YES YES YES!!!! more Libertarians running, keep going.

The more, the better.

With Pawlowski being generally well-received at the NJ debates, and this, I'm pretty happy with how the LP has been doing.

His strategy is not the "free pot" one. His website (www.getbruce.com) claims that "he'll build on the legacy of Chris Cox when he represents you". He may draw a large number of dislodged voters and people who realize that Republicans have turned socialists. Hopefully he will do a better job at cutting government spendings and regulation then Chris Cox. He looks like a great candidate.

Congress Ignores Rights of Victims of Gun Violence and Grants Gun Industry Sweeping Legal Immunity; Bush Urged to Reject Bill
U.S. Newswire - 1 hour, 14 minutes ago

The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence today said that the House of Representatives' passage of a bill taking away the rights of gun victims is a step backwards for a country founded on the rule of law. The bill has already been approved by the Senate, and if signed into law by President Bush, would essentially place the entire gun industry beyond the bounds of civil liability law.

I hope Bush signs in this Bill. It will stop the attempt by alot of liberals to outlaw guns by making it to expensive for gun manufactures to do business in America. The bill would stop people from suing gun manufactures every time some thug shoots somebody. It protects the second amendment and helps to reinforce personal responsibility. All Libertarians should applaud the House on this one.

Cohen's statement of Libertarian principles on his website is one of the better ones I've seen, if you want to sell liberty to non-Libertarians:

"The Libertarian Party is as American as apple pie.

Like you, we have jobs, businesses, families and dreams.

We've entered the political arena to restore liberty and American values.

We're working toward a government that taxes and spends less, and won't interfere with your personal life.

If you're socially tolerant and fiscally responsible, you're a Libertarian!

We believe you—not the government—should decide how to run your life, checkbook, retirement, education and family.

The Libertarian Party supports your right to:

Keep what you earn. Reduce or eliminate taxes whenever possible.

Run your own business and enjoy your property.

Reducing regulations and paperwork creates more jobs, higher pay, and lower prices.

Educate your children as you see fit.

Choose your own lifestyle. The government shouldn't consider you a criminal because of your choices in relationships, recreation or medical treatment.

Truly equal treatment under the law regardless of race, gender, religion, sexuality, or personal characteristics.

Own a firearm. Self-defense is a right, not a political favor."

"The government shouldn't consider you a criminal because of your choices in relationships, recreation or medical treatment."

This is an elegant statement that only shows how far our present-day government has departed from the idea of deriving its just powers from the consent of the governed. These days, government seems mostly to be exercising unjust powers.

Go Bruce Go

http://americavotes.org/what_we_do.cfm

1. Mr. Cohen needs to recognize that he is an army of one of 435 congressmen. He, and Ron Paul,
cannot "do" anything without compromising with
others. What they can do is "advocate."

2. Mr. Cohen needs to demonstrate how he will be
different from his GOP opponent (who has a track
record in Sacramento) and his Democratic opponent.
Otherwise, much of what he is "advocating" sounds like the rhetoric of a small government Republican. Assuming his opponent uses such rhetoric, too, Cohen needs to show the opponent talks the talk but doesn't walk the walk.

http://organicconsumers.org/Politics/harpers101205.cfm

I apologize in advance for this off-topic note, but when I saw a reference to it appear in our state party newspaper here in Virginia, I had to share it with national activists as well. It's particularly blatant evidence that FEMA should be permanently shut down.

http://www.2theadvocate.com/stories/091605/new_doctorordered001.shtml

This is GREAT NEWS!! If he wins, that will be a good boost for Libertarian Ideals in a large political area. Good luck to Bruce. If I lived in California, I do what I could to help his campaign. Unfortunately, I live in Maine.

I hope I live to see the day that libertarians will through the Republicans and Democrats out of office. That is ofcourse if they do not compromise there principal beliefs to get elected.

THE issue in SoCal is "illegal imagrants". If he is an open borders proponent or just doesn't address the issue, he doesn't have a chance at all. If he is serious about wanting to win, he needs to get on the Jon and Ken show. This is a radio show on weekdays after work hours. These guys (and the station) are right wing but they don't even let republicans get away with anything. Do we know where Mr. Cohen stands on illegal immigration?

Steve thank you for that post.

I have also been suggesting lots of ideas, making calls, even to the webmaster that does this site. All I have been getting is excuses of why or they hear you but do not do anything.

Yahoo News, MSN News, flag for windows, window sticker with libertarian logos. Speaking of Jon and Ken show, we also have Bill Handel on KFI. Actually I wrote to the John and Ken Show mentioning Libertarians.

I went to a meeting and I get some posh posh, we tried that already or it won't work. It is going to take all of us that is part of the Libertarian community to work at it and I MEAN WORK. not talk, not play, WORK if you really care about your freedom.

It looks like Mr. Cohen has a website at http://www.getbruce.com/. However, he hasn't posted any of his positions on the issues yet. Those who are asking specific questions might consider visiting his website and sending him a note with their question. There is also a poll he is conducting about what the most important issues in the campaign are. So if you think, for instance as Steve does, that illegal immigrants is the most important issue in the campaign, here is your chance to tell him so!

For Freedom: I'm glad to see you writing about working for freedom. What exactly are your own plans on this subject? Others on this board have asked you, but so far you haven't really said anything. Are there any campaigns you're going to volunteer to help? Are you planning to be a candidate yourself? Are you doing any canvassing to identify potential libertarian voters in your area?

What work are you doing?

Not intentional ignoring questions that might off been ask of me, Sometimes I do not have the time to read everything.

I have already let someone know I could help with setup of booth, I rather not do it alone, along with other ideas.

I do not know if I would or consider running as a candidate. I do not know if I would be taken seriously enough. I had been ask if I had thought about it. I am trying too work small here and that is hard enough.

I voice the same things here because it will take more then a few people to get notice. I think right now I would make a good campaigns operative (promoter). My fiance is very good at writing, highly educated and well versed in political theory.

Mr. Cohen does have an agenda up. However, it's a Republican one. The four points on his homepage are a flat income tax, strong national defense, Social Security choice, and "improved education" (that sounds like a federal voucher or tax-credit program).

I don't mean to bash Mr. Cohen; he seems like a presentable candidate with solid experience. But Orange County, California, is a GOP stronghold. He needs to take a far more Libertarian approach if he wants to differentiate himself from his GOP opponent. Otherwise, why wouldn't people simply vote for the real Republican?

For Freedom-
I think you make a good point about not running if you don't think you will make a good candidate. I think a big problem with this party is this idea that more candidates is better then less candidates. This is not always the case. I think paper candidates and people that run for statewide office when they have no political experience hurts the party. The fact is, certain people should not run at all. It's simple divison of labor, everybody should do what helps the party the most. I think I am one that falls in the latter group so I stay in the background with petition drives, handing out fliers for candidates and protesting on tax day. These our things that I feel I can bring to the movement. The lack of organization and proper divison of labor is what is killing us.For example; I was working on a campaign were we had a good candidate who only needed 200 write-in signatures during the primary to get him on the ballot as a Republican. The plan was to set up stands outside polling station with fliers explaing reasons why Republicans should write in this candidate. We pointed out the fact the no Republican Candidate was running against the Democrat Incumbent and that this candidate was for lower spending, lower taxes and pro-gun rights. We went to the County Party's chair and laid out the plan to get on the ballot both as Republican and Libertarian. While we were at the polls we were going to get signatures for all Libertarian Candidates including this candidate, in Pa at this time you could appear on the ballot more then once for the same seat. He thought it was a great idea and put it into the agenda for the next meeting. We figured that we would get a couple volunteers from the 5 loyal activist that show up for each meeting. It turned out that a friend of mine decieded that he wanted to run as a paper candidate for a seat in the next town over. Him and one other person could not help us because they wanted to get signatures for a his paper campaign. So on election day it was just me and the candidate,we made our own stands to place information on the candidate and how to do the write -in(because we all know how helpful the election workers can be) and placed them in front of each of the nine polling places. I worked the one with the highest traffic while the candidate floated between all of the polling places with a focus on the second and third most frequently used polls. Out of the 200 votes needed to get him on the ballot as a Republican we got 127. But I guess according to alot of peoples here it is better because my friend was able to get on as a paper candidate. So we had one more candidate he got less then 1% and my candidate got just over 1% ,getting on the ballot just as a libertarian. Now imagine if the two people that worked in this next town over would have worked to get the 63 more write-in signatures. The fact is no Republican candidate in recent history recieved less then 30% of the vote in this district. That's called lever pullers. This candidate could have started with a thirty percent base and a real chance to win ,instead we have two candidates with no chance to win. If you think the key to grow this party is quantity of candidates your dead wrong. The answer is better organization and better resource allocation.

For Freedom, being a political operative is a good idea. Our party needs more of them. Go for it!

A slightly off-topic plug:

Do you know anyone who lives in the Fairfax/Centreville/Chantilly/Oakton area of Virginia, such as family or friends (even if they're not libertarian)? If you do, we need your help.

The Chuck Eby for Delegate campaign has created four short videos for free online distribution talking about his stands on the Taxes, Education and Transportation issues, plus one full video that combines all three issues. As you may know, these are the three biggest issues of the 2005 campaign. You can view the videos right now by visiting http://www.eby2005.com/video.htm and clicking on the appropriate links. Anyone with Windows Media Player installed can view them, and the files are small enough that even someone with a dialup modem can download them.

Election Day is only two weeks away, so time is of the essence. We need activists to volunteer in Chuck's fight for liberty by emailing the web address for these videos to all the people you can think of who live in Fairfax, Centreville, Chantilly or Oakton in Virginia. Send them even if you're not sure whether they live in Chuck's district. Even if they don't, chances are they know other people who do.

What we're trying to do is to get friends to send the web address to their friends, who in turn will send them to their friends. This is the exact same strategy that enabled the Robert Dean campaign to get 43% of the vote in last year's Virginia Beach mayoral race against an entrenched incumbent. With only two weeks left, there isn't a lot of time to pull this off, but with your help we think we can put this video in front of the voters in this state House of Delegates race before November 8th.

Matt:

your story is a good one. There are times when paper candidates make some sense, but most of the time, they dont. The money and effort we spend on trying like hell to get 50 state ballot access every single election year would be better off spent putting into reinforcing candidates where the LP is already somewhat stronger.

Walt,

excellent job on the videos. To hell with tri fold brochures. LP.org should be a clearing house for such efforts showcasing our candidates all across the nation - along with about 5,000 other things it can be doing that hasnt been done yet.

I know they are working hard to leverage more of the web, but it's slow going.

Walt, Great Job!

Everyone should send the video clips out, even if you don't live in Chuck's District. They might be interested in send a donation. **Grinning**

Bill Wood

It is my opinion that the energy should be focused as opposed to diffused. I am not a libertarian, but I am libertarian leaning (but mostly pro-third party, anti-incumbent REP/DEM). And, I am now established enough to give money to political organizations. As I stated in a previous blog topic here, in the last election I tried to give money to the LP with no success. It is probably just as well since I hadn't been reading these blogs; I think my money would have been wasted. I followed up with an email to the lp after the election stating that I tried to give them money and that I didn't even get a reply. The reply I got from my follow up was half-ass at best -- telling me to do the leg work with each state's lp. I won't beg anyone to take my money. If the lp doesn't want it, then I can offer it to the greens. The national lp isn't a functionally effective organization. It just isn't. The only reference to these candidates on the home page, www.lp.org, is in the blog section at the top-right corner. And, I think that this blog section is the most effective part of the whole darn organization. I've read some pretty good discussions on here whether I agree or disagree.

I viewed Cohen's web page but it isn't much more effective than Homer's web page with a dancing jesus and flying toasters. He has a poll to determine what the important issues are. But he doesn't state his position on those issues. I would hope that he already knows what issues are important. But it is not apparent.

If I recall correctly, Walt is a party official. I don't know if he is at the state level or national. But he seems to be the only official that is interactively engaged and responsive. It would be encouraging to see him move up the ranks.

Let me just throw in another comment: part of what dissuades me from this party is on this blog. Some of the posts are illegible. Mistakes happen, but if a small paragraph has three or more errors, be it spelling, grammar, typos..., all credibility is lost. So I would encourage posters to preview and read before posting.
I know some of you are just going to get defensive about this. But hopefully some will take this into consideration. Good luck to you all.

Bruce Cohen is not a libertarian.

The LP should stop associating itself with him.

For a real Libertarian candidate, check out Loretta Nall in Alabama.

Dump Bruce!

Steve,

I don't know what kind of problems you have had in the past giving money to the LP. You can donate thru this website or mail a check. If you join the Libertarian Party you will receive letters from Libertarian Candidates requesting donations.

Bill Wood

Thanks Bill. Maybe it was you that I was thinking of as being the lp official.
But my point was that I will not just shotgun money out and hope that it gets to someone promising. Overall, I think that the party administration is poor. And I will not support that.
What I asked of the lp was which candidates have the best chance to win at the state level or u.s. congress. City and county levels don't really excite me. But a state assembly/senate candidate would get my interest. I am pretty certain that if I asked the reps or dems that question, they would have an answer for me.
None the less, I expected some sort of reply from the lp. I didn't get one until my second attempt and that was after the election was long over.

Why do you think that Bruce is not a Libertarian?

With elections comming up, this party is already been notice and for a number of reasons, this party is not being taken seriously. I hope some of the people are listening. I have also written to the Libertarian to help out and asking questions regarding candidates, and go no reply.

This party also has an overdue election problem if you look at the DC web page. I think it is time that other people should be running this party that may end up doing a better job in getting this party to go in the right direction with some changes that need to be made. If we do not make a change in this election. This not only I will lose interest in this party, so will others and this party I can almost guarantee this party will start to go downhill. The fact that North Carolina does no longer reconize this party on the ballot. Others will start to follow. If we do not make dent in this election this time around. I can kiss this party good-bye, because it not going to happen. This is just a club for talkers, and dreamers.

Steve,

I'm glad you wish to help LP Candidates who have a chance of winning.

It would be helpful if at least the Candidates running for major partisan races could be added to this website.

Maybe the LP Staff could do this in the near future.

I would like to say the LP HQ does a alot with the limited resources they have and the handful of Staff they have working. Good Job!

Bill Wood

Steve: Just to set the record straight, I am not a party official. I'm just a determined activist, doing my level best to build a libertarian society.

Tim and Bill: Thanks for the kudos. I only wish I had been able to convince Chuck to do the video sooner. It really needs more time than we've given it to be effective. Still, we're hopeful. And hey...at least Chuck agreed to do it. Both Scott and Donny expressed interest in doing videos as well (when I offered it to them), but somehow they never made it a priority in their campaigns.

It would be helpful if at least the Candidates running for major partisan races could be added to this website.

Maybe the LP Staff could do this in the near futuPosted by: Bill Wood at October 24, 2005 06:19 AM
re.

I have been trying to tell some of the party this myself, I called, write and been to meetings, saying the same thing as well as mentioning this on the blog. Did they do anything, NOOOO.

If you can do better, be my guest.
For we need to have this done.

For Freedom: I personally make it a policy to ask people to do things rather than to tell them, since I'm not their boss. Further, I don't assume that they're going to do what I would do if I were in their shoes.

Do I favor getting significant candidates' websites linked from the national site? I do. But what I would not do is give an order and then get upset if it wasn't obeyed. After all, I'm not the National Chair, and neither are you.

If I were going to do something about this, I would call the national office and politely ask (not demand) to speak to the webmaster or to someone who can affect such a change. Then, once I got that person on the phone, I would ask them what it would take to accomplish the goal.

I might or might not like the answer they gave me, but at least I'd know that I'd maximized my chances. Further, I've found that most of the staff at LP HQ are friendly and willing to be as helpful as they can. If I was polite about it, I could probably get them to tell me what is preventing it from happening. Then, based on what they say, I could at least know what my next step is.

LTV first off, I had made polite suggestions, in previous past post. I am not going to prove to you what I did, or am I going to argue with you.

Some of the people who have liked my idea when I went to a meeting, also brought up to me about running. I do not need to go into this with you.

If I seem like I come on too strong at times, well it seems we have a lot of talking and not enough doing. People have plenty of time to whine, it doesn't matter whether I come across strong or not. The truth of the matter is, look pass my attitude and do what is right for this party in order for it to succeed.

Other people have been saying the same thing.
This is not the time to be passive. In case you are forgetting, we have lost a lot of our freedom, along with tracking devices everywhere on us. Cell phones, computers, who knows hidden cameras. Is this the life you want to live.
I don't.

So I'll take you at your word For Freedom. What happened when you called national HQ? Did you find out what it was going to take to get the candidates listed on the website?

LTV, I got I have good ideas, we keep it in mind. I spoke to someone, do not remember his name, gave me what sounds like excuses. He sounded out in space. Maybe you should try. It is going to take more then one small fry like me.

At least once a day, I like I'm sure many other Americans do, ask the question: "What ever happened to Gov't of the People, by the People, and for the People"? To me, both major parties today resemble a boxer who after many years of retirement, decides to jump back in the ring and then painfully discovers that their best days are long behind them. That they are mere shells of what they once were and as a result, tarnish their legacies forever. I have decided that the only choice for me is to change my voter preference to Libertarian, (since I've already been voting Libertarian the last three major elections), and support the only party that truly "Has America's Back". I am imploring all fellow Americans out there who feel disgusted and forgotten by the DNC and GOP, to take a serious and informative look into the Libertarian Party and what it has to offer. Heck, all that's at stake is your country.

To effectively use ones vote to influence public policy, it may be necessary hold your nose and vote for a candiate you don't want because the other one might win and is so far off track they must not be permitted to hold political power. In any other circumstances, please vote for the LP candiate and help build a cadre of successful politicians with enough history to be taken seriously in a run for higher office.

Welcome Aboard Marco!

Bill Wood

Walt,

I might be needing you in the near future.

Lets get past Nov. 8th

Bill

"Why do you think that Bruce is not a Libertarian?"

Let's start with his platform.

"Mr. Cohen does have an agenda up. However, it's a Republican one. The four points on his homepage are a flat income tax,
strong national defense, Social Security choice, and "improved education" (that sounds like a federal voucher or
tax-credit program).

..."Orange County, California, is a GOP stronghold. He needs to take a far more Libertarian approach if he wants
to differentiate himself from his GOP opponent. Otherwise, why wouldn't people simply vote for the real Republican?"

Posted by: JT at October 22, 2005 12:54 PM"

Also, I've had personal experience with Cohen. He said I was "heckling" because I pointed out at
the LP of California convention that neither of their debaters (Gary Nolan and the '72 candidate, now a
declared Republican) were truly antiwar, and that I did not agree with either of them.

The only participation from the audience was which one we agreed with and who was the better debater; NOTA
and Q&A were not options.

Cohen is a warmonger and a proponent of Taxation (albeit "flat") and SS (although with some "choice").

None of those are libertarian positions.

He even defends the current war of aggression against Iraq; nothing could be more anti-liberty.

The LP should boot people like Cohen and Boortz immediately.

...and that's why I'm glad I turned my back on him when he spoke at the LP Cali convention and helped Mark Selzer beat him.

Paul,

You are misinformed. From the LP Platform regarding Education: "Transitional Action: As an interim measure to encourage the growth of private schools and variety in education, including home schooling, we support tax credits for tuition and other expenditures related to an individual's education." This certainly qualifies as "Improved Education."

Regarding the military, the platform says: "Any U.S. military policy should have the objective of providing security for the lives, liberty and property of the American people in the U.S. against the risk of attack by a foreign power." You can't do that if you're antiwar.

Clearly, the LP is not antiwar and is not anti tax credits for education. It's much more accurate to say that the LP favors using the military to defend America rather than to violate the borders of other countries such as the Republicans in particular favor.

While I agree with you that a flat tax is a bad idea, I don't think it's a bad idea to call for a strong national defense...so long as you mean defense. We have no reason to believe otherwise (yet) about Mr. Cohen's position, because he has not yet revealed it on his website. If he were to advocate some sort of interventionist policy, that would be one thing. So far he hasn't in his campaign. Until he does, he deserves the benefit of doubt.

Also, on the surface at least, calling for Social Security and Pension Choice is not inconsistent with the LP platform which says: "Pending that replacement, participation in Social Security should be made voluntary. Victims of the Social Security tax should also have a claim against government property."

But most of all, I take issue with your claim that anyone who is not a pure libertarian should be kicked out of the party. As a purist myself, I am sympathetic to the stands you are taking. However, if we eliminate all who don't score 100% on the World's Smallest Political Quiz from the party, we will never, ever grow as a party under any circumstances.

Tolerance is a virtue, Paul.

I agree that you should not have to score 100% Libertarian on the quiz to not be part of the Libertarian party, I did not. But it is ideal that if you fall in the upperhalf in the Libertarian portion part it should be ideal.

I would question if someone fall too close to the Liberal side even, if they just fall on the corner of the Libertarian section for example.

Oh, by the way, the one question that ask the question on the quiz about sex between two consenting adults, are they refering to in the bedroom or anywhere. Someone made a comment that can be taken either way. The question didn't say where. I would not like to have to see someone having intamacy on the street.

For Freedom,

Let's do a little math. Estimates vary as to how many in the population fall within the Libertarian quadrant of the quiz. The Advocates for Self-Government show that 34% of all quiz takers (5 million plus) fall in the Libertarian quadrant. However, we have to take that with a grain of salt, since it's not a scientific measurement of the population, and known Libertarians are far more likely to take the quiz than non-Libertarians.

Various polls have suggested that between 10-30% of the population are Libertarian. I feel comfortable with the 20% figure.

Both the Republican and Democratic parties have about 25% of registered voters in their parties. Thus, each party has to draw support from outside it's philosophical "range" in order to win any given election.

Assuming our 20% figure is correct, and assuming for the sake of discussion that all libertarian-scoring people voted libertarian in a given election (a major assumption, I know), and further assuming that 50% of the registered voters voted in that election, our candidate would still only get 40% of the vote. This might be enough to win a three way race in a best-of-all-possible-worlds situation.

This means that in order to win an election we need almost every libertarian leaning voter to support us, including liberal leaning libertarians. Since such purity of voting is unlikely, it means we also have to be able to draw a few votes from the conservative, centrist, and liberal positions as well.

Thus, your claim that we should question the inclusion those who would fall toward the liberal quadrant of the libertarian quadrant helps insure that libertarian candidates will continue to LOSE!

So I must respectfully disagree with you on this, For Freedom. We should not exclude anyone just because they don't fit our own personal views on what an "acceptable" libertarian is.

Having said that, I don't mean that I want the LP to lean right or to lean left. I want neither because I want to maximize our chances. I suspect you'd be happier if the party leaned right, but I think the numbers don't back your position.

I agree completely with Paul.

It's not about "purity vs. impurity", LTV. It's about firmly differentiating yourself from the other candidates. Unless that difference is crystal clear, there's no reason why voters would pick a Libertarian over a Democrat or Republican. Sadly, Bruce Cohen's agenda is indistinguishable from that of many Republicans. If you're going to focus your campaign on a flat tax, a strong military, and Social Security "choice," then why not simply run under the GOP? I'm sure that his Republican opponent will offer the same agenda, or fairly close to it.

I'll also note that the Iraq War is probably the single biggest issue right now. Most Americans either opposed it from the start or have turned against it. In other words, most people now are ON OUR SIDE. Any Libertarian running for Congress who favors that reckless war of aggression is doing his own campaign, and the LP, an injustice.

JT, it's weird to be defending Mr. Cohen when I really don't know much about him. It's also weird to hear you guys dumping on him when you don't know much about him either. Paul apparently has some direct contact with Cohen, but even his description of that exchange shows that his entire approach to Cohen was based on hostility and opposition.

Like you, I also would like to see our candidates take a more aggressive role in promoting a more "differentiated" LP agenda.

Having said that, I still don't see why we have to dump on Cohen. Paul said he thought Cohen should be tossed out of the party. Apparently, you agree with that, since you said that you agree with Paul 100%. So I have to ask you...if you're not claiming that it's a purity issue, what's the basis for you wanting to kick Cohen out of the LP?

And if you're agreeing with Paul that we shouldn't be supporting candidates who don't differentiate themselves from their competition as much as you would like them to, why should they in turn support your favored candidates at a later date when the tables are turned? Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Or put another way, turnaround is fair play.

The position you and Paul are taking is a position of exclusion. I don't think that position is the foundation of a viable winning political strategy. Like it or not, we have to learn to work with our potential allies of all stripes if we're ever going to start winning elections on a regular basis, not cut them to pieces as a standard policy.

People in regards to Mr. Cohen, how about giving him a call and personally talk to him, huh. I not only talked to him and met him at the meeting.

LTV I was stating only and example, because if you have someone who just falls over the line on the Libertarian side and they are to close to Liberal or Conservative for that matter. We could expect to have more one of those dominate over the Libertarian ideas. I would prefer even if a person is not total 100% Libertarian, to have a dominated Libertarian side verses a Liberal or Conservative, if this makes sense.

For Freedom:

At your request, I contacted Shane Cory at the national office about the lp.org website linking to state and local candidate websites. Here is what he replied:

"We have been cautioned by our general counsel from linking to candidate sites. A simple link to a candidate's site who solicits contributions over the web could be seen as solicitation by the national LP. This cannot be done for local and state candidates per the FEC."

As usual, I found the national HQ to be helpful and informative. This is undoubtedly the same answer or a similar answer as what you received when you called. You described it as, "I spoke to someone, do not remember his name, gave me what sounds like excuses. He sounded out in space."

Perhaps you would like to amend your comments, For Freedom? I don't like the FEC's rulings any more than you do, but I don't see how the LP adhering to them constitutes "making excuses" or "sounding out of space."

By the way, Shane also noted to me, "We do our best to highlight candidate races on all levels by featuring a news or blog entry about the race. If we had more input from and communication with the states, we could highlight many more races. I'll be pushing for more communication from the states at the upcoming LNC meeting and again at the State Chair's Conference in January."

Given the limitations they are forced to work within, I'd say they're doing their part on this point. Wouldn't you?

For Freedom: I agree with your preference about candidates. I just don't see why some of us have to condemn LP candidates whom they don't totally agree with on every issue. To me, that kind of disloyalty is unacceptable. Like I said, we need to work together, not against each other.

It's hard enough to be a candidate as it is, no matter what your views. You open yourself to all kinds of slings and arrows from the media and public no matter what you say. At the very least, you should be able to get support from your own party under these circumstances.

I misspoke, LTV. I shouldn't have said that I agree with Paul "completely," because I DON'T think we should kick people out of the party who aren't 100% libertarian. And judging by the information at his attractive website, Cohen has been a productive member and activist.

However, there's nothing "weird" about taking a position on someone's candidacy without knowing much about them personally. I don't know much about most Republican or Democratic candidates on a personal level either (and neither do you). All I need is enough relevant information on which to base an opinion.

And my informed opinion is that it's a waste for a Libertarian to run for US Congress unless he's going to advance a Libertarian (not Republican) agenda. Otherwise, all he's doing is obfuscating the Libertarian viewpoint and sacrificing the votes he would have otherwise received from people who don't want to vote Republican or Democrat (such as hardcore Iraq War opponents).

LTV ok let me put it another way, lets say you have a person who agrees with one subject that is a Libertarian idea and the rest is all Liberal. Would you vote for that candidate?

For Freedom: no I wouldn't vote for a liberal candidate who supported the LP position on one issue. Similarly, I would not vote for a conservative who agreed with the LP on a particular position but was conservative in every other way.

But what does your question have to do with either appealing to such persons to vote for one of our candidates or with working with candidates who aren't 100% libertarian? For that's what this discussion is all about.

So JT, are you saying that Cohen is not advancing a Libertarian agenda? Or are you saying that his agenda isn't Libertarian enough for your tastes?

LTV, I think I was already clear about what I think of Cohen's agenda: It's indistinguishable from a typical Republican congressional candidate (in a heavily Republican district). How does that help a Libertarian candidate or the LP?

Libertarian TV my goodness, you are clueless to what For Freedom is talking about. I think she explained clear enough.

JT, let me put it in the context of the World's Smallest Political Quiz.

I don't know where Cohen scores on the Quiz. So instead of pretending to knowledge that we don't have, let's create a hypothetical candidate named Smith. I'll make some assumptions about how Smith would answer the quiz in order to give us a working scenario. Let's assume just for the sake of discussion that Smith answers the Quiz questions as follows:

Do you Agree, Maybe, or Disagree with Each of the following:

(1) Government should not censor speech, press, media, or Internet.
Agree

(2) Military service should be voluntary. There should be no draft.
Maybe

(3) There should be no laws regarding sex for consenting adults.
Agree

(4) Repeal laws prohibiting adult possession of drugs
Maybe

(5) There should be no National ID card.
Agree

(6) End "corporate welfare." No government handouts to business.
Agree

(7) End government barriers to international free trade
Maybe

(8) Let people control their own retirement; privatize Social Security
Maybe

(9) Replace government welfare with private charity.
Agree

(10) Cut taxes and government spending by 50% or more.
Agree

Smith's answers put him smack dab in the middle of the Libertarian quadrant when I score it at the Advocates' website. Smith is clearly Libertarian according to the Quiz without being a purist.

Do you believe that it's a waste of time to run Smith as a candidate?

Would you trash Smith's candidacy as a result of where he stands on the issues?

I'm glad you found For Freedom's explanation clear. For myself, I found it to be vague and undefined. That's why I asked for clarification.

Do you think I should not ask for clarification if I'm not clear about what For Freedom meant?

My above comment was intended for Pasy.

I don't want to continue on this topic because I think I've made my point. But I'll be curteous enough to respond to your last post, LTV.

First, I haven't "trashed" Cohen's candidacy. That implies low-brow tactics. I've criticized his agenda maturely by saying it's indistinguishable from a Republican one, and I suggested that he take a more Libertarian approach. I've also praised his presentability and his activism on behalf of the LP.

Second, I do think it's a waste for "Smith" to run for Congress if he's only going to emphasize those areas where he isn't fully Libertarian. I don't think that helps to educate voters about or interest them in the Libertarian Party, nor does it bode well for a particular campaign.

Finally, anyone who isn't Libertarian on the BIGGEST issue of the past two years and today, the Iraq War, which already has a strong faction of opponents (and growing), should not be a candidate for US Congress. State legislature is a different matter, because that has nothing to do with foreign policy.

I hope that helps.

Well, it helps in part JT.

Perhaps I overstated my point about "trashing" candidates. I felt that Paul had done that and you originally agreed 100% with him. When I challenged you on this, you backed off a bit.

But my main point still remains on the table. With my fictional candidate Smith I defined a clear libertarian according the Nolan chart. Yet, this candidate isn't good enough for you, although you also say you don't think it's a question of "pure" vs "non-pure".

I guess I'd have to say that your idea of what it means to not insist on candidates being "pure" is pretty pure nevertheless. I gather that the candidates you would support would only appear in the very top few points of the Libertarian quadrant, perhaps within one point of being 100% pure.

The percentage of people in the populace whom this level of purity would appeal to is not as high as we purists would like to think. Of the 20% of the general population or thereabouts who fit within the Libertarian quadrant, I submit that no more than 1-3% would qualify as near pure.

I too like pure candidates. I feel very strongly about supporting them. But if we insist on supporting only near-pure Libertarians for office, we are going to find that a majority of potential Libertarian candidates are simply candidates that can't be supported. That pretty much rules out any hope of the LP ever becoming a party that can reach the mainstream population, simply because we'll never have enough candidates.

LTV, I don't mind if an LP member falls anywhere in the Libertarian quadrant of the Nolan chart. In my view, that's good enough to join the party, and I never meant to say otherwise (which you unfairly call "backing down").

But you're evading the point that Libertarians have to differentiate themselves fundamentally from Republicans and Democrats when they run for office. How does a candidate who's advocating a flat income tax, Social Security "choice," a strong military, "improved education," and the Iraq War differ from a Republican? And why would anyone vote for a third-party candidate who's running on a Republican agenda instead of the real Republican in the race? I certainly wouldn't.

I think a person who is at least around 85% Liberatian should be supported.

If they are in the libertarian quadrant, they are libertarians. Every single candidate that honestly scores in that boundry should be supported 100%.

Assuming you believe in your measuring tool to start with.

I would suggest that today's Republican Party is nothing like the Republican Party of the Ronald Reagan era, or the Barry Goldwater era. It will be no problem for any adept LP candidate to make that distinction. To the extent that old-republican values like limited government and lower taxes may overlap libertarian values, what of it? Is not lowering taxes libertarian? Is not school choice libertarian? Today's Republican Party doesnt stand for any of these things - these are the people that passed NO CHILD GOES UNPUNISHED (left behind)
and has ballooned the public debt to wage a war both illegal and unconstitutional.

I would suggest that if Cohen didnt care a whit about what he speaks, he would just run as a Republican anyway and therefore increase his chances of winning any office by about 5000% over his chances in the LP. That may seem mean to say but it's the truth. So he's a warmonger in your eyes - BFD. I dont like his stance on Iraq, either - but I'm not going to let one issue decide for me if he's a libertarian or not. I'm going to look as his entire message.

That message had a lot in it, Tim. But I think it's crazy to say that it really doesn't matter whether an LP congressional candidate supports the Iraq War. It's definitely the biggest issue of the day, most Americans now oppose it, and neither of the major parties will openly condemn it. What could be a greater opportunity for LP candidates to clearly distinguish themselves from their opponents and reach out to upset voters? If Libertarians don't take advantage of that, I think they deserve to lose.

Good point TIM WEST.

Anybody who wants to advance our platform more than the other guys should be supported, unless (s)he has wildcrazy views far away from ours.

JT, I agree with the value of all that you are saying. I oppose the Iraq war. I want to find ways to eliminate Social Security without leaving people who are currently dependent upon it hanging on private charity for their survival. I want education that is improved because it moves away from the traditional, government-controlled model. And I totally oppose a flat income tax.

Having said all that, I don't think I'm avoiding these issues at all where Cohen is concerned. You're the one, for instance, who assumes that "improved education" automatically means caving in on traditional education and manipulating it via "standards of learning" and other absurdities. The idea that improving test scores will somehow improve education is ludicrous. But if I were running for Congress in a predominantly Republican district, I would use similar language as Cohen has used...not because I buy into Republican nonsense, but rather because I want the Republican-voting majority to listen to me. There's nothing like using the rhetoric of the opposition to get their attention.

I also have no problem with the phrase "strong military." Republicans have twisted this phrase to mean "interventionist military." But a strong military is actually one that is capable of defending our country without violating the rights of peoples in other countries. I think we should take the term "strong military" back from the Conservative warmongers and restore it to its proper place...as a defensive concept rather than an offensive concept.

I agree that we shouldn't have a flat income tax. I think we should work toward the income tax's elimination. But if Cohen is talking about reducing the income tax for all Americans, I think we should at least consider it as an interim step, not as a final solution.

OK JT, now I've addressed head-on the issue you wanted me to address. Now it's your turn. I want you to address how we're supposed to build a party that relies on less than 3% of the population to provide all our candidates for all offices at the federal, state, and local levels, when most of that mostly pure libertarian population is non-political and has no interest in being politicians. I also want you to address the question of how you build a party that excludes most people falling within the libertarian quadrant of the Nolan Chart from running under the LP banner. Because this is the point that YOU are avoiding!

LTV, the question I asked was this: why would anyone vote for a third-party candidate who's running on a Republican agenda instead of the real Republican in the race?

You said that Cohen's agenda wasn't necessarily Republican, depending on the precise meaning of certain terms. I think that's a weak argument. Clearly, the average person would have a very difficult time distinguishing him from a GOP candidate, and it's Cohen's responsibility to make that difference clear.

As for your question to me, I don't think we need to run "pure" candidates for every office. For many public offices, certain libertarian positions are simply irrelevant. A state-level candidate's view of the Iraq War, for example, doesn't really matter. But when you're talking about a candidate for US Congress, it matters A LOT.

You also seem to think that the more candidates the party runs, the better. I don't agree. I'd much rather have 100 LP congressional candidates who openly call for free markets than 200 who run on a vague GOP agenda. I don't think the latter candidates have a better chance of winning elections, nor of recruiting people to our party.

JT, you wrote:
"You said that Cohen's agenda wasn't necessarily Republican, depending on the precise meaning of certain terms. I think that's a weak argument. Clearly, the average person would have a very difficult time distinguishing him from a GOP candidate, and it's Cohen's responsibility to make that difference clear."

How about giving the guy a break? He hasn't even presented his arguments yet!!! You're making massive amounts of assumptions from a few words on his home page! If Cohen comes out with a Republican agenda later on, then fine, go after him. But right now, your charges are highly premature.

"I don't think we need to run "pure" candidates for every office....But when you're talking about a candidate for US Congress, it matters A LOT."

So in other words you will only support pure candidates for Federal office. I'm not talking about trying to run as many candidates as we can. I'm talking about the simple lack of availability of even 100 pure libertarian candidates, let alone 537 for the House, Senate, and White House. Even if our party were to somehow reach major national stature and become a threat to win elections on a regular basis, I don't think we could come up with 537 pure or nearly pure candidates on a regular basis. There just aren't enough potential candidates in the 1-3% pool.

Oh yes, one more thing JT. You still haven't answered the question about how to build the LP's membership when those members who don't score as "pure" are effectively eliminated from being candidates for Federal office. Even the "not quite pure" party members have been taking offense at that. What happens when we finally start reaching out to the "not nearly pure" citizens who fall into the Libertarian camp, such as my hypothetical candidate Smith (above)? How do you expect to keep them in the party?

LTV, do I only support "pure" candidates for federal offices? If you mean Libertarians who clearly distinguish themselves from Democrats and Republicans, and who campaign on eliminating unconstitutional and harmful federal agencies, then yes.

Frankly, I'm amazed that you think this is too restrictive. I've already said that anyone who falls in the libertarian quadrant of the Nolan chart should be welcome as a member, and that there should be some flexibility for local and state candidates.

You believe it's impossible to get principled Libertarians to run for a majority of the seats in Congress every couple of years (even the major parties don't field candidates in every race). If that's true, then I think the LP may as well disband, because it's NEVER going to win federal elections with candidates who even remotely resemble Republicans or Democrats. Those jobs are already taken.

Finally, you say that some Libertarians have been "taking offense" at my position. Many Libertarians also agree with me, I have no problem defending a high standard for being a top-level Libertarian candidate. Most rational, libertarian-leaning people wouldn't quit the party just because they can't run for Congress, so I don't see that as a serious impediment to LP growth.

Now, I hope you don't mind if I bow out of this particular discussion. It's gone on long enough.

Apparently, I didn't spot a capitalization error in the post I was responsding to. I did not say that Cohen is not a Libertarian. He is clearly a party member. I said he is not a libertarian, that is, not someone who adheres to the libertarian philosophy, which is against war and against vouchers. The party does not always adhere to the philosophy, unfortunately.

"While I agree with you that a flat tax is a bad idea, I don't think it's a bad idea to call for a strong national defense...so long as you mean defense. We have no reason to believe otherwise (yet) about Mr. Cohen's position, because he has not yet revealed it on his website. If he were to advocate some sort of interventionist policy, that would be one thing. So far he hasn't in his campaign."

Cohen is a defender of the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. Would that qualify as interventionist in your opinion?

"But most of all, I take issue with your claim that anyone who is not a pure libertarian should be kicked out of the party."

Never said or implied anything of the kind. However they should not run or endorse candidates who support the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Preferrably, they would also be against theft/extortion (taxation) and kidnapping (government schools), for example.

And if they do run and support such candidates who favor war and taxation, I wish they would change the party name to make it more accurate.

How about "Slightly Less Government Party"?

"Social security reform" means that the government will control the stock market and investment in private companies even more than now; don't imagine it will happen without more interference in the affairs of companies and the market.

If government funds schools - even if they are nominally privately run - it will seek to control them more and more. Even Hillary Clinton understands this; does Bruce Cohen?

"but even his description of that exchange shows that his entire approach to Cohen was based on hostility and opposition."

False. It was Cohen who came up to me and claimed I was "heckling" because I did not agree that Gary Nolan presented a real libertarian antiwar position.

LOL this is precious...

"Tolerance is a virtue Paul"

Tolerance of wars of aggression funded with stolen money, kidnapping, "flat" extortion, and a government-contolled market (facsism)?

Tolerance of the LP running candidates who advocate more of the same?

well, if that's virtue, I'll remain an unrepentant sinner....

Got news for you, you do not have to be a purist to be a Libertarian. I spoken to Mr. Cohen and I have met Mr. Cohen, have you? He is very logical in a lot of cases. The Libertarian stance on War and Immigration needs to be changed. If this is done, I can almost guarantee that the Libertarian will stand a greater chance getting into office.

This is not the 1850, this is 2005. We have to use logic not fantasy here. Sorry to burst some people bubbles.

People who wish to continue to say things with assumptions without speaking to him personally maybe be looking like an A, and not only that it is not good for the rest of the Libertarian Party.

This is a very important time here, to get Libertarians in office, very critical, I do not think some of you realize this. Maybe it still hasn't sunk in how serious this 2006 and 2008 elections are this time around.

"I spoken to Mr. Cohen and I have met Mr. Cohen, have you?"

Yes, see above.

If any of you vote for him for anything or send him money, you are fools.

I posted this when my recollection was more fresh

=============================================

The most glaring thing about the convention was the war "debate".

John Hospers made a rather inarticulate case for the pro-war side,
citing Ayn Rand and Natan Sharansky (what the "case for democracy"
has to do with libertarianism, is far beyond my merely mortal
understanding. I thought we belived that democracy is two wolves and
a sheep voting on what's for dinner...silly me).

And the defender of the antiwar side was....brace yourself, if you
haven't heard this already....none other than Gary Nolan.

Among other things, Nolan (who, correct me if I'm wrong, supported
the war in Afghanistan), claimed that it might make more sense for
the US regime to invade Iran (rather than Iraq). I did not get the
impression he was joking.

He reportedly called the US regime "we", and said that the purpose of
the US regime's military gang is to "defend us". So, the only debate
was WHICH foreign countries the USSA gang is justified in invading.

At the end of the debate, audience participation (Q and A) was not
allowed, and the only questions asked of the audience were who won
the debate techically (Nolan, but, in fairness, Hospers is getting
really old), and which of the two positions we agree with.

I said "neither", and since that was not really an adequate answer,
explained that the US regime is not "we", and that Nolan is not
antiwar, and that the antiwar position was not presented at all.

At this point, Bruce Cohen acused me of heckling. He said if I had
any questions for Hospers or Nolan I should go talk to them.

But I don't have any questions for them. And why are we supposed to
be content with a false choice? Neither of the Above is a valid
option. Not calling the US regime "we" is a valid position.

Cohen says this is a minor point. But it's not! The US regime is not
WE, it is THEY, the enemy. The proper libertarian debate is not which
countries "we", the US regime, should invade; any debate which
excludes the option that the US regime is not "we" and has no right
to invade any countries ever (or, for that matter, to exist at all),
is a total and complete travesty.

Cohen reassured me that the antiwar position was in fact presented by
Nolan, and that he is antiwar, and he knows this because he worked on
Nolan's campaign and frequently debated him on the subject. I guess
it's a matter of perspective.

Cohen was a candidate for Vice Chair. Had he won, he would have
joined Aaron Starr, California Chair and fellow warmonger (and Ronald
Raygun idolizer) and Executive Director David Ruprecht, of the
Bohemian Grove Society.

Fortunately, we defeated Cohen and kept our friend Mark Selzer.
During Cohen's speech, I turned my back on him. He is a pompous ass
and does not belong in the LP.

It's time for the LP to kick the warmongers out. This should be a
resolution at state and national levels. And where is the one to
impeach Bush? Still no call for Bush impeachment from the LP.
Instead, they praise his fascist SS "reform" and boast about
attending a conservative political action conference at a time when
even Lew Rockwell talks about Red State Fascism.

There is a post on another blog that says bush is impeachable.

Also if you are aware, Iran wasn't satisfied and insisted that Isreal get wipe of the map. And you still think you want these people to come over here? What are you nuts.

"The Libertarian stance on War and Immigration needs to be changed. If this is done, I can almost guarantee that the Libertarian will stand a greater chance getting into office."

Greater than what, zero?

Libertarian positions are based on principle, not polls.

Perhaps you can join one of the major parties which governs by polling, or start a new one, Majoritarian Party? (Bolsheviks in Russian)

Or how about if the LP changes all its positions on all the issues in one fell swoop? Authoritarian Party?

http://constitutionparty.com/

might be more to your liking, they are anti-immigration. Although they have not done better than the LP.

Besides, most Americans are against the Iraq war now and our numbers are growing.

Wow, Cohen is actually LESS libertarian than the majority!

http://tinyurl.com/cx9yr

The Saddleback College Lariat has just filed in in print
and on the web, a very positive news story about
Libertarian Candidate Bruce Cohen.

Original URL -
http://www.sclariat.com/2005/10/former-student-runs-for-congress.html

Let us know if you agree, but we feel this is
the kind of big picture, positive news Libertarians
can and should get. It's also the kind of coverage
we need to get if we want to start winning.

The article, the result of a two hour long interview
and several phone calls has already gotten us
extra attention from the College Community,
driving web hits and phone calls to us.

We especially thank the Leadership Institute
Chuck Muth, Kori Crow and Aaron Starr for the
Coaching and support making this possible.

Tiny URL for e-mail:
http://tinyurl.com/cx9yr

Bruce Cohen

866 OC Bruce - Toll Free
866 622-7823 - Toll Free

Libertarian for US Congress

JT wrote: "Most rational, libertarian-leaning people wouldn't quit the party just because they can't run for Congress, so I don't see that as a serious impediment to LP growth."

Everyone who participates in politics at some level sees themselves as being just as good as anyone else when it comes to being a candidate. They most probably would not actually choose to run, but secretly inside they believe that they'd do a better job that the other guy if they did run, even if they would never allow themselves to be caught dead actually running for office. If they felt otherwise, they wouldn't be interested in politics in the first place and thus would not become party activists.

Paul wrote: "Cohen is a defender of the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. Would that qualify as interventionist in your opinion?"

Yes in Iraq, no in Afghanistan. Afghanistan was clearly and belligerently harboring a criminal and his band who had conspired to attack our country. Bush had a sworn duty to track them down and bring them to justice. The Taliban government in charge had made it clear that they were not going to turn them over to us for trial or allow us to extradite them. I only wish two things about Afghanistan:

(1) I wish the Bush administration had made more of an effort to pressure the Islamic communities of the world to help capture Bin Laden et al before attacking in Afghanistan. I don't mean Islamic governments. I mean Islamic communities. They are the true power behind Islam and could have pressured their fellow religionists into turning over the fanatics for trial. Despite what is so often claimed, Islam (and most Islamic leaders) condemns violence and condemns what was done on 9/11.

(2) I wish Bush had not distracted from our main task of finding and capturing Bin Laden et al by moving most of our resources to Iraq just because he wanted to finish the insanity started by his father.

Regarding kicking non-pure Libertarians out of the party, Paul wrote: "Never said or implied anything of the kind." Then, further down the page, Paul wrote: "It's time for the LP to kick the warmongers out."

In other words, you're arguing that if a person is Libertarian in most ways except that he favored the Wars in Afghanistan and/or Iraq, he should be kicked out of the party. This is your idea "never saying or implying anything of the kind" about kicking out non-pure Libertarians?

Paul wrote (of Gary Nolan): "He reportedly called the US regime "we", and said that the purpose of the US regime's military gang is to "defend us". So, the only debate was WHICH foreign countries the USSA gang is justified in invading.

In other words, his crime in this case was that he considered himself an American, governed by the US government, whose duty it is to defend our country.

I take it, then, that you believe that the U.S. has no right to go into another country if that country belligerently refuses to turn over a high level criminial terrorist such as Bin Laden for trial?

Okay, I'll add two last points.

First, LTV said, "Everyone who participates in politics at some level sees themselves as being just as good as anyone else when it comes to being a candidate." False (at least as it pertains to federal office). Many Libertarians know they wouldn't make good high-level LP candidates, and they're cool with that. They contribute in other valuable ways.

Second, Paul did indeed contradict himself. He clearly stated more than once that the LP should kick certain people out of the party.

The way I see it-

The political ideology of our three major parties is not shared by the voteing majority known as the political center.

All parties are a minority, so a winning candidates must get support from that center.

We can assume each party base will vote for its candidates so about 30% of the electorate are committed leaving 60% in the center.

Republican and Dmocratic parties routinely change policies and win elections by drawing support from the center.

This may otherwise known as trying to represent the people they wish to govern.

The LP membership cannot carry an election alone either so it too must get support from the center to win.

Since the LP doesn't adjust its platform or policies (read that principles) to engender support from the people, it must convince the people to accept its ideological principles.

This appears to be a loosening strategy and if the strategy is wrong there can be no strategic victory no matter how many races one might win.

I think two things needs to be changed in the platform, that is the immigration and war issues.
The war should be according to the situation. And the immigration well that obvious.

I think the other issues of the platform most people seem to be in agreement. If we do not change these issues in order to standout from the republicrates and democins we are not going to get very far. I hear this over and over. Whether some of us like it or not, we have to do this. People are already taken things in their own hands in regards to the border issue such as the canadian border. Are we going to go with it or be left behind. This action does not surprise me. Because in order for this party to succeed better in the future then it has in the past. Making these added different I think is going to give this party a tremendous break through.

I wrote: "Cohen is a defender of the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. Would that qualify as interventionist in your opinion?"
LTV wrote “Yes in Iraq, no in Afghanistan. Afghanistan was clearly and belligerently harboring a criminal and his band who had conspired to attack our country. Bush had a sworn duty to track them down and bring them to justice. The Taliban government in charge had made it clear that they were not going to turn them over to us for trial or allow us to extradite them.”
Paul) Totally false. Even if you believe the official USSA regime propaganda about 911, and you shouldn’t
(see 911truth.org, http://www.reopen911.org/)
The people of Afghanistan did not attack anyone, and thousands of innocent Afghanis have been killed by the USSA regime which continues to occupy Afghanistan. The Taliban asked Duh!-bya to give them evidence that Bin-Laden was involved in 911 and if he would do so they would turn him over; but Bush insisted on no conditions.
LTV also wrote, .
“I wish Bush had not distracted from our main task of finding and capturing Bin Laden et al by moving most of our resources to Iraq just because he wanted to finish the insanity started by his father.”
Paul) But that is not his (“our”) main task. The fact is that Bin-Laden works for the CIA and the Bush gang knows where he is; it is more useful to have him out there a la Goldstein (1984, Orwell) or perhaps pull him in later as the Bush Crime Family finally faces impeachment and possible deportation to the Hague for war crimes against humanity trials.
Or, perhaps then it will be time to stage another Reichstag-Fire like incident just as they did with 911. Remember, the plans for the Afghanistan and Iraq invasions as well as Heimland Security and “patriot” act were already written, all they needed was an excuse.
Regarding kicking non-pure Libertarians out of the party, I wrote: "Never said or implied anything of the kind." Then, further down the page, I wrote: "It's time for the LP to kick the warmongers out."
LTV) In other words, you're arguing that if a person is Libertarian in most ways except that he favored the Wars in Afghanistan and/or Iraq, he should be kicked out of the party. This is your idea "never saying or implying anything of the kind" about kicking out non-pure Libertarians?
Paul) That’s correct. I never said or implied that anyone who disagrees with the libertarian view on – let’s say – abortion or immigration or the minimum wage or many other views does not belong in the party.
I did say that those who support wars of aggression – the main issue in politics at the moment – should not be in the LP, particularly as candidates for federal office.
There are numerous impure libertarians who I don’t have a problem with being in the party, but defenders of a foreign occupation which has killed 2,000 Americans and 2,000,000 Iraqis (I am counting both wars and the embargo in between), at least half children; wounded, maimed, tortured, raped, imprisoned, made homeless numerous others; and cost 200 billion $$ with no end in sight…tied in with a “war on terror” which only perpetuates terror and is the #1 bogeyman used by the regime to destroy our liberties…those, yes, I would like to see expelled. Defending such monstrous, genocidal evil is simply incompatible with real libertarianism.
I wrote (of Gary Nolan): "He reportedly called the US regime "we", and said that the purpose of the US regime's military gang is to "defend us". So, the only debate was WHICH foreign countries the USSA gang is justified in invading.
LTV) In other words, his crime in this case was that he considered himself an American, governed by the US government, whose duty it is to defend our country.
I take it, then, that you believe that the U.S. has no right to go into another country if that country belligerently refuses to turn over a high level criminial terrorist such as Bin Laden for trial?
Posted by: Libertarian TV at October 28, 2005 07:29 AM
Paul) The US regime is a criminal gang and as far as I am concerned has no rights at all. It exists on stolen money (“taxes”) and its actions consist entirely of violating and destroying freedom, which it does more effectively than any other such gang in the world, it’s propaganda to the contrary. I did not accuse Nolan of any crime, merely failing to present a true libertarian anti-war position. And if you are looking for a criminal terrorist, better start with Bin-Laden’s boss in the USSA White House.
By the way if another country demanded that the USSA hand over a resident under its protection, should they have to supply proof that he is actually guilty of something or would they be justified in invading America and killing thousands of Americans who had nothing to do with the regime?

“ Paul did indeed contradict himself. He clearly stated more than once that the LP should kick certain people out of the party.
Posted by: JT at October 28, 2005 10:27 AM “

Paul) I did not contradict myself. You and LTV have apparently confused my call for kicking warmongers out with a much more general position, which would be to kick all impure libertarians out. Simple logic should be enough to realize that I have never advocated the latter position.

Sorry for the lack of paragraph breaks. I edited in Word and then posted in the comment box, and apparenly this site's software eliminated the paragraph spaces from Word.

Hopefully my comments were still intelligible.

Great blog. It's nice to be here! thins that excited you at 14: http://www.av.com , my parents didnt told me about it , think that will make relief

Paul, I stand corrected. I didn't realize you were limiting your call for LP expulsion to proponents of the Iraq War. Even though I've opposed this terrible war from the start, I don't agree with that position (I still think someone who backs the war can be an LP member). However, I certainly don't think they should be a candidate for Congress.