Watch what we wish for. Any moves by the Dems for more civil liberties will be squashed by the GOP. Any move for more economic liberties will be squashed by the Dems. Legislation which may get passed will be that which takes away more liberties, not which restores liberties.
Americans are closely divided but pretty clear
on one thing - they don't want Libertarians in any
positions of even moderate power. Changing that mindset, even a little, will be long and hard and won't be manifested until the LP can consistently
be the "spoilier."

Divided government is better for us than when either party controls both the White House and Congress.
For all my life the R's talked about "fiscal responsibility" and lowering spending. In the period of '94-2000 when they had Clinton in the White House opposing them, they actually came through on some of that. Spending was down and at least no new big socialist programs were enacted.
However, when the R's had control of Congress and the White House, spending went out of control. Also, the biggest increase in entitlements since LBJ was enacted (Medicare Prescription Drugs).
Divided government is at least more favorable than either major paryt having control. I would prefer that instead of biding time our agenda was moving forward. However, no movement is better than movement toward socialism.

Where's Hammer of Truth and Liberty Mix, you know the blog with Stephen Gordon on staff that received donations of over $10,000 to support it (after prompting by a mass e-mail from Badnarik); then a week after stating Liberty Mix was ready to go (5 months late as it was), it disappears for three weeks and counting?

The government may only be divided for two years until Hillary Clinton or some other rediculous socialist democrat is elected president. We have to focus on stopping that with a serious libertarian candidate with name recognition like John Stossel. He would be the best one of all. Since he is already working with ABC he can get commercials on there easily as well as maybe another station or two. This is a man who could actually win!! All independents and other third parties should do the same thing that opponents of Hugo Chavez in Venezuela are doing and that is to form a coalition with the next Libertarian candidate for president to restore political and other liberties. Government will not be truly divided until Libertarians and other parties hold seats in congress.

I was wary of joining with other third parties because of their stances on many issues, but if they support our candidate, who they really wouldn't be able to argue with on platform, then we can throw them a bone when it comes to some of their finer points.

The Greens have a strong environmental agenda, obviously, and if we can help them understand that the environment would be helped by libertarians clamping down on pollution by actually enforcing fines and violations by polluters to clean up their messes then we might be able to gain some support. It's tough though because they probably are in favor of social welfare programs so we would have to work hard to help them realize private charities are far more efficient and that more money in people's pockets from less taxation would contribute to that end.

Some LP members mentioned a coalition of sorts with the Constitution Party. If they are willing to accept some of our stances on social issues, I'm sure the fiscal responsibility we champion would be welcome. I'm sure they agree with most of us on defense at home rather than abroad.

As for Stossel, does he want to run?

A party doesn't jump up from obscurity straight to the presidency. I like John Stossel. I liked him back in the late '80's when he reported for 20/20. However nobody wants to hand over such a powerful job to somebody with NO previously held office.
That is one of the problems. The two major parties built themselves from the bottom up. We try to go from the top down. That is absurd.
What good would it do us to have a Libertarian president and a congress full of Dems and Reps. He wouldn't be able to get anything done that wasn't possible with an executive order. The next president would be able to undo his executive orders with their own.
That is why Ross Perot would have been ineffective. Even if the Pres's party is in the minority it is easier to get things done if he has SOME friends in congress.
Most of the reforms we favor require massive congressional action. Without a complete turnover in their ideology and mood there is no hope.
We must concentrate on building from the bottom up. First state legislatures, then governorships, then U.S. congress, then Senate and then President.
People will not vote for someone for President if he has no friends in congress or any previously held office.

We have to ask ourselves; Why are we obscure after thirty some years? There are plenty of other entities that have been around for fewer than thirty years and are familiar to almost everyone: Microsoft, aids awareness red ribbons, Crocs, Rush Limbaugh, and many others. What we need more than a famous candidate is a branding/marketing/PR effort. When the LP asks me for $ to start a branding effort I will donate. But I will not send cash for anything until then. There is only one reason Libertarians and libertarianism is obscure, we have failed to get the word out.

John, you're partially right. Working solely from the top down is a mistake but trying to have a presidential candidate is not a mistake, especially if that candidate is already known by the public. Schwarzenegger won on name recognition without ever having held any office. People are fed up with candidates that have too many friends in Congress. Everyone hates Congress so, to add to Rusty's point, people don't vote for Libertarians because they don't know we exist or that we even have candidates.

We can reach out to people who choose not to vote because they don't like Reps AND Dems. Young people, members of other third parties, the 36% of Americans that are registered as independents, etc. We need to focus our dollars on recognition, marketing, etc. Blogs alone won't do it because there needs to be media buzz, or those blog readers that agree with us will still vote lesser of two evils.

How about Drew Carey? Talk about media buzz. He would draw huge attention to the party and if you've ever heard him speak seriously on a subject you hear that he can speak quite rationally. He probably wouldn't win because many people wouldn't take him seriously but if he gets attention to the party and makes our points that could actually lead to a jump start. Maybe he's just a spokesman if not the candidate. We need ADVERTISING! I'm just spitballing here. Thoughts?

My thoughts are for a party that was founded by a "man in a grey flannel suit" someone, somewhere has dropped the ball big-time.

I agree that a candidate with more name recognition (i.e. Carey or Stossel) is a good idea on the marketing front.
I am with you that we need to spend more time and money on getting the word out to a mass audience. I have no money so all I can offer is time (as a reporter on a two-person newspaper I don't have a lot of that to offer, either).
I am just a little annoyed because one of the races that I really, really didn't want to vote for either major party there was no other option. This was a race for the Michigan Legislature (62nd District).
I am a recent defector from the republicans. The straw that broke the camel's back for me was when the Michigan Republicans raised our minimum wage so that we have the highest in the country. We are also the state with the worst unemployment rate that wasn't affected by Katrina. It was a sign that the Republicans won't even fight for economic liberty anymore. Economic liberty was the only reason I ever voted for those clownshoes. My republican representative voted for this measure so I wanted to make sure I didn't vote for him. The Democrat was an out-and-out socialist so I had to leave a race blank on my ballot for the first time. I really wanted to vote for a libertarian there.
It seemed to me futile to be casting votes for gubernatorial candidates and Attorney General who have very little chance of winning.
I think that a majority of moderates, independents, undecideds, etc. would be more willing to take a chance on a third party at the lower levels of gov't.
I know that when I was a republican who leaned libertarian, I would more often take a chance and vote L at the lower levels. Now I vote L at every opportunity.
Advertising is definitely needed. The only TV spot I have ever seen for a L candidate was in '04 for the presidential candidate. If we get the "big name" pres candidate they can generate their own advertising through the media. Then we should spend our money on "issue ads" or individual races where we have a more realistic chance of winning. Attack the weak districts with weak candidates from the D's and R's.

I'm going to campaign for T. Lee Horne III, and I'm a Flash cartoonist if you guys are interested.

Cool song on T. Lee's website.

First off, Free Advertising. Go to Yahoo news and whatever politic news is available, you can go down to discussion and introduce Candidate or libertarianism. ITS FREE. Just take the time and do it.
As far as Stossel, I want to know his opinions on the issues. While he may not be experience in office, if he can sell himself with good answers with solutions to problems that make sense, maybe people will listen. Right now we got people in trained mode for welfare, illegals and we pay for it and more taxes that we are slaves too. YES IF THE WHIG PARTY GOT PUT OUT. SO CAN ONE OF THESE OTHER PARTIES. I AM SICK OF LIBERALS. LIBERAL REPULICANS LIBERAL DEMOCRAP. THEY MERGED.

"As for Stossel, does he want to run?"

The answer is NO, NO, and NO. You're going to have to think of another silver bullet.

I was asking in jest. And I threw Carey's name out there in jest, too. I meant to show simply that we need someone to spark an interest in the media because that's what campaigns need. Famous people do that, see Ralph Nader. Let's get serious and see if Penn & Teller want to share a ticket! Teller could win a veep debate without saying a word. That's how bad the main party guys are.

We keep blogging about all this, but is anyone in LP headquarters even listening? Do we have any plan for commercials? Anything? Who needs X-mas gifts? I've got 100 bucks towards a real commercial. Who wants in?

Hey, my dad's a hardcore Republican, and I got him to vote Libertarian in the last election, at least for statewide offices.

If he'll do it, so will others.

What about Clint Eastwood? Isn't he a big supporter of the Libertarian Party? He could bring a lot of media attention.

A commercial is a good idea and if someone is already contributing $100 toward it, I'm sure that others could contribute some money too. I might be willing to myself.

My only suggestion about the commercial is to wait for a while longer before airing it, perhaps at the mid-way point of the next, two years, as well as at the very end.

I was thinking more along the lines of a steady ad campaign but then again, it's gonna cost more than 100 bucks. Anyone know how much a radio ad costs?

Would it make more sense for libertarian candidates to pool any campaign money they can muster to creat an ad campaign that works for all of them?

It could be an ad marking our general position on fiscal responsibility, personal freedom and responsibility, and across the board reductions in taxes. "Go to LP.org for more info." Then when people come to the site, any candidates that had their contributions in the pot get listed and can have links to their own sites, or better yet their own pages on LP.org. It will direct people to our general platform as well as the candidates the LP offers to make things better in government.

With our limited resources, it just seems to be we may have to do a somewhat un-libertarian thing and unite under a common dollar, maybe the greater percentage of funds, the more site info.

Obviously, we are a ways away from the next election, but that's where the celebs can comein if they are willing to help. They can go on radio and TV shows simply because they are famous. They can offer up the idea of the LP. Then we just have to fork over some cash when the time is right for candidates and the party agenda.

Anyone know how much a radio ad costs?

We have ran radio ads here in the Des Moines area on a hard rock station for about 11 dollars per 30 second ad. It depends on when and where the ads are to be ran. I would say that most political radio ads can be purchased for anywhere between $5 to $45

Radio ads vary greatly, by market, format, station market share, time of day, you have to price them individually. I couldn't even begin to give a "typical" figure.

Wow, I really didn't think they'd be that cheap anywhere. My 100 bucks would do pretty well in Des Moines! Hard Rock stations might actually be a good place to start - young listeners, politically independent (I would guess), disenchanted with government in general, perhaps.

I would suggest two different ad campaigns. One during the political "offseason" in between elections that is issue based. Get the idea out there that there is a party concerned about these issues. A lot of people agree with us on issues that neither of the major parties even addresses. Of course that is because they are either the cause of the problem or our issues are the few things they agree upon.
If people know there is a party that is thinking about these issues in a different way they would be more willing to listen to that party come election time.
When it comes to election time, however, these general issue ads should be placed on the backburner. The american voting public is in general lazy. Otherwise we wouldn't be in as much of a mess as we are. To expect them to run to their computer to find out what candidates support this idea after seeing an ad is not realistic.
We should pour what ad money we have at election time into individual races. I suggest we focus more time and energy at the lower levels first. If we target weak points of the R's and D's we stand a better chance of success.
As there are more of us in state legislatures we will earn more respect because we have something to show for our efforts. Nobody wants to keep voting for people who aren't going to win as a protest vote (myself and present company excluded).
The presidency and national congress are goals for later eras. We must do what we can at the state levels.

John B, you're right on about when to focus on which type of ads, it's a great point about voters being lazy. Because voters are lazy, the media only recognizes federal positions because that is what their audience is drawn to, so I would disagree we should wait on those. They are what draws voters that are outside Republican and Democrat bases to the polls. They get the attention we would need to get enough new voters and the disenchanted voters to earn any seats. With the way the media works today with everyone having internet access and TV and radio on all the time we can make a difference rather quickly as opposed to a 30 year plan, in my opinion. We just need one spark.

The problem is libertarianism as defined by the non force principle. You'll never get more than a very mall subset of americans to agree and vote to it, no matter how much "education" or Branding or spin.

THEY DONT BUY THE UNDERLINING CONCEPTS. THEY DONT BUY THAT ALL TAXATION IS THEFT. THEY DONT ACCEPT THAT EVERYTHING MUST BE PRIVATIZED. There ARE SOME THINGS THAT BELONG IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR.

The problem is yourself. You've painted yourself so far into the margins it's impossible for you to offer a political product that will attract enough of a support base to grow the party without half of the LP membership claiming that it's "unprincipled", no matter what the direction is.

Timothy is right. I suggested a "moderate" position to start with, at least because a lot of Americans consider themselves moderates and it was shot down by people because it was not extreme enough of a libertarian view. People want everything all at once but we don't have anything yet so how can we expect everything. In small very poor countries where people have nothing, revolutions can happen quickly because they have nothing else to lose. Despite how great this country CAN be, it is still pretty great even with all our problems, so we have to look to those things people hate the most.

We can focus strongly on taxation and excessive spending in government because almost everyone can agree on those things yet the GOP and Dems are the problem. More money will lead to manyof the other things we support - privatization, less bureaucracy, etc.

Of course we should focus on a moderate position at first. Nobody who isn't a die-hard libertarian will be for "no taxes whatsoever," no involvement in other countries, eliminating public education and some of the other extreme views I have seen here. I myself believe that SOME taxes are neccessary. I am not an ANARCHIST. If the government is going to protect my property from theft by other private individuals or by invasion from a foreign state they need $ to do that.
I was not advocating a complete abandonment of the national races just a focus on the local ones. Before I completely converted from a R to a libertarian I voted Libertarian at the local levels. I know several other R's on the threshold who do the same thing. If we can have some success to show at a local level that gives us a marketing tool at the higher levels. (ad campaigns saying something like, "It worked in Battle Creek, Michigan it can work for you/U.S.!")
I personally think my own state (Michigan) is ripe for a major Libertarian takeover. It has the worst economy in the country thanks to the socialist Labor Unions running both parties. The republicans voted for a minimum wage increase in the face of the worst unemployment in the nation. Who can defend voting for these jokers?
The few youth who haven't left for better opportunities have no love for the labor unions or their control of our state. The closed shop factories here don't hire young people and haven't for almost two decades. Yet the two major parties keep kissing the Union's behinds.
The Democrats offer nothing more than raised taxes, hidden fees, charging a person several times for the same offense (The so-called Driver Responsibility Law) and other money-grubbing actions.
This state needs some good old-fashioned capitalism. We should focus on states that are in economic straits and really pour it on.
I think our most marketable ideas are our economic ones. With the possible exception of Marijuana Legalisation (especially amongst the young).