest that there was a lot more money invested in both of his campaigns than was reported.

In 2000, Browne again faced six other candidates:

01 Democratic(Gore)
02 Republican (Bush)
03 2.71% Green (Ralph Nader)
04 .43% Reform (Buchanan)
05 .37% Libertarian (Harry Browne)
06 .10% Constitution (Phillips)
07 .09% Natural Law (Hagelin)

And once again, I seem to recall we were out-spent by everyone but the Constitution Party.

In 2004, Badnarik got a big break. He was on the ballot in 48 states, at least a couple were three-way only (Badnarik against BushKerry) and a few of the others were four-way races with Badnarik, BushKerry - and Cobb or Peroutka, whose parties by this time were all but broke and utterly silent:

01 50.7% Republican (Bush)
02 48.3% Democrat (Kerry)
03 0.4% Independent, Reform Connecticut (Nader)
04 0.3% Libertarian (Badnarik)
05 0.1% Constitution (Peroutka)
06 0.1% Green (Cobb)

While I watch the vote totals as much as anyone, there are also differing conditions in every election that make each one into a different animal than every other one.

Chris in NJ said: "So, even if they were as pure as the wind-driven snow, they were ineffective leaders, ineffective campaigners, and Harry Browne was not a good candidate."

I suspect that if former NM Governor Gary Johnson found himself in a presidential campaign with only $2 million to spend, you would likely be saying the same thing about him after it was all over.

None of the other candidates who competed for the nomination would have done any better. If they couldn't muster the votes to get the nomination, they wouldn't have been able to muster more votes than Browne in November 2000 or 1996, either.

Get over it.

D Walter -

I'm not saying Badnarik was an ideal candidate, either. He was far from ideal. He represented the "I don't file income taxes, I carry a glock everywhere I go, and I have a bomb shelter in my back yard" wing of the party.

It's not like Michael didn't have obstacles to overcome, as well. The right was making it sound like we were all going to die if Bush didn't get re-elected, and the left was making it sound like we were all going to die if Bush did get re-elected. The "lesser of 2 evils" syndrome was much stronger in 2004 than in any election I can remember, mostly due to the War on Terror.

Michael had zero name recognition, very little money, and, honestly, he scared the hell out of many of us when he got the nomination.

Yet, he managed to do as well as Browne did in 2000. That was the only point I was making.

I know Harry is going to have his supporters. I like him as a person and listen to his radio show. I just think Michael did a better job as a candidate and the leadership over the last few years seems to be moving in the right direction.

Let me see if I've got this straight. Michael Badnarik got a few thousand more votes in 2004 than Harry Browne got in 2000. Therefore, he's a better leader and today's leadership is better than yesterday's leadership.

I like both Browne and Badnarik very much, but this discussion is lunacy. Quibbling over 0.07% of the vote is just plain silly. We've got to be thinking in terms of what it takes to get millions of votes more, not how we got a few thousand more.

Let's regain a little perspective, folks.

Where I meant to go with all that is that Michael is now running for Congress - something that Harry didn't want to do.

He's using his name recognition to build up to actually winning something. He may not win for congress, but he may eventually win for state assembly, county freeholder, or something.

That is what I meant by showing leadership.

Sorry if I was longwinded about it or got sidetracked.

I agree, quibbling over .07% of the vote probably isn't the best use of this blog. Didn't mean to get the thread off on a tangent.

I enjoyed your site so much so i have to say it to you. It's impossible to experience one's death: http://www.useful-information.info/quotations/life-quotes.html , we elected them , with equanimity opinions

Hi. Just letting you know that I enjoyed your site. If you can't pay for a thing, don't buy it: http://www.bartleby.com/100/ , we elected them , an article here on DesktopLinux.com