Unfortunately and shockingly, Maymin only got 1% of the vote. I can't even believe it. What happened? Maybe Libertarians' only chance for electoral success is through running as a major party candidate.? Just another bland election cycle for the LP as usual. Even the Constitution Party got an elected state rep this time around in the lower 48 states. I guess I'll have to support the CP as well.

Phil's also agreed to be on Gary Popkin's Hardfire sometime around/after mid-December. Looks like I'll be hosting. Look forward to sharing some post-electoin rap with Phil.

Eric Sundwall
LPNY At-Large-Rep
LNC Region 7 Alternate

Yes Rick Jore did get elected as CP Candidate in HD 12 in Montana. Jore had been a elected Republican when he switched to being a CP member. (the CP of Montana is not affiliated with the National Group) In Jore's last two runs for office he lost by small margins because of a Republican spoiler and in 2004 the vote was tied between Jore and his challenger Windham. Our governor broke the tie in Jore's favor and the Democrats took the case to the Montana Supreme Court where the court threw out one vote giving Windham the victory. Jore was ordered to pay courts costs and eventally when Jore refused, assets were taken. This race could have been more payback against Windham and the Democrats. It also helps to have Jore Corporation(once a family owned business) located in Ronan, one of the largest employers in that part of Montana. Rick Jore is a friend of liberty and freedom. Jore wotked hard for the win and could have won with an (L)designation as well. We need good candidates willing to work hard at getting elected. It can happen. Once people find out their votes are not wasted we can win.

One thing we need to think about is whether our goal is to elect candidates who support a personal liberty -- smaller government agenda or whether it is solely to promote the LP.

I am not endorsing either idea at this point, but would like to point out that both the DP and the RP have Liberty Caucuses within them.

Perhaps cooperation with one or both of these groups when and where possible (and where we can be certain we would not be sacrificing core principles) would do more for liberty than only running LP candidates who have little chance of winning.

What is keeping them from being Libertarians? I mean aside from the fact they win if they have Rep or Dem support.

And how can every congressman NOT be in a Liberty Caucus? That should be a red flag right there that they don't care about liberty. Can we use that against them, because I think the public would be interested to know why their rep isn't championing liberty at every turn.

It's good to be back after a long time.

Nick -

Exactly.
Let's face facts: The vast majority of people in the two major parties (especially the vast majority of public officials representing the two major parties) have no interest in advancing liberty at all.

Our only hopes for doing this come in the form of the Libertarian Party and the Constitution Party, (and to a lesser extent, the Republican Liberty Caucus and the Democratic Freedom Caucus).

Besides, both parties oppose the drug war, oppose the welfare state, support gun rights, support property rights, support states rights/local control, support a laissez-faire economy (although the CP wants higher import tariffs), support a non-interventionist foreign policy, and support a U.S. military stationed only in the U.S.

And both parties would definitely support a Ronald Paul Presidential campaign.

I will acknowledge a good number of other social issues on which the aforementioned third parties differ. However, the issues that I mentioned earlier should be enough for both parties and the liberty/freedom caucusues to form a coalition with each other in any legislative body.

By the way, I changed my posting name for this blog only.

Through the miracle of C-SPAN, I was able to catch quite a few debates -- for legislature, congress, governor -- in which LP candidates participated. The excellent news is that there was a respectable amount of material, from which to choose! I think I saw more LP candidates in high-profile debates than in any other year since I started paying attention to the LP in 1980. We are getting into the ring and being taken seriously. We need to keep this momentum going into 2008. The more debates we are in, the better off we are, win or lose.

I heard the audio of Phil Maymin's televised debate of 10/4 against Shays and the Demo candidate. I was impressed with his answers -- he is sharp and articulate -- and also by his skill in managing his time during the debate. The moderator actually pointed out on a couple of occasions how thrifty he had been with his time. Unlike his opponents, he only opened his mouth when he had something to say, and then, he said it completely, letting the opposition have it with both barrels. Sometimes his comments were long, sometimes one-liner short, but always on point. The audience listened to Maymin, and often enough they applauded.

I hope this guy runs again. Especially given his performance in this debate and his obvious way with the crowd there, I am amazed that he got only between 1-2% of the vote, although it is worth noting that Shays was in the fight of his political life, and the final results of the contest between him and the Demo were a squeaker, even though Maymin did not quite command the margin of victory between the two. If we have a policy of providing national funding for promising targeted campaigns in the next election cycle, I would certainly consider putting Maymin's name on the eligibility list. Shays is looking fairly vulnerable after this election cycle, and Maymin has a full two years to get voters on his side between now and election day, 2008. Is there any possibility he might want to run for state legislature? He might actually be able to win office at that level, using it as a stepping stone to higher office later, if he wishes to pursue politics at all.

Haven't some suggested that the LP form a PAC that would funnel money only to those libertarians who agreed to run as Independent?
Would the vote totals double if every Libertarian candidate appeared on the ballot as an Independent. Maybe Richard Winger has some
evidence comparing those states where Libertarian doesn't appear on ballot (due to high petitioning requirements) so our candidates are forced to compete as Independents.

Stan -- I second your recommendation to forge bonds with the Constitution Party, for whose candidate I voted in the 2004 presidentials. The differences are very small and the areas of agreement are huge. Politics is compromise, unfortunately, so either we sit relatively winless on our principles or we budge a bit and work with a soulmate. I know this is contentious. But so might be the fact that our hero, Ron Paul, has to run as a Republican.

Chip -

In addition, the Libertarian and Constitution Parties agree on the most crucial issues. I would like to see these two parties form an alliance and become the dominant coalition in every legislative body throughout the country. Then we can focus on taking the executive offices where we could make the judicial appointments.

From Wikipedia:

"It takes a conservative approach on moral issues and seeks to restore what it calls the "Biblical foundations" of "American jurisprudence"."

and

"supporting protectionist policies on international trade."

Sounds like Republican to me.

Not very libertarian but we could always try to change their minds to get them over here, but merging and then assuming they will change once here is illogical.

This has not been a "bland" election cycle. In Kentucky District 4, I, Brian Houillion, ran against the incumbent, Geoff Davis of the Republican Party, and his opponent, Ken Lucas, his Congressional predecessor, the Democrat. With a budget of only $750 I was able to take %5 of the vote. This may not sound like much, but it was 3 times more than any other finish by a Kentucky Third Party in a race that involved candidates from both major parties, in over 20 years. The cause is growing and with the right charismatic candidates involved, The Libertarian efforst will grow and flourish. I plan on continuing my quest to promote Libertarianism. I already have the attention of the local press and even the National press. If you are interested, Google my name (Brian Houillion). I've been interviewed by Fox News.com and have the ear of the media. I'm the little Liberty Engine that Could. Politics is not just policy, but persona. Success is soon. With the proper support, I can make it happen. We can do it without the shadow of switching Parties and Realpolitik, but we need the entusiasm of a true political machine and not the second guessing of a sputtering movement. Can we do it? Only YOU can help decide.

Nick -

There are many differences betwen the G.O.P. and the Constitution Party.

G.O.P. = meddlesome foreign policy, U.S. troops stationed throughout the world, and wars fought needlessly.

Constitution Party = non-interventionist foreign policy, U.S. troops stationed only in the U.S., and wars fought only for defense and retaliation.

--------------------------------------------------

G.O.P. = more budget deficits, more debt, increased size of gov't, intervention in the economy, corporate welfare, social welfare, and high income taxes.

Constitution Party = sharp cuts in gov't spending, sharp cuts in the size of gov't, abolition of the welfare state, abolition of the income tax, and no more intervention in the economy (except for import tariffs).

--------------------------------------------------

G.O.P. = centralization of power, enforcement of gun laws, and enforcement of eminent domain.

Constitution Party = states rights/local control, abolition of gun laws, and enforcement of property rights.

OK, Stan, so they're halfway there. Let's bring them the rest of the way. Conservative fiscal policies are only part of the solution. Personal freedom and responsibility are also part of our Constitution. I hope they see that if this merger idea is seriously considered.

Nick -

I'm not necessarily suggesting a merger. I'm suggesting that we form a voting bloc in any legislative body.

Also, if the Constitution Party has a candidate running in a specific race, then the Libertarian Party should support that candidate and not run a candidate of their own. Likewise, if the Libertarian Party has a candidate running in a specific race, then the Constitution Party should support that candidate and not run a candidate of their own.

Nick -

But, I do agree with you in that I would like to see the Constitution Party become more like us on social issues.

Give me a break, focus on the mind set. We have loosing down pat. So why does it bother us? Join who?

NO it must stop here, now is the time the world is spinning out of control, what will happen in the next 24 months will open a door no one yet sees, and a lot of very rich people will attempt to run the R and D guys will have a blood bath.

The party platforms will be a joke, and LP does not have to take the low road the two major parties will do that to them selfs. Single failure is that they have no ideas except how to win the next election. Their focus is on winning this year the Republicans took their eye off the ball in 24 months the focus will be to win, there is the opening, am I the only one who sees what these people are doing to each other. Clinton? Is a lier and an out right joke, a few pictures from the old papers and she blows up both sides will make so much noise the a quite but firm focused voice could spoil the party.

eb

While it would satisfy an inner desire to become America's Cato (an uncompromising Roman politician who won very few victories due to his refusal to budge an inch on even the most trivial things) to say "no compromise, no way!"
I realize that all politics is compromise. Even if a complete and almost total "Libertarian Revolution" is ever affected by electing our officials at nearly every level compromise will still be needed.
I have some strong disagreements with this party on military issues. However I joined because it echoes my beliefs on most other important issues. So I vote Libertarian except in the one post where most military issues are decided- President.
This is a compromise I must make as a voter because there is no party that advocates minimal government interference in personal and economic lives that also is for the type of military and foreign policies I favor. As voters make compromises so must political parties.
Every time we gain a seat in a legislature, congress, county board, etc. we will be in the minority at least for a while. It will bode poorly for re-election of our candidates if all they can offer is that they voted against all the proposals from the two major parties and brought up some of their own proposals that were pronounced "DOA" (like Reagan's budgets).
The only way our candidates will be able to accomplish things once in office is to form coalitions. For us they must be on an issue-by-issue basis. Republicans will be our allies on more of the free-market laissez faire issues while the Democrats will be our allies on some social issues.
The constitution party, green party and other 3rd parties should be looked to first on the issues where they agree with us since they are laboring under the same disadvantages we are.