Often when I reply here I'll simply ask "did the LP send out a press release on this?".

So please fill us in on what a media coordinator does at the LP office and if you do send press releases out, who gets them, how do you send them, i.e. email, fax or use a service, and how often do you plan to do so? Do you plan on writing op-eds. And what lesson do you have for the state parties trying to do this type of media outreach?

Thanks,
MHW

Congratulations on the new job, Andrew.

Please, please, please, tell me that this isn't you:

http://media.collegepublisher.com/media/paper1123/stills/fuc91553.jpg

Thanks!

Are you the Andrew Davis at Clemson in the Tiger Town Observer article, protesting same-sex marriage legalization? If so, can you please explain how opposition to equal rights under the law is compatible with working for the Libertarian Party, or how your views have changed since that protest?

[The actual link to the article is being blocked by the LP spam filter, sorry.]

Welcome aboard, Andrew, and congratulations on landing such an important job in the LP! Here's hoping that your efforts will promote equal treatment under law for everyone.

Sincerely,

Beau Cain, Treasurer
Outright Libertarians

Secretary
Libertarian Party of California

Here's a virtual cannoli to welcome you on board.

http://pauliecannoli.wordpress.com

Welcome to the fire Andrew!

Wow can't we give the new guy a break? It may not be him. And even if it is, isn't it okay for individuals to disagree with certain positions on the platform and still be LP Members right?

Hey, Todd! And welcome, Andrew; sorry for not saying that before.

Todd, it is OK for members to disagree on positions. It is less OK for LP staff to disagree, and particularly not OK for the media coordinator to disagree with key tenets of libertarianism. Certainly, we can argue about whether to end the welfare state before opening immigration or after, or at the same time, or which taxes to cut first. But staff really must be committed to the non-aggression principle and equality before the law. Further, if they privately disapprove of personal lifestyle choices, they must take pains to note that the government should not outlaw them, as their disapproval will be used as ammunition to paint our entire movement as conservative, right-wing, etc. And if a Google search turns up pictures of our media rep calling for outlawing a tenth of the population's family choices, then we have a PR problem.

I would like to see WAYNE ALLYN ROOT own article on here, because while we have other libertarians running for President, he seem to be right on for a lot of things and the most logical, to stand a good chance to really make a dent, he got the means and the thought for a good strong candidate.

I'm looking for an on-line archive of pro-LP comments, especially by journalists and columnists. -- Jeff Daiell

Seems like an awful lot of recent Republicreepy cheerleaders at the LP 'image machine'..

..i sense that, if they had the federal reserve token$, some/many of these LP (D)INC. (apparently merely disgruntled Republiclowns) 'deci$ion-maker$' might hire Ann Coulter! for some gender balance..

Welcome. Congratulations on the evolution of your views. I believe everyone eventually gets here unless they simply don't pay attention.

Sometimes it takes a bulldozer through the family home, but they do get here.

Welcome, Andrew. Please do a better job of getting the L word out to the general public than some of your predecessors have.

Hey, as long as we're plugging presidential candidate choices, it's only fair to mention Steve Kubby.

http://kubby2008.com

While Kubby has a lot of good points, there are too many people who do not want open borders, if you are aware they crash the capital hill phone lines. So with the open border he not going to get very far. We need also more then just libertarians running for President, we need strong candidate for Congress and the Senate as well.

So what? There are plenty of people who DO want open borders. It's a huge and growing constituency which is not being served by the Democrats and Republicans,
and many will vote single issue, just like antiwar and stop the drug war. Those three issues alone will be a big key to LP success. Immigration freedom especially will help make us a more diverse party, which will be key to our long term growth.

Unfortunately in the history of the LP there has only been one strong candidate, Ron Paul. Okay, maybe a few people knew who Harry Browne was before he ran. The rest have been, sorry to be blunt, nobodies. Kubby, Root, Smith et al are the newest members of the nobody LP presidential candidate parade. I'm getting weary of the same old same old. Isn't one definition of insanity doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results?

JAMES R WROTE: "The rest have been, sorry to be blunt, nobodies. Kubby, Root, Smith et al are the newest members of the nobody LP presidential candidate parade."

Maybe 'Kubby, Root, Smith, et al' would gain credibility with James R were they the winners of a teevee 'reality show?'..maybe a soap opera star would do?..

I assert that little-leaguers are put through more of an 'honest tryout' than the LARGELY apparent god-damned fools who achieve office in Republicrat 'competitive politics'..Notice how the announcers and cheerleaders dominate 'the action' in 'politics' whilst the actual Republicrat candidates tend to hide from honest, vigorous, frequent, candid, etc. debate..

These stinking Republicrat elections aren't decided as to who has the best ideas about 'government'..they're LARGELY decided by who, 'what party,' etc. has the most federal reserve tokens to spend on Republicrat commercial$, etc...

Consequently, over time, it seems we have created a heritage of the worst fools, etc. in society tending to migrate into 'politics'..and trying to attract decent, intelligent people to 'clean up,' etc. that STINKING mess is going to be a REAL CHALLENGE..as it seems decent, intelligent people will tend to avoid the worst god-damned fools/foolishness in society: Republicrat politicians/politics..

I suggest a "voluntary candidate draft/lottery" whereby we could show that a libertarian drawn out of a hat has MUCH better ideas than the most vaunted of these apparent god-damned Republicrat fools we have now!

James R.:

Incorrect. Lots of people know who Kubby is. He announced to 50,000 cheering people last year. And that was just in one city. For that matter, while I'm not a fan of Wayne Root, there are probably at least as many or more people who know who he is as knew who Harry Browne or Ron Paul were the first time they started running.

Does it look to you like Ron Paul or Harry Browne did that much better than other LP candidates?

Libertarian Presidential Tickets

1972: John Hospers and Theodora Nathan
2,691 popular votes (0.003%); 1 electoral vote;
1976: Roger MacBride and David Bergland
173,011 popular votes (0.21%)
1980: Ed Clark and David Koch
921,299 popular votes (1.1%)
1984: David Bergland and James A. Lewis
228,705 popular votes (0.25%)
1988: Ron Paul and Andre Marrou
432,179 popular votes (0.47%)
1992: Andre Marrou and Nancy Lord
291,627 popular votes (0.28%)
1996: Harry Browne and Jo Jorgensen
485,798 popular votes (0.50%)
2000: Harry Browne and Art Olivier
384,431 popular votes (0.36%)
2004: Michael Badnarik and Richard Campagna
397,265 popular votes (0.34%)

Harry Browne and Ron Paul garnered more votes than all other candidates except Clark and Koch. Hopefully Kubby will be as astute as Clark and pick a multi-millionaire or better yet billionaire running mate who is willing to put up a considerable portion of his personal wealth to promote the ticket. If not here are the results of the 2008 election: Kubby and no-name, no-money running mate 300,000 to 400,000 popular votes (0.35%) Call me Kreskin.

And Clark, seems like political experience and being an actor on a hit TV show are helping a certain Republican. Reality sucks, huh?

Ron Paul is a moderate Libertarian, some things are a mix bag.
I still favor Wayne Root.

Isn't one definition of insanity doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results?
Exactly, example OPEN BORDERS. the ONLY people that want open borders are the illegals. Not born USA HARD WORKING CITIZENS.

In case some of you haven't notice, some of the people who want to run in office are going to work for the illegals, such as the mayor of california. There are also some who want the presidency for that reason.

Some of you people let me make this clear. WE CANNOT GO TO MEXICO AND DO WHAT THEY CAN DO HERE.
GO TO CALIFORNIA AND LOOK AT WRITING THAT SAY GRINGO WE TAKE AMERICA GET OUT. Flag being hung over the American flags and the american flag being hung upside down underneath. SO YOU PEOPLE BETTER WAKE UP< THIS IS REAL LIFE.

I DO NOT WANT MEXICO AMERIKA SOCIALISM.

James R.

No big difference between RP 88, Browne 96, Badnarik 2004 or Browne 00 (actually less than Badnarik).

Kubby has a built-in issue constituancy, something the others lacked.

fake life:

A) No such thing as "illegal" human beings.

B) Lots of people want open borders - family, friends, employers, consumers, people who understand history, justice and economics.

BTW is English *your* first language?

Kubby does have a buit in issue constituancy. That is an advantage. However he still needs a multi-millionaire running mate or at least millions in his war chest. 50,000 cheering people won't even fill an NFL stadium. Kubby needs at least 1,000,000 cheering people to even get on the map.

I just googled Libertarian President. Gary Nolan and Harry Browne's sites were on the first page. The 2008 candidates had better learn about search engine optimization soon. To the casual searcher, Gary Nolan looks like the only living candidate.

Your help with search engine optimization would be appreciated.

50,000 was in one city (Seattle) - not the biggest city, nor centrally located. Nor was everyone in the legalization movement, even those from Seattle, necessarily there.

Would that be a million nationwide? Easily.

"you will never learn" "real life"
Do you really think you can get people to support Wayne Root by insults? Root, himself seems to be pretty obnoxious, but you are certainly not doing him any good by your actions here.
Most libertarians do believe in open borders. Congressman Paul does not, but he is in no way a "moderate" libertarian, if there is such a thing. I believe the proper term for Mr. Paul is libertarian republican.
Anyway, you are wrong, the libertarian movement is growing and gaining support. The Ron Paul campaign is proof of this.
By the way, california is a state and doesn't have a mayor. It has a governor. I think you may want to get a better understanding of our American political system so that you will be able to better participate in these discussions.

FUNNY they choice to remove a post and choose who allowed to do insults here and who can't. So much for freedom of speech here, what a controdiction.

Actually NO MOST LIBERTARIANS DO NOT BELIEVE IN OPEN BORDERS, just the purist and the dreamers. There have been a lot of other libertarians in other blogs that talk about closed borders and some of you people haven't woke up to that yet.

THE MAYOR OF LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA IS Antonio Villaraigoso, again I state my case.
You need to get a better understanding of the
American political system.
Of course you can't read between the lines. You have one big Governor being controlled by example of people like this. IS THAT CLEAR ENOUGH FOR YOU.

Just like in Congress and the Senate, You think while everyone is not happy with Bush, he doing all this by himself.

You think if we have suppose ONE LIBERTARIAN PRESIDENT that is all going to change, you need more then that, you need libertarians in congress and the senate. You get my drift now.

I'm anti-gay marriage. I'm also anti-straight marriage.

All I can say is that the fence across the Canadian/U.S. border is gonna be EXPENSIVE! But I'm sure Halliburton can handle it.

I voted this party the last three presidential elections, but I joined it just today. The point is the other parties have forgotten the founding fathers ideas on what freedom is and what it takes to keep those truths. It will take a real no choice in a presidential election from Dems and Reps, like what happened in the governer race Minnesota, to secure a win. Knowledge is power and we must keep on educating the people despite of our "public schools".
It would also help to have a big name politician jump ship to our party. Any ideas?

I hope you learn to tone down your message and concentrate on winning us elections.

Your macho libertarian flash is disgusting IMHO.

It seems people are worried about the small stuff on here. Maybe it because they don't know anything else.

Here's the bigger issue: When will the LP hire a marketing/PR person who has some real world experience?

A little bit of sardonic humor.

At least the LP will have a better candidate than the Green Party. They look like they are gonna end up with Cynthia McKinney. Yuck.

to mirror what James R. said, it is ironic that a party with a love for the free market hasn't picked up on using the virtues of marketing, as is applies to it's own party. I mean, someone with experience in marketing "stuff" is exactly what a third party trying to compete with the democrat and republican parties who are monstrously effective at marketing their parties.

I guess I'm a purist and a realist libertarian. I WANT open borders philosophically speaking but until America as a whole changes it's attitude and then by example changes the attitude of the rest of the world, open borders are not practical. We have too many problems to fix, with our government structure and our world perception, before we can open the borders and let anyone in that wants to come here. I know some people have said you just have to do it and there should be no transition, but I find that position extremely naive. Our government has made too many messes too simply ignore. They must be fixed. First we have to:

End the welfare state so immigrants do not benefit unjustly simply because they were capable of crossing the border.

Completely change our foreign policy to one of peaceful commerce rather than imperialistic aggression.

Remove gun laws that prohibit real world/real life self defense of law abiding citizens.

Sell government land to private citizens, companies, and groups who will be responsible for the defense of their property. If they want to hire military personnel they may do so at their expense.

Restructure our military to provide real defense of THIS country as opposed to the free defense of other countries. That is, for the unsold land as well as sea ports and air ports.

There are others, but it's a start.

Welcome on board, Andrew. The LP PC crowd will probably go easy on you, if your only departure from political correctness is to oppose state-sanctioned gay marriages. More often, they use "non-
interventionism" as an all-purpose litmus test.

I'm glad you agree, the LP should welcome a diversity of opinion. I only wish there were a diversity of LP "press releases" (which fortunately never get published outside of LP News), articles, and other pontifications. These are written typically by young people such as yourself, as there are few of us left in the LP from the '64 Goldwater campaign. Some have moved on from the '69 YAF convention, like Dana Rohrabacher, who has become a distinguished congressman from Orange County. Others have followed Rothbard, to self-imposed alienation from reality.

Hey, I'm still here. And so are you, Kevin. And I agree, we gotta start getting the press releases out. I'll be making some noise about it in Denver.

ARE YOU READY TO START A TREND, put a flag on your car that represent libertarians or one that hang out the windows.
It's cheap enough and hopefully it will catch on so they know who we are and catch on and remember us at the polls.

..It seems OBVIOUS 'libertarians' constantly talk past people..

...Remember, 'politics' is merely largely 'a competition of ideas about 'GOVERNMENT'"..

...Remember, while 'libertarians' tend to correctly identify/define/perceive 'GOVERNMENT' as 'an agency of coercion/force/etc'.. most/all others don't define/perceive 'GOVERNMENT' similarly..<in my experience, most others, Republicrats, etc., don't really understand what IT (GOVERNMENT) is they're talking about when they wheeze about 'politics,' GOVERNMENT/the competition of ideas about GOVERNMENT/etc.

Therefore it would seem OBVIOUS when 'libertarians' engage in 'the competition of ideas about GOVERNMENT' (politics) with Republicrats and other assorted numbskulls WE ARE TALKING PAST EACH OTHER..ESSENTIALLY WE ARE TALKING ABOUT DIFFERENT THINGS!!

...A bad way to 'comm' unicate..as our understanding of what IT is we are 'comm' unicating about is not 'comm'on..

..it's the same situation when I, a fairly knowledgeable monetary realist who understands the basics of the nature, origin, etc. of the most ubiquitous economic commodity (federal reserve tokens or 'dollars' to most/all monetary hallucinators) tries to have an intelligent 'economic' conversation with a monetary newbie who doesn't really have an honest clue as to even the fundamental$..

...dig?.. ;o)

Well-put, Clark

Nick,

There's nothing any more impractical about migration freedom then there is about ending welfare, or ending victim disarmament, or ending foreign meddling.

Do we say that we should round up all the guns – until we legalize drugs, after which we can restore individual gun ownership?

Do we say that we should start allowing the police (or, if you prefer, Guardian Angels) to execute drug users and dealers on sight, until we get rid of the welfare state?

Or, perhaps we should increase government welfare to the poor by 10,000% – until we get rid of all the taxes and regulations which make it hard for people to start a business. Then we can privatize charity again.

But, wait, we need all those taxes to pay for all these programs we have to maintain in the meantime!

Personally, I don’t put much stock in such arguments.

Actually, I think they’re way off base.

And, for exactly the same reasons, I don’t believe we should have increased border enforcement, a wall on the border, more deportations, or more crackdowns on employers of “illegal” workers “until we get rid of welfare.”

Nor do I think that the current enforcement levels should be maintained, or just marginally reduced.

I’m fighting for “all our freedoms, all the time.”

Not “some of our freedoms, but only after we get some of our other freedoms.”

Let Freedom Grow!

I am opposed to completely open borders as well. National Security is the main reason.

Richard, that was my main point. I like Paulie and respect many of his opinions, but I think he fails to realize that until we set the example and foreigners that wish to do us harm see that we are true to our word, open borders would open us up to more problems. I'm not xenophobic and I don't care about migrant workers one way or the other. Peaceful people are not my concern. I really do want open borders, I want all of our freedoms ASAP, but it just will not and cannot happen overnight because not everyone agrees with libertarian principles, and even if they all of a sudden agreed, our country's government has caused so much animosity around the world those that are insane will still try to do us harm so there MUST be a transition. I don't like it, but it is reality. Welfare, entitlements, gun laws...they can all be done away with the stroke of a pen and if I were in charge they would be, but you cannot change people's hatred that way. It takes time and dialogue. It takes the "good example," honesty, integrity, earned respect, etc.

I don't favor a wall, but I don't mind a Marine standing at the border with an M-16. I don't mind naval and air force surveillance of our coastlines. There are hostile countries and individuals out there. You could argue they are here too and you'd be right. That doesn't mean we have to let more hostiles in. We have police, CIA, and FBI to stop the ones here already and it would be a lot easier for them to do if they were just concentrated on violent criminals instead of pot smokers. And if new folks coming in were peaceful.

The land sale would also take a little while and in the mean time, allow our military to act their true purpose and that is the defense of our sovereign nation. Once we have the respect and peace of the world with us, by all means, send the Marine home. That would also give regular Americans a little time to arm themselves if they so choose. There's an attitudinal change that has to take place here. Most people are not accustomed to carrying guns on their person and that is a sound defense of not just an individual but a community, city, state, country...

Paulie, I don't follow your drug laws, welfare, gun ownership argument. I favor elimination of drug laws and welfare and support gun ownership of all citizens. What does one have to do with the other?

Nick, on your last point:

It's the hostage argument.

just as some might now say that we can't have migration freedom until we end the welfare state, someone else make any of the above "only if" arguments. More details later.

I see where you're going with this. If we wait until we have eliminated policy X then someone will suggest we wait until policy Y has also been eliminated? Instead of a weird all encompassing cluster bill dealing with immigration it would have been ideal to just write a bill eliminating the welfare state. That would solve the problem of people coming here to mooch off the system which never should have existed in the first place. Got it.

What is your suggestion in preventing people from coming here to kill us now that the world knows we aren't going to monitor the movement of people into this country in any way? It seems like you want no borders in the world at all. This is fine but you will still have prevailing ideologies in "areas" of the world if no countries exist. The people that hold such ideologies in Area A still have hatred toward people living in Area B. They may see their opportunity to strike and take action. Why shouldn't the people in Area B defend themselves from Area A people's attacks? Ideally, Area B people will show good will to the world, leave everyone alone and Area A people will no longer wish to harm Area B people (that's us). Will that animosity disappear the instance Area B hires a leader to state that this is the new policy of Area B? They say time heals all wounds and they say that for a reason. It takes time for wounds to heal, and violent assault over the course of 50 years may take more than a few days to be forgotten.

If you want open borders today, right now, how do you suggest Area B people protect or defend themselves from Area A people that still want to fight? Area B people have not yet proven further hostile acts won't happen, nor have they changed their defensive mind set to one of portable self defense weaponry operated by the citizenry. Thus, I see a reasonable military defense force as a temporary solution to a very broad and complicated problem. When does it end? I don't have that answer. Perhaps it ends when the people decide they no longer need that defense.