reforming the LP

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Any one want to help reform it? I believe that it could be a MAJOR party, we just need to really work at it. We are awesome on social issues and we would kick ass on economic issues, what is going on with the current LP? I think it'd be really cool if we could reform it. We could take in Libertarians, independent (Libertarian leaning), moderate anarchists, fiscally conservative Democrats and socially liberal GOP. It'd be awesome. We could be the REAL alternative, we could rally the hippie "anti war" crowd, we could get the drug legalization vote, we would appeal to both pro choice/life crowds, we would appeal to constitutionalists... damn, it's like the BEST positions, what is wrong with the leadership of this party?

We could form in every state, build strong organizations, we could utilize meet up A LOT, imagine the growth RP is getting for the LP! The LP should be more proactive and it should be more tolerant of small opposing views, like with abortion. There's some Libertarians that take issue with just "leaving it to states" so we should say.. ok "if you feel that way, attend the conventions and fight to get your views across, don't just leave or fight" does the GOP fight with each other when you have guys like Giuliani and Romney as their "top tier"? No, they defend them 100%. That's what the LP should be about. Stand by the party, stand by your guys, save it for when it comes time to vote on party platform.

I support Ron Paul 100% I just think that we need to truly think about reforming the LP, I really BELIEVE that it could become a MAJOR party, we just need to fight for it. We should fight for social liberalism, constitution, individualism, and fiscal conservatism! We should start acting like a mainstream party.

What do I have to do? Join the Boston Tea Party? :D

What do you think?

We should concentrate on Ron Paul, this proposal is for "down the road" so to speak

I propose we do one of four things:

*we reform the LP
*jump over to The Boston Tea Party
*Form a new party
*do nothing

[Hook]

I don't understand why the LP needs reforming. It seems to be fine the way it is. If you are only interested in power above principle the two major parties already have that down to a science.

[Hook]

If the LP just turns into "GOP Lite", then I will cancel my membership with them, as will most of the members.

[mtmedlin]

Yes, the LP needs reform. Their biggest problem is that they would rather be right then elected. I would take an LP light candidate immediately. In politics its not an all or nothing situation but thats what you get in the LP. We cant just eliminate the personal income tax. We have to completely repeal the IRS and if a candidate doesn't take that approach then he isn't a "true" Libertarian. It pisses me off so much because I am not a big L then I get this shit attitude from people that should be in the same boat as me. This government didn't change to the oppressive beast it is now overnight. It was made in small steps and if the LP ever wants to do anything more then get a few 100,000 votes every four years then they really need to follow their own principles of inclusion and stop putting up the "most libertarian" candidate (Badnarik) and support someone who might be 75% Libertarian but actually has a chance of winning.

[constituent]

yes.

i joined the libertarian party and the first thing i received in the mail was some guy griping about "i can't do it alone... blah blah blah" 'give me ya money'...

i remember watching the 2004 C-Span coverage of the Libertarian Party convention and remember all the backbiting and all that... it's a bird's eye view out in t.v. land, letcha know right now.

the combination of the two turned me off to the party completely. but with the exception of kinky friedman and ron paul, I vote (have voted) entirely libertarian.

[Triton]

Yes, the LP needs reform. Their biggest problem is that they would rather be right then elected. So your solution is compromise? That got us into this situation.

[angelatc]

http://reformthelp.org/

[mdh]

Any one want to help reform it? I believe that it could be a MAJOR party, we just need to really work at it. We are awesome on social issues and we would kick ass on economic issues, what is going on with the current LP? I think it'd be really cool if we could reform it. We could take in Libertarians, independent (Libertarian leaning), moderate anarchists, fiscally conservative Democrats and socially liberal GOP. It'd be awesome. We could be the REAL alternative, we could rally the hippie "anti war" crowd, we could get the drug legalization vote, we would appeal to both pro choice/life crowds, we would appeal to constitutionalists... damn, it's like the BEST positions, what is wrong with the leadership of this party?

If you are serious about an answer to that, I'd say read over the events at various conventions and peoples' responses to them.


We could form in every state, build strong organizations, we could utilize meet up A LOT, imagine the growth RP is getting for the LP! The LP should be more proactive and it should be more tolerant of small opposing views, like with abortion. There's some Libertarians that take issue with just "leaving it to states" so we should say.. ok "if you feel that way, attend the conventions and fight to get your views across, don't just leave or fight" does the GOP fight with each other when you have guys like Giuliani and Romney as their "top tier"? No, they defend them 100%. That's what the LP should be about. Stand by the party, stand by your guys, save it for when it comes time to vote on party platform.

I support Ron Paul 100% I just think that we need to truly think about reforming the LP, I really BELIEVE that it could become a MAJOR party, we just need to fight for it. We should fight for social liberalism, constitution, individualism, and fiscal conservatism! We should start acting like a mainstream party.

Well let me ask you then - how do you feel we should reform the party? Have you been involved with the LNC or your state affiliate at all? If not, you should be! The LP is full of opportunities for bright, motivated individuals, and every bit of work you put into the party is work that benefits the cause of liberty in the US.


What do I have to do? Join the Boston Tea Party? :D

The Boston Tea Party formed in the wake of the Portland convention. It lasted less than a year before becoming defunct. It no longer really exists (the chairman stepped down a long while back and no one else ever stepped up). Seemed like nice enough folks, so I got on their email list - last traffic on it was like January 2007. I would imagine their membership became heavily involved in Dr. Paul's campaign and will hopefully come back home to the LP after we put Dr. Paul in the white house.


We should concentrate on Ron Paul, this proposal is for "down the road" so to speak

I think that if we can win the presidency for Ron Paul, we will *need* LP candidates for the house and senate to help him out - and furthermore, his presence and ideals will help them a great deal, too.


I propose we do one of four things:

*jump over to The Boston Tea Party
*Form a new party
*do nothing

I'd say that the LP exists and has more success already than you're going to get elsewhere. It'd taken over 30 years to build the LP to where it is now, the #3 party in the US - do you really wish to repeat that effort? I don't. The BTP is basically defunct, and would likely accept a hostile takeover, but at the same time, you'd basically be starting a new party.

With at most 3 exceptions, the LP has active state affiliates in every state. There are hundreds of thousands if not over a million registered Libertarian voters (well, maybe not right now - a lot of us are Ron Paul Republicans...). There are some 15,000 dues-paying members of the LNC alone, not counting all those who are dues-paying members of state affiliate parties and not the LNC.

I believe the Green party is #4 after us, and I'm not sure who is #5 - it's probably the Constitution Party now, but I'm not entirely sure on that.

[mdh]

Yes, the LP needs reform. Their biggest problem is that they would rather be right then elected. I would take an LP light candidate immediately. In politics its not an all or nothing situation but thats what you get in the LP. We cant just eliminate the personal income tax. We have to completely repeal the IRS and if a candidate doesn't take that approach then he isn't a "true" Libertarian. It pisses me off so much because I am not a big L then I get this shit attitude from people that should be in the same boat as me. This government didn't change to the oppressive beast it is now overnight. It was made in small steps and if the LP ever wants to do anything more then get a few 100,000 votes every four years then they really need to follow their own principles of inclusion and stop putting up the "most libertarian" candidate (Badnarik) and support someone who might be 75% Libertarian but actually has a chance of winning.

Have you looked at Wayne Allen Root at all? He's an LP presidential candidate. Dr. Paul is 10 times more hardcore libertarian than Mr. Root is.

Winning the presidency is tough - we're having to fight pretty darn hard for it, and Dr. Paul is running as a republican! We're not even having to deal with ballot access or debate blackout issues like LP candidates do. The LP presidential candidate is a standard bearer moreso than a winning candidate. That said, there are plenty more moderate candidates who win, and plenty of hardcore libertarian candidates who win also, in state and local elections for a variety of offices.

[constituent]

oh yea, and this clown eric dondero who i've been hearing/reading about.

i heard some libertarian something live broadscast he was doing recently... man.

and that guy wants to be my district rep, running against and replacing ron paul... right.

[mdh]

http://reformthelp.org/

I've never been a big fan. These guys miss half of the real problems, and seem to want to fix a lot of the things that aren't broken, too. :(

They've also managed to make a lot of enemies within the LNC... aligning with them is likely a bad idea. Forming a new caucus within the LP to push for a specific and well thought out set of goals is laudable, however.

[mdh]

oh yea, and this clown eric dondero who i've been hearing/reading about.

i heard some libertarian something live broadscast he was doing recently... man.

and that guy wants to be my district rep, running against and replacing ron paul... right.

Want the truth about Dondero? He doesn't have a clue to stand on.

Want proof? http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mainstreamlibertarians/

This group, formerly called "Libertarians for Bush", now "Mainstream Libertarians" is supporting Giuliani. Dundering-Dondero is heavily involved. A truly disgusting bunch, this lot.

[Hook]

Have you looked at Wayne Allen Root at all? He's an LP presidential candidate. Dr. Paul is 10 times more hardcore libertarian than Mr. Root is.

Winning the presidency is tough - we're having to fight pretty darn hard for it, and Dr. Paul is running as a republican! We're not even having to deal with ballot access or debate blackout issues like LP candidates do. The LP presidential candidate is a standard bearer moreso than a winning candidate. That said, there are plenty more moderate candidates who win, and plenty of hardcore libertarian candidates who win also, in state and local elections for a variety of offices.

This is why Wayne will never get the LP nomination. I think the LP has sold enough of its soul already when they got rid of most of the party planks. The entire reason the LP is as successful as it is is because of its uncompromising principles. Loose that and everyone will jump ship.

[mdh]

This is why Wayne will never get the LP nomination.

Wayne seems like a good guy. There're a could of reasons I couldn't support him though, the biggest being that he believes the government should be allowed to determine who can and cannot own guns legally. That's a big no-no in my book. Most of his other positions are very much paletteable.


I think the LP has sold enough of its soul already when they got rid of most of the party planks. The entire reason the LP is as successful as it is is because of its uncompromising principles. Loose that and everyone will jump ship.

Your first post made it sound like you supported a more moderate LP, but now you're speaking like a purist... I'm a bit confused as to which "side you're on", as it were. :p

My personal take on it is to, in broad daylight and in a well publicized event that is widely discussed beforehand (no ambushes, no back room crap), consider why it is the LNC needs a "platform". Shouldn't the non-aggression axiom be enough, and allow individual candidates to determine what their platform will be for their candidacy, so that we can focus more on what works in a given area and less on what doesn't? There're places we could win on gun rights alone, but if we talk too much about legalizing weed, we're going to lose friends fast. Other places, the opposite is true. I think that to win, candidates need to be individuals with their own ideologies so long as they do not violate the non-aggression axiom. Just my take though.

[Man from La Mancha]

Forget this libertarian stuff or Republican or democratic or whatever, who the heck cares. Just take our best shot with Ron.

.

[constituent]

mdh-

i checked it out and i've have to say that 80-90% of their content is sour grapes over ron paul.

these guys are really republican neo-con partisan hacks.

[Hook]

Your first post made it sound like you supported a more moderate LP, but now you're speaking like a purist... I'm a bit confused as to which "side you're on", as it were. :p



I'm on whichever side causes the most anger and hostility in this forum. :p

[mdh]

mdh-

i checked it out and i've have to say that 80-90% of their content is sour grapes over ron paul.

these guys are really republican neo-con partisan hacks.

Yupp. Their use of the word libertarian makes me really want to violate the non-aggression axiom in their general direction! ;)

[TheEvilDetector]

E. Dondero is such a galactic loser.

He used to work for RP as an aide but was fired by Ron Paul.

I believe they had a strong disagreement about the Iraqi War.

Dondero being an emotionally unstable individual who likes to hold onto grudges decides amongst other things to
create a "libertarian" group that supports R.Ghool the cross dressing fascist lisping despotic freak
and which also has a lot of RP hating messages.

Photo of Mr Dondero:
http://www.latestpolitics.com/pics/large/11.jpg

[constituent]

ron paul handed him his ass or something?

[mdh]

ron paul handed him ass or something?

Hey, you live down there... near where Dondero is...

[constituent]

i'm in the 14th district, but the far corner... i'm not sure where he lives.

[R_Harris]

I guess it depends on what you mean by 'reform'.

Look, since 1980, the Libertarian Party has (IMHO) put out only three decent candidates - Ed Clark, Ron Paul, and Harry Browne. I did not care for any of the others.

David Bergland - completely ineffective. Why? He focused on ideological purity, that's why. Thus, only 0.1% of voters bothered to cast a vote for him.

Andre Marrou - can you say "the king of deadbeat dads"? That guy was an absolute joke. He definitely set the party back.

And Badnarik, as mentioned above, did a good job of imitating Bergland in terms of emphasizing ideological purity.

Russell Means seriously challenged Ron Paul in 1988, and if Means had won, the campaign would have been a real circus attraction.


Folks, American voters - and not just evangelical Christians - will never buy into the "you can do whatever you want to do just so long as it doesn't bother anybody else" philosophy. I don't buy into it, and rejected it back in 1982 - even though I strongly supported Clark in 1980.

In short, the LP will always be a tiny minority party - and with the Constitution Party having taken away people who could not swallow the libertine social positions of the party and the prospect of other independent parties and candidates, growth will be very hard to come by.

The party should have called it quits a long time ago.

[mdh]

I guess it depends on what you mean by 'reform'.

Look, since 1980, the Libertarian Party has (IMHO) put out only three decent candidates - Ed Clark, Ron Paul, and Harry Browne. I did not care for any of the others.

David Bergland - completely ineffective. Why? He focused on ideological purity, that's why. Thus, only 0.1% of voters bothered to cast a vote for him.

Andre Marrou - can you say "the king of deadbeat dads"? That guy was an absolute joke. He definitely set the party back.

And Badnarik, as mentioned above, did a good job of imitating Bergland in terms of emphasizing ideological purity.

Russell Means seriously challenged Ron Paul in 1988, and if Means had won, the campaign would have been a real circus attraction.


Folks, American voters - and not just evangelical Christians - will never buy into the "you can do whatever you want to do just so long as it doesn't bother anybody else" philosophy. I don't buy into it, and rejected it back in 1982 - even though I strongly supported Clark in 1980.

In short, the LP will always be a tiny minority party - and with the Constitution Party having taken away people who could not swallow the libertine social positions of the party and the prospect of other independent parties and candidates, growth will be very hard to come by.

The party should have called it quits a long time ago.

It's unfortunate that you feel that way. Let me ask you this, however... should Dr. Paul fail to receive the Republican nomination, which neocon will you be voting for? ;)

[torchbearer]

This is why Wayne will never get the LP nomination. I think the LP has sold enough of its soul already when they got rid of most of the party planks. The entire reason the LP is as successful as it is is because of its uncompromising principles. Loose that and everyone will jump ship.

Wayne is the leading choice of the louisiana delagates for the LP nomination. Phillies and Imperato have some major faults that i will save for a different discussion... and Kubby has effectively bowed out to Ron Paul.
Wayne Allen Root will probably get our nomination, and despite his money and power... will get totally ignore, just like Ron Paul.

[Kregener]

National Platform of the Libertarian Party




I.3 Freedom of Religion

Issue: Government routinely invades personal privacy rights based solely on individuals’ religious beliefs. Arbitrary tax structures are designed to give aid to certain religions, and deny it to others.

Principle: We defend the rights of individuals to engage in (or abstain from) any religious activities that do not violate the rights of others.

Solution: In order to defend freedom, we advocate a strict separation of church and State. We oppose government actions that either aid or attack any religion. We oppose taxation of church property for the same reason that we oppose all taxation. We condemn the attempts by parents or any others -- via kidnappings or conservatorships -- to force children to conform to any religious views. Government harassment or obstruction of religious groups for their beliefs or non-violent activities must end.

Transitional Action: We call for an end to the harassment of churches by the Internal Revenue Service through threats to deny tax-exempt status to churches that refuse to disclose massive amounts of information about themselves.

The highlighted section is what has kept me from joining the LP....ever.

[mdh]

Wayne is the leading choice of the louisiana delagates for the LP nomination. Phillies and Imperato have some major faults that i will save for a different discussion... and Kubby has effectively bowed out to Ron Paul.
Wayne Allen Root will probably get our nomination, and despite his money and power... will get totally ignore, just like Ron Paul.

Yeah, I don't know anything about Imperato. Kubby seems a really good guy, and I agree with his stance regarding Dr. Paul. He's doing the moral thing.

I'd really like Root, I would, if he fixed his stance on guns. I can't support anyone who believes the government should be allowed to circumvent the second amendment as his platform claims he does.

[R_Harris]

"It's unfortunate that you feel that way. Let me ask you this, however... should Dr. Paul fail to receive the Republican nomination, which neocon will you be voting for? "

It's very simple. I will not vote, which is also a type of vote.

If Ron Paul is not elected, the game is over. It is simply a countdown to the end of the American Republic. When exactly it will happen, no one can say, since it may not happen in a day but over a several year period.

At that point, you simply determine what is the best way to protect your family, savings, and whatever other assets you have.

[NCGOPer_for_Paul]

I guess it depends on what you mean by 'reform'.

Look, since 1980, the Libertarian Party has (IMHO) put out only three decent candidates - Ed Clark, Ron Paul, and Harry Browne. I did not care for any of the others.

David Bergland - completely ineffective. Why? He focused on ideological purity, that's why. Thus, only 0.1% of voters bothered to cast a vote for him.

Andre Marrou - can you say "the king of deadbeat dads"? That guy was an absolute joke. He definitely set the party back.

And Badnarik, as mentioned above, did a good job of imitating Bergland in terms of emphasizing ideological purity.

Russell Means seriously challenged Ron Paul in 1988, and if Means had won, the campaign would have been a real circus attraction.


Folks, American voters - and not just evangelical Christians - will never buy into the "you can do whatever you want to do just so long as it doesn't bother anybody else" philosophy. I don't buy into it, and rejected it back in 1982 - even though I strongly supported Clark in 1980.

In short, the LP will always be a tiny minority party - and with the Constitution Party having taken away people who could not swallow the libertine social positions of the party and the prospect of other independent parties and candidates, growth will be very hard to come by.

The party should have called it quits a long time ago.

I agree completely. True conservatives, the true libertarians should be in the Republican Party, working to take it back to its roots (Taft, Eisenhower, Goldwater, Reagan, Paul). A lot of Libertarians are disenchanted Republicans. When they get involved with Libertarians, they run into a lot of anarchists and purity tests, and get even more upset.

I will not vote for Giuliani, Romney, McCain, or Fred Thompson.

I MIGHT vote for Brownback.

I probably would vote for Huckabee.

I would vote for Tancredo, Hunter, or Gingrich.

[Kregener]

by R_Harris:
If Ron Paul is not elected, the game is over. It is simply a countdown to the end of the American Republic. When exactly it will happen, no one can say, since it may not happen in a day but over a several year period.

At that point, you simply determine what is the best way to protect your family, savings, and whatever other assets you have.

Now there is a person who gets it.

America likely will not last through another 4 or 8 year term of any of the other socialist, communist or fascist candidates.

She might not make it through a Ron Paul presidency, but I would rather have him at the helm than those other NWO goons.

[Zeeder]

I was a member of the libertarian party for a couple of years. When they refused to endorese the "Free State Project", I stopped giving them money. They are our last hope, not Ron Paul. Ron Paul is the second to last hope ;)


The libertarian party does things assbackwards. If they wanted to win, or make a real difference, they do what Ron Paul has done. You have your nomination a year before it is held now. THAT candidate runs as a republican.

We libertarians, classic liberals, true conservatives should be taking over the Republican party, and destroying the abomination it has become.

[mdh]

I was a member of the libertarian party for a couple of years. When they refused to endorese the "Free State Project", I stopped giving them money. They are our last hope, not Ron Paul. Ron Paul is the second to last hope ;)


The libertarian party does things assbackwards. If they wanted to win, or make a real difference, they do what Ron Paul has done. You have your nomination a year before it is held now. THAT candidate runs as a republican.

We libertarians, classic liberals, true conservatives should be taking over the Republican party, and destroying the abomination it has become.

As far as the Free State Project thing goes, taking over one state hurts us in terms of being able to take over congress at some point. It hurts us for electoral votes for president. It hurts in a lot of ways. I wouldn't discourage anyone from participating in the FSP if they truly want to, but it's not a good way forward for the LP. And don't think the FSP can escape mandates from the federal government - last time someone tried to secede it was fully half of the union and you see what happened to those guys. NH wouldn't stand a chance in a civil war.

Taking over the Republican party would require a bankroll that could compete with the current leadership. Can you bring that to the table? I can't.

I do think it's great that Dr. Paul chose to run as a Republican for president, as it makes a lot of things easier on him. It also makes some things harder. If we fail to receive the GOP nomination, it's because the GOP fought us tooth and nail. Had Dr. Paul run for the LP nomination, it probably would've been handed to him on a golden platter. After that though, he would've had a much harder time getting publicity, ballot access, or fundraising. It's a big trade-off, with regards to the presidential race, and I think that in the end running Republican works in his favor.

Will we have another Ron Paul Republican presidential contender? Probably not, unless it's Ron Paul. The simple fact is that no other GOP legislators have a record that can touch his. His record, and the fact that he ran for president on the LP ticket in 1988, are what convinced me that he was legit and not just saying all of this constitution stuff. Could another Republican convince me of such? Probably not, without such a legislative record. And I'm not alone in feeling that way. Let's face it, the Republican party and the Democrat party alike have become associated in the hearts and minds of people with socialist neocons.

The simple fact is it may be even easier to educate people about the LP than to re-educate them about a newly-taken-over Republican party with one hand while fighting down party insiders who get payouts from the mercantilists with the other.
I'd feel a lot differently if they were supporting Dr. Paul's presidential bid, but I hardly expected them to. They're bought, sold, and traded.

[NCGOPer_for_Paul]

mdh,

I completely agree with you about the FSP. As with many Libertarian ideas, in theory, it's great, but in practicality falls flat.

Taking over the Republican Party is not as difficult as you think. The beautiful thing about the GOP is historically it has been a bottom-up party as opposed to a top-down party. In some states, that's no longer true, but in most places, a strong grass-roots effort can take over the Party at local, district, and possibly even State levels.

We've already seen the influence of Ron Paul on the Spartanburg County, SC party. Some of us GOP "insiders" have the ear of chairmen and local level politicians. When "we" outnumber "them" and control the "votes" on boards, we "rule" platforms, committees, who represents us at State, and have a say at National. Do this all over the country, all of a sudden, the party shifts. It happened in '64. In '76, Ford got the nomination, but Reagan got the platform, In '80, Reagan's people got their man elected. Unfortunately, they didn't stay around long enough, and allowed the neo-cons to take over starting in '88. In 2000, they entrenched themselves. Today, in '08, we do not have a motivated party, BUT, we have motivated Republicans NOT in positions of power than COULD have the numbers for an "overthrow".

This is a lot more doable than trying to get a "mainstream" Libertarian elected. Hell, you'll have 15% of the LP get upset that the mainstream Libertarian isn't pure enough.

[Zeeder]

As NCGOPer_for_Paul NCGOPer said, taking over a party is far more doable than actually winning as a libertarian or other 3rd party. It doesn't take a huge bankroll. It takes libertarian minded people showing up in the primaries.
The libertarians should be a active sect of the Repbulican party. Like "Reagan democrats" or something. We'd accomplish alot more.


I said that the Free State Project is our last hope, in response to some who say Ron Paul is that last hope. If you think this is the last chance for the constitution, the why not the free state project? They will kill us all? So? That's what the last hope really means isn't it?

[mtmedlin]

So your solution is compromise? That got us into this situation.

Yes, I would compromise. Even if the biggest liberatarian in the world wins, he will not have congress with him. So what will he do? ITs not all or nothing. I will take some now and more later and if that makes me less of a Libertarian, then oh well, I always considered myself an American first anyhow and what is best for America is getting what we can now and going for more later. The only way to do that is compromise.

[mdh]

mdh,

I completely agree with you about the FSP. As with many Libertarian ideas, in theory, it's great, but in practicality falls flat.

I don't know that I'd say that it falls entirely flat. It is clearly, however, not an effective strategy for influencing national-level politics. Anyone with even rudimentary knowledge of the US political systems knows that concentrating all of our efforts in one place is a road to winning small battles and losing big wars.

I'm sure there are those who want to go out with guns blazing as the union army comes to quell their secession by force. I like to think we can find much better options than for the majority of liberty-minded folks to die for the cause.


Taking over the Republican Party is not as difficult as you think. The beautiful thing about the GOP is historically it has been a bottom-up party as opposed to a top-down party. In some states, that's no longer true, but in most places, a strong grass-roots effort can take over the Party at local, district, and possibly even State levels.

We've already seen the influence of Ron Paul on the Spartanburg County, SC party. Some of us GOP "insiders" have the ear of chairmen and local level politicians. When "we" outnumber "them" and control the "votes" on boards, we "rule" platforms, committees, who represents us at State, and have a say at National. Do this all over the country, all of a sudden, the party shifts. It happened in '64. In '76, Ford got the nomination, but Reagan got the platform, In '80, Reagan's people got their man elected. Unfortunately, they didn't stay around long enough, and allowed the neo-cons to take over starting in '88. In 2000, they entrenched themselves. Today, in '08, we do not have a motivated party, BUT, we have motivated Republicans NOT in positions of power than COULD have the numbers for an "overthrow".

If Dr. Paul wins the primary, I will be genuinely inclined to believe that we can have an impact within the GOP. Failing that, I'm not so sure. It's all up in the air, right now - I think we're at a good spot to be at this early, especially in terms of the PCC having a good sum of cash on hand. It's still far form a gimmee for any of the candidates. I'd say Paul pretty much dethroned and took the place of McCain in the top tier. If we keep fighting as hard as we have been thus far, it's absolutely doable. At that point, the GOP will be clamoring for us. If he fails, they'll go back to business as usual and assume that their same old tricks continue to work to weed out candidates like Dr. Paul.


This is a lot more doable than trying to get a "mainstream" Libertarian elected. Hell, you'll have 15% of the LP get upset that the mainstream Libertarian isn't pure enough.

I'm not sure how you define 'mainstream libertarian' - there's a group by that name run by Dondero that has endorsed Giuliani.

I'd say that Dr. Paul and Wayne Allen Root are two good examples of moderate libertarian-leaning gentlemen. Mr. Root is by far less pure than Dr. Paul is in terms of his libertarianism - but he's still way better than the vast majority of candidates! Dr. Paul is running as a Republican, and Mr. Root as a Libertarian.

Any libertarian - LP'er or otherwise - who wouldn't vote for Dr. Paul based on his Republican affiliation is about party and not principles. I think you'll find that while those people exist, the majority of us in the LP are about principles, and simply feel that the LP is a great platform for good ideas and good candidates. If the best candidate is a Republican, though, why would anyone not support him?

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Well let me ask you then - how do you feel we should reform the party? Have you been involved with the LNC or your state affiliate at all? If not, you should be! The LP is full of opportunities for bright, motivated individuals, and every bit of work you put into the party is work that benefits the cause of liberty in the US.

No, I have not been involved at all. How can I become involved? Few questions. How does one run for state chair? Or another position? Would all of this information be located in the bylaws? thanks

[constituent]

mdh said-

If the best candidate is a Republican, though, why would anyone not support him?


that'd be kinda anti-libertarian wouldn't it? to stick to the party line like that. i'm not a member of the party so i don't know. but is that part of the idea... libertarians are party loyalists or not libertarians?

[mdh]

mdh said-

If the best candidate is a Republican, though, why would anyone not support him?


that'd be kinda anti-libertarian wouldn't it? to stick to the party line like that. i'm not a member of the party so i don't know. but is that part of the idea... libertarians are party loyalists or not libertarians?

It's the LP motto that we are the "Party of Principle". It's my view, as the vast majority of other LP folks, that that means voting for the best candidate, regardless of things like party affiliation. I think the LP provides great candidates with a great party to run under - indeed, many people are turned off by the two party system.

Dr. Paul is not, and that's cool too. You may remember he ran for president on the LP ticket in 1988. Presidential candidates in the LP tend to be the standard-bearer even moreso than a traditional political candidate for office. On the other hand, we have won a great many state and local office campaigns. We can win at those levels. It's my firm belief that we will see a Libertarian candidate in the house of reps (if not more, or senators) within the next 4 years if Dr. Paul is elected president.

I don't think most libertarians would agree at all with the idea of being "party loyalists". Parties can be co-opted by bad people and bad ideas - look at what happened to the Republican party! If neocons took over the Libertarian Party (like they did to the GOP, or like the socialists did with the word "liberal") we'd move along. Our loyalties are to an ideology. The LP offers us a great platform to spread good ideas and run good candidates.

[mdh]

No, I have not been involved at all. How can I become involved? Few questions. How does one run for state chair? Or another position? Would all of this information be located in the bylaws? thanks

Officerships and the voting thereupon would be outlined in the bylaws, yes. My advice to you would be to visit http://www.njlp.org/ and say hi to someone - anyone. Send an email. Attend an event. Meet people and get to know who's who, and how the party rolls. Don't like something? Offer to help change it and see what others think.

It looks like their membership dues are $15 annually, with some more expensive options as well. I'd say you should seriously consider doing that even if you don't wish to be a sustaining member of the LNC.