What are her chances of winning? That's what matters.

I think successfully spreading the Libertarian principles around Alabama towns is even more important. Hopefully she will be able to reach as many people as possible.
New people, too, not just groups of pre-existing libertarians.

I believe she actually stands a shot if her competition is Roy Moore and Don Siegelman. One is a lunatic and one is a criminal. Roy Moore has actually been autographing Bibles! The man thinks he is actually God!

I heard her in a radio interview last week on "First Call with Kevin Elkins", a local Montgomery show, and she was well spoken, but unfortunately lingered on the drug issue for a while(this was more the listener's faults though, who kept calling and asking about the issue), which isn't always a hit with voters.

Getting ballot access is going to be pretty damn tough, though. Alabama has the hardest ballot access laws in the nation. She'll need about 40,000 signatures of registered voters to run. It's insane.

That's why we needed to start early.

Good for you, Loretta.

http://www.rense.com/general67/speech.htm

Call your senator now. Free speech no longer exist in Canada.
It can happen here, We will no longer be allowed saying the free things example ON THE LIBERTARIAN SITE.

I don't care if she is well spoken. What is her qualifications? What in her past has shown Albama's voters that she can handle this job? The Libertarian Party is much more well known then alot of LPers want to admit. We are known as Losertarians.We're that party that have been running candidates for thirty years and still only get 1%. This person has no business running for Governer and we shouldn't be wasting any resources including this blog space for anther 1% result to reenforce the image of Losertarians that Americans already have. She should be running for State Rep. then run for Governer after she has a resume to run on.
Until we as a party figure out that running totally unqualifed people for office is a negative to the image of the party not a postive we will continue to be the Losertarians.

I look forward to her campaign.

Ms. Nall, like any Libertarian candidate, has no chance if there are no Libertarians working on her campaign. The more organization there is behind her campaign, the more people who get off their duffs in Alabama and go to work to get her elected, the greater the chance she'll be elected.

But if all the Libertarians in Alabama believe as "matt" believes, then she will get no one working for her campaign, and in that event she couldn't get elected even if her name were Loretta Jennings Bryan.

Loretta isn't the Losertarian. That distinction belongs to naysayers like "matt" who don't mind criticizing other Libertarians who take action but wouldn't be caught dead lending a helping hand themselves.

Good luck, Loretta. I commend your willingness to do your part.

I have to kinda agree with Matt, if we do not have good candidate to be put out there and instead we have people who have a strong pot issue stance that is not going to look very good, in a matter of speaking. I would like to see a lot of libertarians get elected and run. But if they are weak candidate for wrong issues, good luck.

You guys need to post links with these. Here's the official campaign website:

http://www.nallforgovernor.com/
blog: http://nallforgovernor.blogspot.com/

The campaign site has one of those annoying flash intros that should be taken out back and shot, but other than that it's good enough (not spectacular, and I'm betting not as compelling as the other candidate sites).

Yeah, that intro with the flag moving around and the text makes me sick...Oh well. Good luck to her.

finally! Im so glad Loretta is running. Im a long time usmjer!

I wish Ms Nall well in the upcoming year. It takes alot of moxey to "toss your hat into the ring". If Libertarians would stop "beating up" on their own Party's candidates, if we would start working together as a Party, we just might have some forward progress.

The question arising here is; Do we run ideological candidates or candidates who are closer to common populace opinions with better chances of winning? The LP survives and has identity by being ideological and representing one small end of the populace spectrum. If a libertarian candidate moves closer to populace opinion in this country he/she loses libertarian identity and typically becomes something else.

As for Loretta, anyone willing to do anything to help keep Roy Moore away from being governer in my state is a friend of mine. No one I'll ever vote for for governer will ever have a chance of winning. How do I know?.. because my fellow Alabamians will always vote with their culture and not their eyes and minds. At this moment in Alabama the fight is not about winning elections. It is about the survival and preservation of a philosophy until a time when the general populace is ready to take it up.

Most everyone I talk to acknowledges that in fact most LP positions are correct. We're just not doing a good enough job getting our stuff out there. So I hope this woman gets out the word and convinces a bunch of people to be Libertarians.

I don't like the "check box style governing system". Why should I choose between ruining education and assaulting freedom? Just cut spendings; any spending!

I hope she does to, only one problem, she could deterr people because the impression could be libertarian are a bunch of pot heads. Just Lovely.

How about a Libertarian who set examples for our party that pertains to freedom and responsibility, to get the word out.

"Not" This is a Libertarian running. This is a Libertarian running on Drugs. Any questions.

Does she oppose any federal or government help to the victims of Katrina in the state of Alabama? I could not find her opinion on the "Katrina" topic on her website (nallforgovernor.com).
Running on such a platform in Alabama would clearly show that she is a candidate of principle.

She's probably being smart in not talking about that. Seems as if she's got enough controversial issues on her hands already.

She's not the only one running for Governor. William Pierce is running for Governor of Ohio.

Well if we want to wait as long as Hunter is willing to wait then we can continue to run unqualified candidates with our very limited resources.But if we want to have liberty in our lifetime we can do one of two things; A) Spend our limited resources more intelligently and build a strong grassroot base. B) Join the Free State Project.

John Christopher said: "I don't like the "check box style governing system". Why should I choose between ruining education and assaulting freedom? Just cut spendings; any spending!"

Now THAT was funny. And spot-on, too.

That said, I do have a soft spot for the checkbox idea, but only if it contains a few checkboxes that would put my money basically off-limits to the politicians.

One idea might be to have a checkbox to spend my tax money on tax reduction (think about it -- those of us interested in tax reduction would actually get a bit of a rebate even if the percentage of those choosing tax reduction was relatively small -- and the government also wouldn't get to keep the amount of our taxes; they'd have to distribute them to the taxpayers).

Another check-off box might be to provide funds for training and equipping the militia -- which has a place in a constitutional republic.

***************************************

It never ceases to amaze me how many "L"ibertarians are willing to spend hours every week checking this blog every five minutes to see if there's a new topic for them to jump on to disparage other LP members.

At least Ms. Nall has the gumption to go out there into the real world and try to spread the word.

I've noticed that the hardest-working volunteers the LP has generally do not post here.

It's too bad, because outsiders are getting the full dose of the nasty negatarians who denigrate and dismiss better volunteers as "Losertarians". These people and their continued domination of this blog make the LP look like the home of Jerry Springer types.

These negatarians would rather eat dirt than pick up a petition form, help start a local LP, recruit a candidate (hey, they could even recruit the kind of candidate they SAY they want), self-fund a newspaper ad for the LP to help bring in new members, or any one of hundreds of other productive activities.

It's a lot easier to castigate the effort of others when you're sitting on the couch.

***************************************

You know, the only people I have ever heard referring to Libertarians as "Losertarians" are members of the LP.

All of my friends and neighbors know of my political affiliation; the members of my County governing board all know my name and my affiliation, I petition every year for this candidate or that, I help staff outreach tables.

But the only time I *ever* hear the word "Losertarian" is from other so-called "libertarians".

Fine. Whatever you want to call us, negatarians. You just reveal yourself as irrelevant when you do that.

I would not mind checking boxes to inform goverment people which taxes I am willing to pay and for which purpose. I like the concept of optional taxes and I like linking taxes to a specific purpose. In other words, I like free market!
I would be curious to see how much money Republican and Democrat socialists would then give to their beloved governments. How much do they really believe in their government!

On "Katrina", I dont' think this is smart to run for Governor of Alabama and ignore the issue of wether government should step in and manage reconstruction. I am saying "ignore" because I have not seen anything on that topic on her website. A "Fema, Congress, get out" approach to Katrian and natural disasters might appeal to "dislodged voters" and liberatarian republicans.

D Walter I tend to agree with you, the hard working Libertarians are just that, out there working and do not have time for this blog. I only did this because I am new to the Libertarian party and wanted to get some ideas and information.
I have been letting people know regardless of the negative things posted here.
But you have to start somewhere. But some examples I have seen here can give newcomers the wrong impression of the party.

Those who are saying we should only run "strong" candidates are off the mark. They seem to think that strong candidates grow on trees, and all the party has to do is go pick them.

In truth, all strong candidates start out as weak candidates. The first time they run, they're weak candidates because they've never run before. Should they be criticized for that? These critics say they should, but they're wrong. Instead, the party should get behind the "weak" candidates and start working to help them to win. There's nothing like experience to turn a weak candidate into a strong candidate.

I say that this is the correct policy because in the long run the only way to create strong candidates is to start with weak candidates and learn how to elect them....by doing the hard work of electing them. Once we start doing the hard work, we'll start seeing strong candidates emerging from our ranks.

I wish "liberty in our lifetime" could result simply from better resource allocation and strong grassroots. I commend Matt's optimism. However, I believe that in present conditions we, at best, can only strive to exist unthreatened and continue to grow in what essentially is a grassroots manner. Realization of a Libertarian society anytime soon could possibly occur given 2 conditions: the collapse of the federal government, and complete secularization of our society. Paradoxically, if one of these situations happens the other will not. But, that is no reason to abandon logic. 2+2 does not equal 3.

Can anyone even imagine the guts it takes too stand in front of millions of people and tell them that you want to be their governor? Give this lady a chance. She has showed up to represent the people of her state as an alternative to big spending liberals and republicrats, lets see how she does. She has a huge battle ahead of her with a biased media, candidates who will probably refuse to debate her. A legal system that will probably not recognise her constitutional rights, and a state that requires an incredible amount of signatures to gain ballot access. She should at least have the support of her own party.

Ray, I completely agree with you; this woman certainly deserves our commendation for her "guts". Really this entire argument over whether we should run candidates that probably won't win is irrelevant; it's the candidate's choice, not the LP's, to run.

What about her platform? Any concerns there?
On education, the platform (www.nallforgovernor.com/) claims "*Guaranteed Quality Education Act." Do you buy into that? Free market does not guarantee quality education but creates the opportunity of quality education.
Shes also states "Where no school exists, if a parent can convince 50 other parents of school age children, a school will be mandated." Who is going to mandate what? Should I understand that the State of Alabama should still be involved in education?

Sorry, I forgot to put my name on the above post...

In regards to Matt's post from Oct 14th - Matt, you are mildly illiterate.

john christopher. This lady may have some ideas that you may not agree with and she may have a few that would not set well with me either, but, her philosophy is much more libertarian than not. I have read some of her site and will read much more as time permits, but my question to you is this. If not her then who? (YOU MAYBE). I dont live in alabama but my opinion is that a libertarian is a step in the right direction. A democrat or republicrat is just another fall down a steep mountain cliff. When they hit bottom we all feel the pain.

I went to an RV SHOW, guess what, while they had a section for booth for advertising, again no Libertrian booth. Boy a lot of people for potential sign out and getting the word out.

Is she really the only libertarian willing to run for governor in Alabama?
My concern is also whether she is running for governor to push her agenda on Majiruana or whether she is running for governor to push the libertarian agenda, which is much larger then grass.
In the first case, I am not sure I would support her. In the second case, my advice would be to elaborate a little more on the number of issues at stake. There is plenty of room to reconcile libertarian positions and a large chunk of voters fed up with federal and local governments.

I've always thought the south and rocky mountains are our best bets for building political strongholds, and it's good too see candidates as professional, rational, and open minded as Mrs. Nall leading us in that direction. I wish her the best of luck.

From listening to her on the radio, I don't believe she had any Marijuana agenda. The callers who were calling definitely had an anti-marijuana agenda, which she had to defend against, but she was much more interested in talking about other issues.

I am amazed that the "official" article at the top of this thread does not mention Nall's affiliation with the US MJ party or her anti-drug war stance AT ALL. I read it through three times to be sure. It is obvious, however, that many of the posters are well aware of Nall's activism in that area, so we might as well be upfront about it in our OWN ONLINE NEWSPAPER!

I also heard the Elkins radio show, and I thought that Nall acquitted herself and her views well, except that she probably needed to be armed with some relevant legal or scientific citations, which she could have used to quickly dispense with callers who claimed (without evidence or rational argument) that she didn't know what she was talking about.

Criticisms of Nall based on her use of or activism concerning (medical) marijuana remind me of the criticisms Lincoln received about General Grant's drinking. As I recall, Lincoln inquired about Grant's brand of whiskey and asked that each of his other generals receive a case. Nall was articulate, rational, and extremely reasonable toward callers who actually wanted to have a dialog. She was even reasonable toward some fairly rude people who apparently wanted only to insult her or shout her down. And she made clear that she wasn't advocating drug use by anyone, much less drug abuse by children. She tried very hard to speak of the drug war position in the context of general liberty and the many other political positions that the LP takes to increase liberty, but callers seemed fixated on the drug war. So, remembering Lincoln and Grant, I want to know whatever Nall is smoking, and send a pound of it to all of our other LP candidates.

We don't need to back-pedal on the drug war or the med mj sub-issue. We are IN THE RIGHT on this issue, and our challenge is to help as many people to understand why -- especially if they wish to reduce the overall prevalance of drug abuse -- they need to vote for US and help us end the drug war. More importantly, we need to establish in the minds of voters that our drug war positions are sensible, key threads in a tightly woven cloth of liberty; we need to show how those and all the other threads inter-relate and support each other. I got the feeling that Nall understands this, and would have had a lot to say in that regard, if only the callers had seemed interested in getting off the drug war topic. Since they are clearly not interested in doing so, however, Nall (and we) must find ways of dealing with the subject that defuse controversy and provide food for thought (for the benefit of those who are actually trying to think about the issues).

What Ms. Nall could say is the fact that 50% of all law enforcement resources (local, state, and federal) are devoted to fighting the drug war and enforcing laws against other vices. This much devotion to enforcement against vices takes away desperately-needed resources that law enforcement could use to capture home invaders, armed robbers, rapists, pedophiles, murderes, arsonists, other criminals, and terrorists hiding among us.

I know she won't say this, but I will: "If you support the drug war, then you're supporting criminal and terrorist activity."

I am glad to hear that she is pushing (at least trying to push) the whole libertarian agenda; that was my concern from my cough up there in Canada...
I have observed that when I link in the same sentence "no war on drug" to "more effective police against real crime", I am starting to see more receptive audience. Similarly, the line that parents should not default their responsibilities on the police to keep kids away from drugs usually speak to people.

As a friend of Loretta's and the Vice Chair of the Libertarian Party of Alabama, I'll try to address a few of these issues.

1) Loretta will only be running as a Libertarian if she is nominated by the LPA in convention next year.

2) There may be more candidates competing with her for the Libertarian nomination.

3) Whether or not the LPA nominates Nall, she will be running anyway as a small-l and USMJ candidate.

4) She is very well known (google her name) as one of the leading drug legalization activists and can no more hide from the issue than Roy Moore can hide from his Ten Commandments background. Both candidates are trying to broaden their platform.

5) Loretta has been recieving much press for this early in an Alabama race. She is on two of the biggest talk radio spots in the state just today. The AP ran a good piece on her for the Sunday paper. The wire was picked up by most state papers, and most had good color pictures and article placement.

6) Loretta does not have the support of another significant talk show host (small-l) simply because of her marijuana background. They were just discussing this while I typing this message. The MJ issue will be defining to a lot of people.

7) She does need more of a campaign team. I'm busy working two other campaigns at the moment - and she needs all the help she can get.

8) Her qualifications are pretty good, but not perfect. She has been engaged in Alabama politics and already has moderate name recognition. She is a full time political activist (except when she is reporting for POT-TV, Cannabis Culture, or the radio program).

9) We had a great distinguished "suit and tie" candidate last time around. He fought hard, but did not win. Loretta will be running more of a colorful guerilla campaign. I don't know which race will end up doing better - but for the moment, she is gaining more early media attention. I'd like to see the two of them run as a team some time.

10) Talk show host Micheal Medved frequently uses the term "loosertarian". He referred to Badnarik with that term multiple times last year.

I think it's great that she's getting some media attention. But I also think it would be wrong to nominate her unless she clearly grasps that this is the party of LIBERTY, not the party of POT.

I'm sick of would-be candidates trying to use the LP to advance their own pet cause (I'm not saying Loretta is doing that). Marijuana reform is a legitimate libertarian issue, but it's not even close to the whole story. Only if she's publicly calling for dramatically reducing taxing and spending in AL should other Libertarians consider supporting her.

Stephanie-
Thanks for the very constructive criticism. I love the very deep insight you used to come to your conclusion. I hope this very enlightened position helps us moving forward. I will now have to rethink my position. Thanks again.
Sarcasm aside, I love the reaction I'm getting maybe it will cause some people to look in the mirror. I have helped on many petition drives. I have also helped out on several elections ranging from Town Auditor to Governer. I will be helping out on several local elections again this year. You can call me a "losertarian" all you want I don't care. I care about getting Libertarians elected running on libertarian issues. What I care about is the fact that most of the public see all of us as "Losertarians". You can call me negative all you want but until we come to grips with the reasons behind this image we will continue to be marginalized. We can bitch about a lack of media coverage or the fact that we are locked out of debates. Or instead of playing the socilistic game of always trying to play victim we can look to fix what we have been doing wrong. I agree with Libertarian TV that our candidates are limited but that does not rationalize why we give limited resources to unqualified candidates. That also doesn't explain why unexperinced candidates run for the Governer seat. My point is BECAUSE we have limited candidates and BECAUSE we have limited resources (money and volunteers) we should be more selective not less selective about who we give these resources to. Or maybe you should not give it another thought, maybe just dismiss this as a negatarianism or maybe you should just check the spelling.

Maybe it would help putting yourselves on Yahoo news, Msn News instead of backdoor avertising. Maybe it would help to put a window sticker on your car to make more people aware of Libertarians. I get a lot of who? Maybe it would help setting up booth at trade shows, maybe in front of a court house to get these people registered, informed and possible candidate to run.

If you are not willing to do this with doesn't cost a lot of money, but more of your time that could be used instead of sitting butt on this blog writing. Then don't cry about it when this country becomes a lot worse to the point you will not be able to turn back anything.

Very nice! I'm putting you at my favourits. thins that excited you at 14: http://www.adobe.com , substances that cure you , black girls on their mission

Omaha Hi-Lo: http://omaha-hi-lo-en.bargarmetal.com