I believe the LPNews qualifies as a newspaper with all the freedoms the New York Times can claim, and we shouldn't be worrying about any restrictions under election law that are placed on the rest of our organization.
The newspaper, as a publication, is not the party, it is the press, and within its pages, has all the rights of a free press, including the right to endorse candidates (or report on the LP's endorsements) and publish campaign ads.
The First Amendment makes no exception for the party affiliation of its owners, readers or editors, and freedom of content is the whole point of the guarantee. Candidates should be able to buy ad space there the same as anywhere.
As with any kind of publishing, only the first copy is expensive to produce. We ought to place it on newsstands and in libraries, or hand them out outside polling places with an insert for local contacts and an invitation to join the party.
We ought to be able to expand its circulation with minimal effort. I'd start by buying a subscription for my local library or even for the New York Times!

Yes, libertarians should start by concentrating on grass roots races for positions such as city council and school board. However, the state and local party organizations can lead those efforts. The national party should be a relatively small, low-budget organization that provides a few services like a website and member database.

Although I am for running presidential candidates for outreach purposes, I am in general agreement that we should concentrate on lower level races and focus and direct money at the more winnable races.

Most voters seem to have a mental block against third parties in genreal and it will probably take a genreation of seeing Liberetarians IN OFFICE to get over it.

We need a libertarian to take control of a major news network channel. Then, maybe, we'll get the exposure we deserve. We always hear people on TV say that their is no alternative to the Dems and Reps, but they never mention the LP.

As long as we are viewed by the electorate as at best a wasted vote and potentially a spoiler, we will lose. As a party we should focus on getting a ranked ballot implemented in as many jurisdictions as possible, ideally a Federal mandate that all elections must use a ranked ballot. IRV has been the preferred system of the LP for awhile now, but a Condorcet method, due to the R's & D's each being likely to rank us over each other, would result in a sudden wave of Libertarian victories.

Hi! Why isn't Steve Kubby listed on your front page as a 2008 Presidential candidate.
Didn't he already file with the Federal Election Commission as a 2008 candidate for President of the U.S.A.?
http://www.fec.gov

LETTER TO THE EDITOR:

Hi!

I am a Vermont political candidate, but not a Libertarian.

I have been on the ballot, but not as a major party candidate.

http://www.nytimes.com/ref/elections/2006/VT.html

http://www.times.com/ref/elections2004/2004VT.html

In a statewide publication,
under 17 Vermont Statutes Annotated Section 2810,
I wrote a public complaint in the 2006 election that I was excluded from candidate forums and debates by organizations including AARP,
Vermont Public Radio, WCAX,
University of Vermont, etc.

I believe that some of the organizations that discriminated against me take public tax dollars or public donations and that they are operating as illegal, unregistered political action committees spending taxes or contributions for the purpose of supporting one or more candidates while excluding others,
and fraudulently influencing the outcome of state and federal elections by telling voters there are only two candidates for office, or other fraudulent language.

I filled in a number of on-line F.B.I. internet fraud complaints against newspapers, Vermont Public Radio , Burlington Free Press, Caledonia Record, Times Argus, and Vermont Public T.V. for varioius fraudulent statements and language misleading the voters to believe that as a candidate, I did not exist, and\or that there were only two candidates for office and I wasn't one of them.

In 2004 I came in 3rd out of 6 candidates for two offices, Governor and U.S. Senate.

In 2006 I came in 3rd out of 6 candidates for two offices, Governor and U.S. Senate.

I repeatedly stated in my on-line complaints to the F.B.I., where they have on-line internet fraud complaint forms, that I was not doing it to harrass or annoy them, but that I wanted to establish and on-going reporting record of abuse against me.

Cris Ericson http://crisericson.com
and http://2008winner.com

Before anything libertarians have some "positioning" and "branding" to do. The public has no clue what libertarians stand for. How do we do it? Start with focus groups and questionaires. Find out how the public perceives us, if they indeed perceive us as anything at all. The marketing plan goes from there.

Hey, if you just happened by this post and you're not a libertarian and/or too not familiar with libertarianism, I'd be happy if you'd post your thoughts. Thanks!

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?

We need advertising. The money we would normally spend on candidates shoudl be focused on media buys so we can get some exposure. Only then will the public turn out to vote for our candidates, when they know what the LP is and what libertarians stand for.

I call for the party to bring the public to us, then we can sell our candidates to them.

We need to do 2 things: 1) Produce "who Libertarians are and what they believe" ads to let the public know, in a friendly way, who we are and what we stand for. Highlight the most popular elements of our platform that most can agree with us on.

2) We need to actively seek college and high school age kids. These people are sick and tired of being told what to do all their lives by someone else - they have even less freedom than the rest of us. A Liberty message sounds especially appealing to them. People of this age group (late teens to early 20's) are also just forming opinions and are still in the process of discovering who they really are in life. Democrats are very good at getting to this age group. MTV has a voter registration drive, and so does the WWE. Why isn't the LP going out there and getting to know high school and college age kids?

Also going to NRA events and gun shows is a good idea. We are the most gun friendly organization there is. Why should the Republicans get all the gun owners' votes?

Derek is right. Do we know how many colleges have LP groups? An ad campaign that has commercials on Comedy Central, The CW, during WWE shows, anyting that young people are watching is a great place to start. But the ad has to be entertaining, not just informative. Otherwise it will be missed by the target audience. Have the informative ads on during the local news.

I believe that information is the greatest weapon in polotics. At this time the medium of communication is controlled by the 2 party system.The truth is that Libertarians are not alone in this struggle. There are many parties not being givin a chance in elections. I believe it to be in all of these groups intrest to form a coalition of thrid parties with the pourpose of getting more add space for opposing views. This coalition could also work to change election laws to make it easier for small party candidates to participate in debates, forums and actually get on every ballot.

I ran a lineholder campaign for the Colorado legislature last month and commissioned a two polls after the election.

The first poll contacted unaffiliated people who habitually vote, even in odd year elections. Of 301 people who disclosed their voting preference, 16 voted for me (5%), compared to 3.8% of the total voters in the election. My supporters were disproportionately older than 48, younger than 28, and female.

The second poll contacted voters of all parties younger than 28 and identified 329 people willing to disclose their voting preference. There were 45 people who supported me (14%). The Democrat received 58% of the disclosed votes in the poll and 57% in the official election results.

My strongest supporters were women unaffiliated with a political party. I received 27 of their 65 votes (26%). There were 3 other candidates, consisting of two men and a Republican woman. She received 15% of the disclosed vote of the unaffilated women, and beat me by a large margin in every other demographic category. She earned 37% of the vote in the official results.

My next best group was unaffiliated men. I received 13% of their disclosed votes.

I believe these results are accurate, but imprecise because men are much more willing to disclose their voting preference.

The Libertarian Party has a bright future because our supporters are disproportionately young, and more likely to agree with us on economic issues as they get older. We should focus our campaigns on contacting young women in person and by phone.

We focus too much energy on "winnable" races, and not enough on building our base. If we have registered 100 voters in a district and our candidate receives 900 votes (4%), our goal in the next election should be to register 150 voters and earn 1100 votes (5%). We should be focused on making measurable progress, even when it does not result in an election victory.

The quickest and easiest way for our candidates to increase their support in college towns is to advocate legalizing marijuana and lowering the drinking age to 18. In addition, we should stress our opposition to unrelated persons occupancy laws in cities where it exists (not in California, Michigan, New York, and New Jersey where state Supreme Courts have struck down these laws).

College students are easy to reach in dorms and at student union buildings. They talk to each other about politics much more than older voters, so a small effort goes a long way.

There are three issues we must meet head-on to become successful.

1. We need to groom candidates for higher office by running in and winning local elections. Local elections are as much about standing in the community as party affiliation, indeed many local elections are non-partisan. To succeed, Libertarians must be active in their community BEFORE seeking public office: in PTAs and other volunteer community groups. In conjunction with this, our candidates and local/state party organizations need to become far more adept at raising money. And lastly, we need to run articulate candidates who can and will focus on the issues central to the office sought. Neither returning to a gold standard nor abolishing the Department of Education are going to win many votes in a city council race.

2. At the same time, we need to run candidates for national office that have some name recognition as well as the ability to raise BIG money. A John Stoessel (and I'm not pushing him, just an example) or someone with similar name recognition would get a boat-load of free press coverage, even TV exposur, that our candidates do not get now. Think of our past presidential candidates. Good Libertarians all. And absolutely unknown outside our party. (And often not widely known within our party.) A well-known national candidate would also benefit other Libertarians further down-ticket. And

3. We must focus our campaigns on ideas and positions the body politic can both grasp and find attractive. Smaller government, lower taxes, and less intrusion in our lives resonates with a majority of potential voters. Anarchistic solutions and looking down on voters as ignorant "sheeple" drives people away.

I believe our states and local affiliations should focus on winnable local races and possible state and congressional races. We should use pamphlets similar to the ?Libertarian Viewpoint? done on a local, state or regional basis to get our message out.

Our National office, while it should probably run a presidential candidate for exposure and helping other candidates, it should concentrate on one or two specific issues that directly affects a large swath of people, where many people agree with us, and where both larger parties have dropped the ball. Privatizing Social Security would be the one issue where I believe we could take the issue over. The republicans gave lip service to it but dropped the ball and where never fully behind it. They were trying to sell it to their base when they should have been trying to sell it to the people outside their base (i.e. moderate democrats, independents, etc). The leaders in the Democrat party are opposed to privatization now but at one time did have a number of leaders who were for it. We should use that to our advantage. We should hit the critics head on by running ads and other media on why privatizing social security is right for the poor, minorities, women, elderly, children, and just about everyone else except leaders in the Democrat party. The republicans didn?t say much of anything about how it helped these type of people. We should discuss the merits of owning these assets privately versus having no ownership and being completely reliant on future taxes and the will of 535 representatives. We should mention that if people want the protections of government backing than purchasing gov?t bonds through a private account is a far better deal for them than the current social security program. We should pound the media and voters with new information every few weeks from the beginning of the political election season to the end. One on how it affects the poor, the next one on how it affects women, and on and on. We should enlist the help of CATO and other think tanks. We should give a site preferably the LP.org site to go to find out where they would be with a privatized program (a calculator program). Once they get to the site it may lead people to look at where we stand on other issues as well and give them insight into candidates that we are running across the country. This is an issue that the public in general is already behind us. Many others have been led to believe that this is not a good idea by party hacks who know that it will destroy their political power if privatization were to go through. The economy would most likely thrive after privatization happened and many people who currently are not part of the ownership of the economy will now have a vested interest in it. If we are the party that makes privatizing social security happen we will become a player on the national scene and hopefully do what the republicans did and become a major party over one issue (slavery). This does not mean that other issues are not important, but this one issue could bring us to national prominence and allow us to discuss these other issues as well.

I agree with John on no. 1 and no. 3.

I believe the Libertarian party would make much better headway if it actively started promoting itself as a replacement party rather than a 3rd party. Examine both the practicality of that idea and the natural target for replacement.
To those not familiar with the idea that overall Liberty means less overnment involvement in fiscal and social matters, the Libertarean party is most easily explained as Fiscally Conservative and Socially Liberal.
Americans overall seem to be more what is labeled fiscally conservative than they used to be. That is viewing that people should have the control over their own money rather than government.
The big split and where people seem less willing to change is over social/religious liberalism vs conservatism. Although the Republican party claims fiscal conservatism, some Republicans seem happy to go along with big government, but will never abandon social conservatism. Democrats, on the other hand, are overwhelmingly drawn to social liberalism and, as the so-called Reagan-Democrats proved, can be won over to "Fiscal Conservatism". Therefore, I believe the natural target of replacement by the Libertarian Party is the Democrat Party. The Libertarian Party should begin a concerted effort, promoting Social Liberty first (but not abandoning the principle of smaller government), should be actively promoting the replacement of the Democratic Party with the Libertarian Party. Fervent previously Democrat voters would see that Libertarians are more serious about promoting social liberty than the Democrat party, and can be convinced of the natural superiority of fiscal liberty.
Using this method, could raise the Libertarian Party to Primary party status and relegate the Democrats to 3rd party status in as few as 3 to 5 two year election cycles.

I belive we need to work on winnable races ,ballot access races and the presidential race.I belive the party needs to help groups that help candidates. We need to grow PAC,s and find good suppliers. They need to help set up classes for our candidates or help us find these classes like the leadership inst. campaign classes.We need to focus on running campaigns at the highest level.We need to run more TV ads. We need to produced high quality ads that can be used by anyone with a slight change or two.We can run ads in Atlanta on Fox news for $18.00. per spot.We need to have a list of blogs on lp.org for people to go to.I belive we need to quite running paper candidates, they hurt the party except for ballot access.

LONG TERM: People have to value freedom, and they no longer do. Whatever the "Public Indoctrination System" has been teaching kids for decades, it's not about liberty.

We (the movement, not necessarily the party) should return to campus and offer scholorships to libertarian education and journalism majors.

I agree with Joseph about the scholarships. Does the LP have anything like that going now? If not, contact me. I will volunteer to start it.

What we need is a marketing campaign to give us a good image. Nobody knows what the Republicrats stand for anymore but they continue to vote for them. Why? Because image is everything. I'm not saying we should compromise our positions, but let's put a face on our name.

We should hire a professional marketing firm to do a PR campaign for us. It's been proven to work time and time again. We as LP'ers continue to promote the virtues of the free market system, yet for some reason we do a lousy job of marketing ourselves.

Wake up!! Focusing only on the local campaigns is wrong, wrong, wrong. The LP will surely lose with that strategy. Listen, young people care little about politics, but they care even less about who is elected town council member. Yes, a grass roots movement needs to take place, but do it at the national level, with national issues that young people care about. It's not all alcohol and marijuana either. Find one young person who thinks the internet needs to be regulated. Let's face it, you're never going to get enough old people to change their mind to sweep the LP into power. :)

I agree with Jason Peck. Image and positioning is everything. If anyone at headquarters is reading this. let's hire a marketing firm!

Everything that I have seen and read about the 2006 election, including polling data, pundits, experts and all, indicate that this elections was primarily a referendum on the war in Iraq. Yet when I search the LP website for Iraq I find no mention of the leading political issue of the day since 2005. Why is that?

Libertarians used to advocate a foriegn policy if non-interventionism. Yet now the party hides from any mention of foriegn policy. The LP has squandered a major opportunity.

While Republicans rode to defeat on a stratagy of "Stay the Course", the Democrats, having no real answer to the Iraq problem, look to imposing a draft to achieve some kind of social justice. The LP had an incredible chance to use this issue to show what Liberarianism means: 1)Intervention in the affairs of other countries is wrong, and 2) government programs usually fail.

The Libertarian Party, by not claiming this issue, has rendered itself to be largely irrelavant in the biggest policical debate of the day.

Local elections may be easier to win, but people form the political identity on national issues. If the LP national office does not address national issues there is no reason for it to exist.

Let's face reality. Neither the Democratic Party or the Republican Party is going to disappear and be replaced by the Libertarian Party or any other party. The political game is rigged against such a collapse. But either one can, over the long haul, morph into a party that espouses essentially libertarian ideas. So how do libertarians make that possible? How did Milton Friedman's ideas about vouchers, and Robert Poole's privatization (neither of which, of course, is pure libertarianism) "infect" at least a substantial number of mainstream Americans?
Why can't "smaller, cheaper government" make a resurgence within one or both major parties?

In a two party system, politics is about getting 51% on your side. Throw in a small third party,
and it's about their struggle to keep one of the two major parties from getting the figurative 51%.
The losers will soon figure out how to placate the minor party voters so as to restore their 51%.
So our job is to force the two big guys to come calling, to incorporate enough libertarian support to win. And we then have to hope that our superior ideas "infect" those parties and overwhelm less moral and less efficacious philosophies that deny individual liberties.

I think several here have hit the proverbial head. National advertising in prime time and during the 18-25 audiences.

Scene: 2 19-21yr old male college students discussing how the repubs like to start unnecessary wars in foreign countries and the dems want to re-instate the draft! We do need change, and hey I found some answers with this libertarian party!

smaller government, fewer taxes, more freedom!

I think that national commercials with the message, what we stand for, if that gets out we get more people behind our party!

First of all, I think it is exciting that the national guys are looking for comments and suggestions. Thanks for the opportunity to add to the discussion!

Focus resources from individual campaigns to ballot initiatives. Incumbents have an enormous advantage over challengers regardless of affiliation. The competitive playing field is much more even at the initiative/referendum process. As examples, at the national level the party could coordinate a constitutional amendment to prohibit the draft and at the local level establish eminent domain restrictions/abolishment. Initially, these initiatives should be politically moderate and achievable. These initiatives should not advocate radical changes that will only reinforce the LP stereotype as a party of crackpots. With success, these actions provide the dual benefit of providing exposure to the LP, along with libertarianism, and accomplish the mutual goal of re-establishing a limited government. If these campaigns are well articulated and professionally managed, the LP, both nationally and locally, will gain credibility with voters and the media.

Here's my advice (Pay special attention to the last item):

-We need to get some really rich people to run for office, and get around the FEC regulations by funding their own campaign. However, do they know how to spend it wisely? That could be a problem, but that could just be a matter of finding a good campaign manager.

-Please, get us some more of these big signs, for everyone to see, not some website or some party literature not out in the open.
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y121/Zodiacjack/newsmilebill.jpg

-Do not get rid of the presidential capaign. This is an excellent outreach tool, and gives the TV news media an excuse to interview Libertarians for once.

-Follow Browne's advice:
http://www.harrybrowne.org/articles/LibertarianVoteTotal.htm

-The best idea I came up with, it to get a webmaster (or multiple webmasters) to enhance the state (or county?) Libertarian Party websites. *Require that every state party website have a forum.* A conglomeration of lone wolf idiots can grow into a community of close, knowledgeable, activist friends, when they have an online forum to communicate.

Down here in Southern Maryland, there is nothing for me to do, except get petition signatures to keep us on the ballot. I think I could find a lot of people, and find a lot more things to do, if we had a Libertarian forum.

I know this from personal experience. Pokegym.net, one of the most popular Pokemon websites in the world, is a great example of a successful online forum. Friendships have been made, events have been planned, lots of people learn lots new things. It sure is great.

http://pokegym.net/forums/

The LP's strategy should focus on three points:

1. Encouraging LP members to become involved at the local level. There are numerous vacancies on local planning boards and sometimes even local city councils. LP members that believe in their cause need to be encouraged to volunteer or run for such positions AND enact libertarian policies.

2. The LP's strategy should be local. All politics is local and the best hope the LP has (other than my point #3) is at the local level.

3. IF the LP is going to run candidates at the federal level (U.S. House, U.S. Senate), PLEASE encourage such candidates to attempt to be the margin of difference between the Democrat and Republican candidates. The LP needs to become viable. If the LP continues to "take away votes" from either the Democrat or the Republican in a given race (HOPEFULLY the incumbent, whether D or R), then the LP will gain press and our ideas will be given coverage.

I really don't understand the point of this party if we don't focus attention on low-level, "winnable" seats that some people on this blog seem to think of as meaningless.

Sorry for the bitchiness of this post, but I'm in profound disagreement with the views being expressed here.

It doesn't matter how successful we are at broadening the party. If we're amazingly, astoundingly successful and some day can sport a party which comprises 5% of the nation, we STILL won't be winning national elections. Building the party is a strategy which perhaps strokes the egos of party operatives and volunteers, but it does nothing to change the political landscape of America (unless, of course, you actually believe that Nader pulls Democrats left and Libertarians make Republicans more fiscally conservative, etc).

Also, the Democrats are NOT the party libertarians should try to be drawing from most. Of course we need to reach out to both the left and the right to win any election at any level, but most Americans don't vote based on social issues. Young people do, and evangelicals do, but things like social security, income tax rates, and outsourcing affect the average person's life far more than gay marriage. I think we need to reach out to Republicans more, and paint ourselves as a serious party by moralizing less about issues which are completely meaningless because we couldn't change them as elected officials, such as the War on Drugs or the existence of the Federal Reserve. The Free Democrats of Germany are a more or less libertarian party (though far less extreme) and if you talk to their actual voters, many of them would agree with us on issues like that. They, unlike our Libertarian Party, are successful, though, because they focus on issues within mainstream political discussion. I'm not saying sell out, but focus on what people care about, which our candidates don't always do.

I don't mean to say the party does a horrible job, but these are changes I think would help.

In response to Mat:
For myself, I never suggested that local, winnable offices were meaninglsess, just that this is not the purpose of the national Libertarian Party.
I am lucky enough to live in a part of the country that has a reletively strong state party and and active county party. We are very capable of running candidates for local, "winnable" races, and have been fielding such candidates for some time. That is the legitimate purpose of state and local parties.
If you do not have an active party in your county then start one. If there are not enough engaged libertarians in you county to start an organization, then it does not really matter what some libertarians in Washington DC try to do, you will not see local races being won in your county.
I think it is inherently unlibertarian to believe the local races can only be won by a stong, central, national organization.

Despite the apathy young people have for politics, the Democrats and Republicans still do a better job of recruiting young people. Young people don't watch Clark County Idol. They watch American Idol. They think nationally. You're not going to find any local issue or candidate that will sufficiently motivate a young person to come to the poll and vote for a Liberation candidate. In that regard, you are never going to be known to the young generation.

As for me, I'm 25, and I stumbled upon the LP accidentally a few years ago. I was politically illiterate. I didn't know the difference between Libertarian and Liberal. You think I'm any different from the norm? The LP is virtually invisible to the young. The LP doesn't need an image overhaul because it doesn't even have an image! :(

This doesn’t mean the LP has to abandon the local strategy. And I don’t suggest it is meaningless. However, you are never going to be seen by the young without a strong stance on national issues and an active advertising campaign on a national level.

Again, the internet is a perfect issue to energize young people. File sharing? Online poker? Where is the LP? You could have legions of young beyond you. Even if they don't go out and vote in the next election, this is a longterm investment that will have longterm payoffs.

as long as the offical standard for being a libertarian is only those that agree to the non force principle, the LP wont matter a whit.

Libertarianism itself has to be broadened, both in philosphy and scope. The number of people that can support the LP is incredibly small as is and ont ever reach a mass market appeal.

Instead of having a stupid oath in the way PERSUE PUBLIC POLICY THAT DOES THE SAME THINGS. That way you win. That way you are engaged in the wider policy debate. That way no one has to feel like their brand of librtarianism is offically viewed as "unprincipled" and we can start to broaden the support base, which is the #1 problem IMO.

The voters top three priorities were ending the illegal occupation of Iraq, stopping the destruction of civil liberties in the name of the war on terror, and ending corrupt pork barrel
spending (such as the military-industrial complex). If the LP hammers away at those priorities strongly, consistently, and
unwaveringly for the next two years, we will be in a great position to challenge the major parties - especially the Donkey Show Party
which is likely to sell out the will of the strongly antiwar majority who elected them.

Their Kongressional Kangaroo Klique is "ruling out" impeachment hearings for the war criminal Bush Gang, keeping the (disastrous) course in Iraq and Afghanistan, preparing to roll over for the executive dictatorship, and will almsot certainly be just as corupt and wasteful as the NSGOP bunch (or at least nearly so).

Their likely 2008 nominee Madame Clinton is a rabid, foaming at the mouth warmonger and no friend of civil liberties or the taxpayer.
And all of this is also very much true of NSGOP frontrunners Benito Giuliani and John McCain.

There is definitely an opening for the LP - as long as we make make ending the wars, preserving our civil liberties from their destruction in the endless "war on terror," and ending regime waste and corruption our top priorities.

The LP isn't going to gain traction until there begins to be more unity amongst libertarians and Libertarians.

I think the goal of the LP should be to increase libertarian vote counts. Not to increase party membership or to elect libertarians to office. That will come later.

Only a steadily increasing vote count will demonstrate a trend that the right and the left will want to capture and that the libertarian fringe will want to join. At the current low growth rate, they are better off just playing on fear to get people to vote for one of the major parties.

We need to change that so they begin to look for ways to earn back those votes. Only then will libertarian influence begin to be felt in American government operations.
Jahfre the libertarian

I agree the Libertarian Party has to focus on winning winnable races and getting the most bang for its buck, but as the largest 3rd party, we have to take a national issue that unites people across race, background, religion and status and that would make a big mark on society. We need to make a lot of noise and a impact on national politics by pushing for and spending money on to implement passing a constitutional amendment to limit the terms of Congressman and senators. This would make so much press and would frighten so many legislators that the Libertarian party would be a name well recognized. Threaten the big boys were they live, their clout and power and this would definitely be something that would generate conversation among people in the nation and in the nations capital. This is something that there would be great support for. The last 4 years in the nations capital with scandals and peoples dislike of the imperial congress would definitely be a worthwhil, cost effective effort. That is what this party needs to do. Be Bold ! When the Democrats became A Major party, the national bank was the issue, for the Republicans, it was Slavery and Secession, For the Libertarian Party, it could be doing something to radically effect the size and scope of the Federal Government and once again making the Forefathers dream of Limited Government and More Freedom a reality.

Many good ideas, but it's all about TAXES! If we focus hard, really really hard, on low taxes and reduced spending it will affect every other position, including ending the war in Iraq, basing our military here instead of overseas, the war on drugs and victimless crimes, personal choice rather than government control, privatization, border control and immigration, welfare reform, Medicare and Social Security reform, corporate welfare, the environment, etc. It all comes from TAXES!!!

If all politics is local, how come so few vote in local elections?

Recognition is big in local elections. Young people and many middle aged folks don't watch local news or read local papers so they don't know local candidates and tend to vote party lines (from what they see nationally) or not at all. So, the people that do pay attention locally determine everything, and that is a small number of connected people. National elections are all over the TV and internet, but the problem is, third party's don't have national recognition because the "battle" between GOP and Dems is more fun for the media. That's why we have to do something nationally to draw attention to our local races. If we make a big splash nationally and the LP is "known" when someone sees it on a local ballot and thinks, "oh yeah, they're the party that caused the income tax to be repealed" then they'll vote for our local candidates too reducing taxes even further.

And if the government doesn't have extra tax revenue then they can't afford the FCC and other civil liberty violating agencies. Or at least they wouldn't be able to afford to enforce the laws created by those agencies. It's a win win for libertarians.

I agree with Nick to some degree and that is why I believe that privatizing social security should be one of the two issues that National pushes and pushes and what we become known for (foreign policy likely the other issue). Once voters and young people know that we are the ones that helped make them wealthy, own their own retirement accounts, and help solve to some degree our countries fiscal problems by making everyone an owner of our countries economy as well as getting our country out of Iraq we will have much better name recognition in local as well as national elections. If we can win over these two issues we will have won over the hearts of the majority of the voters.

Over the next two years I believe that the democrats will show their true colors and get next to nothing done on the Iraq war, corruption, civil liberties, and pork barrel spending. The republicans already showed that they have no intention of being fiscally conservative with their lame excuse for pushing for privatizing social security, their rapid increase in spending, and new entitlement programs. If we can show over the next two years that we are the party that truly is fiscally conservative by relentlessly pushing for privatizing social security as well as for other reduced spending such as pork and show that we are the only party that will do something about Iraq, corruption, and civil liberties we may be able to win over the hearts of the people, but at the very least give us much needed name recognition.

I agree we need to run a presidential/vice Presidential candidates but their job is to do the following: 1) relentlessly push the couple main issues (privatizing social security and foreign policy. 2) Try to help lower level candidates win their elections by campagining with them to bring them exposure. 3) Going around the country, especially to colleges and fraternal organizations, to expose and educate our message to as many voters as possible.

These candidates cannot be radical and must have very good communication skills. They need to concentrate on where we agree with the majority of the voters not where we disagree. They need to be able to market our message to the general voter in a way that makes them want to hear more of it.

Terry's right about the national candidates not being radical and they should focus on where we are the same as voters not different. We can be subtle and effective with our other ideas but we can't turn people off from the get go. That is why we struggle. Voters know or think they know what other voters will likely do, which is why we have a lesser of two evils mentality in this country.

Ah, yes, let's do national advertising. Did you know it costs almost $300,000 for one - yes one -
thirty second ad on Survivor, the Simpsons, or
numerous other popular shows? And one ad is
nothing - an ad campaign of just five ads per week for 10 weeks would cost $15,000,000. Does this really sound like something National LP could do?

Creech there are better ways to go.You can run ads in Atlanta on CNN or Fox for $15-18.00 per 30 sec ad.We ran about 2000 spot for $ 10000.00 in Atlanta for our statewide candidates this past cycle.I believe this is one of many reasons why the Governor candidate had almost twice the percentage of the next closest Libertarian candidate for Gov (3.8% compared to 2.00%).

There are many things we need to do before we can implement the most important parts of our agenda.
The largest items on the agenda will not be able to be implemented until we have a majority (or a majority coalition) in both houses of congress and a president who won't wield the veto pen.
Many libertarian actions at the state level are prevented by our current federal government's ignoring of the 10th ammendment (all rights not given to the feds in the constitution are reserved for the states and the people). Look at any state that has attempted anything resembling a rational marijuana or drug policy. The feds bust in and declare the will of the people null and void.
A national presidential campaign will only help us if he is a person recognized outside our party. We should learn something from the "greenies." The only reason they were a spoiler in 2000 was that Nader was a nationally recognized figure who drew people to the party. In 2004 when Nader was not on their ticket they virtually disappeared.
We have much more history and grass roots organization than the "greenies." If we could get someone who is nationally recognized it will draw media attention (the best advertising is free advertising) the way Nader did.
If our candidate is just someone who makes nice speeches at Libertarian functions giving him money is a waste.
If we cannot find such a candidate than the national LP would be better served running "issue ads" that deal with general issues not specific candidates. Social Security, Drug Policy, Taxes, expanding individual rights are issues that will resonate with voters if they know there is an alternative to the Socialists (Dems) and the Diet Socialists (Reps).
I think that our strategy would be better served at the state level.
There are reforms that we can implement at the state level. There are also reforms that can be voted into being that will force the feds to clamp down. (It has already happened on Medical Marijuana). We should force them to do this. It is one thing to talk about the government having too much power in theory. It is another to force people to see it. When the government sends in the jack-booted thugs to bust elderly glaucoma patients they can do our work for us.
Remember the infamous picture of the jack-booted thug pointing his assault rifle in the face of scared little Elian Gonzalez? We need to take advantage of gross overeaching and publicize it. We need to be the loudest voice when these things happen.
The Rep's and Dem's are built from the bottom up. Whether or not we like what they do, they are successful. Steal some of their tactics when it comes to winning elections.
They know what parts of their agendas are not generally popular and downplay these during elections.
We shouldn't abandon some of our most extreme ideas but put them on the backburner. Destroying public education, eliminating the post office, etc. will only alienate those who would be willing to listen to other parts of our agenda.
If you want to win elections you have to take whatever votes you can get whenever you can get them. It is hard as a party of principal to adopt Macchiavellian (I'm sure I misspelled that) tactics but it is neccessary.

"If you expect a nation to be ignorant and free, you expect what never was and can never be." -Thomas Jefferson

The point here, in my opinion, is not to start on a small scale, to educate first and foremost. I've rarely seen an individual who listened with open ears, and did not fully embrace the libertarian philosophy. Our problem is education, not popularity. Yet the trick is trying to educate the masses on their own level of understanding, in their own "comfort zone". A speech where a libertarian speaker is viewed as a radical anarchist, or a short commercial that says "Legalize everything!", does not educate anyone.

Our love of libertarianism comes from our love of liberty. THAT'S what must be explained. All it takes is a foot in the door. One properly timed, 30 second commercial could open the eyes of thousands. Thus producing more funding, and therefore more advertisements, etc. The people are ready for change. They're sick of the Bush regime, and they're sick of taxes. They're looking for an alternative, all we have to do is provide it.

I have to register strong disagreement with regard to "educate the masses" being a productive strategy. The "masses" want to be led, not educated. Sure, it would suit our needs if they could be educated to our way of thinking but I believe that is a vastly improbably future.

Any strategy that begins by asserting a resolve to alter human nature is doomed immediately. This is the core failure of Socialism, as a very familiar, obvious example. The masses willingness to be led is how the two-party system came to exist in its current manifestation. The "masses" do not need to understand anything if they can be made to FEEL strongly.

As a libertarian advocating individual, I actively avoid the masses because they will drain every resource I have and no difference will be made. The LP should realize that the same will result from attempts to "educate the masses". Those masses comprise an infinite sink where logic, education, history and economics are digested in a limitless sea of emotion.

At any given time there are only a small number of individuals who are willing to listen objectively. If they happen to be in a position to influence the emotion of a large number of people; all the better. However, any efforts applied towards anyone besides people who are willing to listen, are 100% waste. This is the #1 reason I will not join the LP.

The LP should sponsor events that will attract the undecided fringe into a forum where ideas are shared with them and amongst themselves. Local organizers with enthusiasm and contacts can deliver numbers but they need a franchise. They can't all invent the wheel. These events should also leverage the conviction of the dogmatic philosophical libertarians as a way of unifying those hard-liners with the goals of the LP political machine. Today's fragmented, adversarial libertarian cliques are not a solid foundation for sweeping political change in the USA.

Any utopian vision that rests on being able to unify the priorities and actions of a population of diverse individuals is also doomed to failure. Libertarians need to begin influencing the present, locally rather than strategizing how to alter the core behavior of the species. If some of those local personalities can rise to national prominence, wonderful, but that has to happen as a result of their influence on individuals who may not be dogmatic followers of libertarian philosophy.
Jahfre the libertarian

I agree.

Liberty/Freedom is at the core of what Libertarianism is about; all other issues that Libertarians support only branch out from that main core.

Interestingly enough, liberty/freedom is something that has not been brought up as an issue by anyone. To the great many of masses, the issues are the war, education, health, taxes, etc. Freedom is something that everyone thinks was an issue of our fore-fathers. They don't think it is an issue now. After all, we won our independence and we have moved on. Freedom was an issue some 200 years ago.

But, as all Libertarians should know, it IS an issue right now! We are losing our freedom more and more. And, every other issue that we are dealing with today (health, the war, taxes, education, abortion, etc) all STEM FROM FREEDOM or lack thereof.

Freedom/Liberty should be at the core of the LP's campaign because it speaks to and addresses every other issue that stems from it. That's how the campaign should be framed.

Besides framing the campaign in the way that suits Libertarians best, I would also recommend focusing on education, as someone already mentioned.

For example, go into any Barnes & Noble bookstore, or Books-A-Million, or Boarders, and scan through the Current Events, Politics, or Political Science section. What will you see? You will see the word Democrat and Republican over and over and over again. Try finding a book in that section about Libertarians or Libertarianism!

The only books out there that reflect Libertarian-thinking are obscure and do not say the word Libertarian in the title. You really have to look hard to find anything in the bookstore related to the Libertarian way of thinking, much less the Libertarian Party.

What we need is writers who can start pumping out books that will break the Democrat/Republican domination of this section of the popular bookstores like Barnes & Noble. Readers should be able to scan the shelf and see books with the word Libertarian or Libertarian Party in the title.

You will also notice that there are no books in these bookstores about Greens or Constitutionalists. Notice also how those parties are just as obscure as the Libertarian Party.

Education is key.

This is my first visit to the LP website, and I like what I see. However, there is one glaring omission in the LP platform--the environment. Maybe I missed it somewhere on your website. Please point me to the Libertarian position.

Thanks.

I disagree that freedom/liberty is the basis for everything. In thought and theory it is true, but in political reality, TAXES are the base of everything. Taxes generate revenue for the government and they use that revenue to affect freedoms and liberty in all facets of life in our country and most others. If we stress, through commercials that educate the public on our view of limited taxes and reducing government spending, we not only draw fringe voters, independents, and some Reps and Dems to our message, but we can make governmental change even if Reps and Dems control things because the public will respond to that message.

Mitch, there is a school of thought in the libertarian movement that says allow business to do everything with no government control which may result in more environmental damage. Others believe the government can act because pollution causes harm to others, thus falling in the realm of protecting people, the government's only legitimate task. I happen to be in the latter group, and if I'm not mistaken, it was in the platform at one point. Not sure if it still is.

Nick,

Thanks for the explanation. Like the mainstream parties, there must be a wide range of opinions within the Libertarian community. I must assume that LP activists who formulated the platform could not come to consensus on this issue. I suggest to the LP community, as you describe, that they need to step back from an absolute 'no government' position (anarchy).

I suspect some will bristle at being labeled anarchist (maybe?), but I would like to see more discussion on the difficult issues where government is necessary and to what degree government should intervene in our private lives. It's easy to say in the LP platform, convert public to private. What's harder is to elucidate those gray areas where individuals need a bit of big brother's involvement. Most Libertarians accept the need for locally-controlled police and fire departments, right? How much power should they have? What is the role of the courts? What is the role of elected officials?

I agree. There are 100's of libertarian websites and other ways for people to discuss the ideals of liberty. I believe the purpose of our political party is to advance the political power of such ideals through government seats and eventually control. Government control at any level is something we struggle with philosophically because we are generally opposed to it, but if WE had control there are most certainly enough people within our party that willmake sure OUR politicians do not become corrupted by the power they hold. The great thing is that our power comes from reducing the government's power. Therefore, holding that power if we're in government relies on giving power back to the people.

I would personally be wary of private police and military because they would not be subject to the people as our government police and military would be, should the LP be the controlling these government agencies. OUR police would know the law (because there would only be a few), they would carry the Constitution in their squad cars, and serve the purpose of protecting people from the infringment of others, fairly.

Regarding the environment, which you mentioned in your initial question, I wonder what LPers think about selling off public lands, namely National Parks. Most think it would be good to do that. I am not so sure. The wealthy corporations would certainly be able to generate more capital to purchase them all than would the Sierra Club, Defenders of Wildlife, etc. Can they be sold on the condition they remain parks open to all? Private companies, in a libertarian existence can discriminate. Lease, on the one hand would be bad because they would have no incentive to care for the land.

A boost to people supporting us would be by stop taking sides on the abortion issue. It should be removed from the plank (or at least a note stating why we don't take sides). Some people in my area do not vote for pro-abortion candiates regardess of their other views. Since the party members are equally divided on this issue it should be up to the candidate to make a decision. The "official" party position has been pro-abortion since the beginning. It is time for a change.

All of the above posts are about selling the steak and not the sizzle. People buy sizzle, not steak. Instead of talking about lower taxes, we tell people that when libertarians are in office their take home pay will be higher and they'll be able to buy that new boat or send their kids to college.
Nobody gives a rat's rump about something as abstract as "freedom" unless they directly benefit. Once we start talking benefits, the beneficiaries will listen.

Nick's last comments raise another important point that I would like some LP feedback on. The LP platform stresses private property rights, but does that mean individual property rights only or does it include corporate property rights? Do corporations have the same rights as an individual? If Halliburton buys Yosemite, are they free to build an amusement park there? Can they demolition mountains like the coal companies do in the Appalachians? Can an individual who buys a park do likewise?

I'm attracted to the LP's ideals, but so far I only see a very black and white approach to what are very complex issues.

Mitch.
I was a registered Libertarian for about 30 years and have struggled with the issue you bring up along with others.
I just walked my dogs on a trail on city owned open space near my house. If the land wasn't protected against development it would there would surely be houses and a Wal-Mart on it.
So maybe I'm what you'd call a "mostly libertarian." I agree with 51% or more of the LP platform. I still think it's more sensible than being a "mostly democrat" or "mostly republican."

Mitch, I agree with Rusty, but I'm probably more than 51%, somewhere in the range of 75-85 percent libertarian. I would like to see public places remain public, for everyone's benefit and use. I think many of these places take care of themselves, or can be paid for by user fees, such as state and national parks. They should not necessarily be handed over to private companies that would commercialize or otherwise destroy them for profit.

Obviously public streets and side walks require maintenance. If taxes were reduced or eliminated in other areas, city street and sidewalk maintenance could be financed by parking meters or other user fees. After all, public transportation such as buses ans subways are financed by fares. The NY State thruway and most bridges and tunnels make a fortune in tolls. People don't like paying tolls when other highways are free but if all interstates were toll roads at a small fee per vehicle then they would not require taxes to build and maintain them. Taxes in most important areas could be eliminated, except for paying the salaries of police, military, and government officials (the latter should probably be reduced in most places). Also, with less government agencies, less taxes would be needed to pay their salaries. They will easily get jobs in the un-regulated marketplace now that companies won't be handcuffed by them.

Small tariffs on incoming goods and services could pay for most necessary federal expenditures. It was once this way in America, so they can't say it won't work. As I always maintain here, it's about TAXES. Take away the government's money and you take their control out of our lives. Freedom abounds as a result.

Oh, and I support the enforcement of pollution fines, rather than tradable pollution credits which only redistribute pollution. Many fines go unpaid without repercussion despite the harm pooluters cause the water and air supply, thus harming people and their property (animals and land). This enforcement of fines will help the environment because companies will learn it is cheaper to make their products cleanly and efficiently than to pay the fines. More bang for their buck, if you will. Everyone wins.

Mitch, I don't know if you've already found it or not but the LP's position on the environment can be found if you click right on The Issues. The Platform ties the environment into the Property section.

Nick, determining which comes first, taxes or liberty, is a tough one. One could just as easily say that depending on what kind of liberty we have will determine what kind of tax we pay. For instance, socialist-style liberty will cause us to pay much more tax than a capitalist-style liberty. It's a chicken or the egg scenario, I suppose.

Speaking of freedom, I don't think using freedom as a focal point is a bad idea at all. As RustyZ pointed out, people want sizzle and that's true too. Sizzle should always be offered and explained. But, if you also tie that sizzle into an origin or a meaning, especially one with the depth of freedom and liberty, that sizzle turns into a BOIL and gets that much hotter! In other words, I don't think either one, freedom or everyday sizzle, should be ignored. They should both be used.

Actually, I rethought my opinion of the chicken verse the egg, regarding taxes and liberty.

Taxes affect everything economically, but they affect very little socially. In fact, the only social issue I can see taxes affecting is Gay Marriage. Other than that, taxes have nothing to do with any other social issue, but Liberty does. And, coincidentally, Liberty also affects every economic issue.

So, to me, that means Liberty is a bigger blanket than taxes. Liberty is the trunk from which all other issues, including taxes, branch from, although tax is probably the largest of those branches.

That doesn't mean that I think we should not focus on the sizzle that RustyZ pointed out. I just think we should add the background of Liberty to each and every issue as a basis for why we take those stances. It gives those stances more meaning and a lot more punch.

The FCC, FDA, and other government agencies are acting as morality deciders and they can only do this because they have tax revenue to give them the power to enforce their morality through the FBI and police, even when unconstitutional. Non-governmental groups that preach morality and/or freedom standards based on their personal views have no control to enforce anything except through boycotts which is a free market economic decision.

The government morality agencies exist because of taxes. They could not enforce laws without them. The government takes our rights through legislation and sells them back to us via licenses. Networks are granted their license to speak over the airwaves but at the price of sacrificing their First Amendment rights of free speech and press. They basically paid the government for the right to be censoreda nd controlled morally. Then the government threatens to take their license (and ability to broadcast through force) if they do not pay the fines. That is theft through force. Without the FCC being supported by taxation, they could not take away by force the networks' ability to broadcast. TAXES facilitate more than just economic control. They are the method through which liberty is usurped. Take back our money and the government loses it's ability to control our lives. They are welcome to give me advice but not welcome to force me to follow that advice. My money, my choice.

I may have sounded like a hypocrit by saying the government controls us through fines, yet polluting companies get fined and don't pay them. That is only because the government decides from whom they collect the fines through force. The Executive Branch is responsible for enforcement of federal laws and thus collection of fines. The Bush Administration is very pro-censorship (especially the organizations that criticize them) in favor of their right-wing conservative moral base and not at all in favor of making polluters pay, because they say it will hurt the economy to make companies greener. I guess fresh air and clean water must not be good for the economy. Yet health care costs are rising, partly as a result of illnesses like cancer. So, there you go.

A recurring thought I have is what the primary goal of libertarians is? Building a political party or spreading libertarian ideas and ideals?

Given the hurdles associated with building a third party that can actually compete in the near term; wouldn't it be prudent to consider morphing the party itself into caucuses within both the Democratic and Republican parties. In this way libertarians could run as major party candidates, stand a much better chance of getting elected, and it would seem to me, to be able to espouse their ideas into the national debate at a much higher level and in a more expedited fashion than waiting for a third party to develop. I say we use the two party system to our advantage..get libertarian thinkers elected, get libertarian ideas onto the national stage..again, what is our real goal here? (ex. see Ron Paul or http://www.rlc.org/).

Just a thought, I would love to understand what others think?

I was thinking, instead of supporting the liberty caucuses as part of their current parties, do what we can to get them to jump ship collectively. If they really believe in the principles, now is the time with a divided government to start urging them to abandon the evils they have been in bed with for an untainted libertarian party.

It would shake up the government politically while still being safe to the general public view, since it's a shift rather than a takeover by unkowns. They should be encouraged to do this together as a group to start fresh, their own caucus within Congress. It would be the smallest to start but imagine how quickly it woudl grow in future elections. Voters would flock to such an idea and the media would have a field day with it. "Libertarians shake up Congress in the name of Freedom."

If they don't choose to do it, then they are no better than the rest of the Reps and Dems that manipulate the system for their own purposes. We can't expect the parties of power to change for the better because they have talked that talk forever and walked in the opposite direction. Most of the people here are here for that reason.

First, I want to thank the people posting and responding to my questions. What a breath of fresh air to get honest opinions without the invective found on many Internet discussion groups.

I can't help but wonder if the LP would get more traction out there if they would acknowledge a bit more forcefully that there are legitimate roles for government for protecting the common good. I think I'm a typical example of a person who would be more favorable to the LP if it didn't look so extreme towards the anarchy end of the spectrum.

Another point raised by Nick (who always says the right thing to stimulate me [just intellectually, OK!]) regards the FCC. I don't want anybody telling me what I can or can't read, watch or listen to. And despite the government's occasional interference, the much bigger issue these days is the corporate control of the media. More of the media is controlled by very few corporations who have not so hidden political agendas and spin the news to fulfill those agendas. You may say that I have choices where I get my news and facts, but that's primarily on the Internet. When it comes to radio, TV, or newspapers, I really don't have that many choices. And certainly the vast majority of the citizenry swallows the drek served by these media corporations. And that impacts all of us.

We ostensibly want the LP to gain adherents, but we're in this paradox where corporations are becoming the de facto government through the purchase and control of politicians. What freedom is there when information is controlled by the few for the purpose of enriching themselves at the expense of the many?

Nick, good points. I hadn't thought of it that way. Although, I could ask how taxes have anything to do with morality decisions about abortion, or about gun control, or about government invading our privacy.

I thought about it and realized that I need to ask who is trying to be the morality decider in those scenarios and it seems it is simply the government itself, obviously with the capability to enforce. We would take money from the government in general when we remove it from government agencies such as the FCC and be able to control these things.

You might be on to something.

Either way, whether we increase our liberty by only allowing government to perform certain tasks or decrease our taxation, either one will certainly help the other.

ChrisB, you've got some good ideas there. The only problem I see there is that it might be tough to be a candidate for either of the big two and support social and economic freedom, since both parties only support one or the other (Republicans neither, lately). And, I'm not sure how many current representatives are in those parties that support such a wide spectrum, unless you count the moderates.

I would support doing both, creating caucuses and building the LP party. Utilizing both at the same time only gives more legitimacy to the cause and more potential for success. I think we should also reach out to others such as the Constitutionalists and so-called moderates (there is even a Moderate Party in the works) and try to build a coalition. Even members of the Greens might be interested when it comes to social issues.

Mitch, that's no lie about the breath of fresh air here. This is one of the few blogs/forums I have been to where discussion is actually mature and civil. I guess that's the mark of Libertarians.

How about bringing the website and the literature up to date?
The party wants people to go out and speak to groups. If that is the case, and I have done some of that, then we need flier that are relevant to everyday issues, i.e. housing transportation, education healthcare, occupational licensing laws. I am not suggesting that we need an flier on everything under the sun, but we do need fresh material. Nor do we need fancy tricolor fliers. Simple one color will do nicely, or use a newspaper format like the Viewpoint that was around for awhile. It is inexpensive and works and you can do half a dozen issues in the paper. Maybe a new issue every six month.

I find it a bit difficult to refer people to the national website when it also is in need of being brought up to date. Last time I looked the only thing under "foreign policy" had to do with foreign aid and that piece was well out of date and our points on Iraq are missing. We also need to point out the LP wants all the troops brought home from around the world. How much have we spent on those troops over the last 55 years and what different could we have done with the money?

The website is our display window to the world and needs to reflect that.

As the saying goes "presentation is everything".

Next we need to bring some competition to our state parties. How about rating them annually on such issues as membership growth, member retention, percent of members attending state conventions, frequency of their news letter and maybe one or two other points? Don't make it to complicated. We might even find away to give out some sort of financial reward.

Thanks,
M.H.W.

Mitch, I think the corporate media giants' influence on the government is based on their influence on the public. They tell the public something (maybe even unintentionally) in a way that makes them believe something. Then people's opinions are made known through polls, blogs, word on the street, etc. Potential candidates then repeat these opinions as if they are their own so they can get elected by simply knowing which way the wind blows. (Insert Democrat here.) Then, when these elected officials begin their time in government they will act accordingly so as to get re-elected (while tosing in personal agenda items at midnight). It is likely their voters opinions haven't changed that much in two years. As we saw this November, when officials don't follow public opinion they lose. (Insert Republicans guilty of being in the same party as Bush here.) The media then just reports what happened. So, the Republicans will learn from this someday and the cycle will shift again. The media has the influence (in how they say things) over the people who then create the government's action. But I don't think they have too much say in actual policy decisions through direct financial influence of politicians, at least not any more than big energy, big unions, and big business. Everyone has lobbyists.

It is very expensive to run media organizations because they all take a lot of people to operate and they do it 24/7/365. There is no way to get away from having large companies own media organizations for this reason. It lends itself to high rates for advertising which increases the cost of goods and services we buy. That's just good old fashioned capitalism because there is a market for it. It beats state run media which cannot possibly be impartial. Look at China.

By the way, I find it interesting that Hannity, Rush, and others like him always say "main stream media" like they aren't part of it. Hypocrits! It's just their own term for "liberal media" that they use to make it sound like the liberal media (CNN) is the powerful media (by being "main stream") and they are the little guy looking out for Average Joe. If Fox isn't main stream then neither are Starbucks, Google, and the NFL.