PDA

View Full Version : LP Founder David Nolan: "Sending money to Schiff was a colossal waste of resources"




qh4dotcom
08-11-2010, 04:01 PM
A Facebook message I just received



Yesterday, libertarian-leaning Peter Schiff lost big-time in the Connecticut Republican primary. He spent about $3.3 million to obtain approximately 28,000 votes for a third-place finish. That works out to $118/vote. Now in all fairness, the victor in that contest, Linda McMahon, spent well over $300/vote. But clearly, sending money to Schiff's campaign was a colossal waste of resources.

I point this out because when I ran for U.S. House in 2006, I spent about $5.50/vote - about 1/20 of what Schiff spent, and 1/60 of what McMahon spent. I cannot guarantee that my U.S. Senate campaign will be as cost-effective as my 2006 campaign, but I can assure you that every dollar we spend will be used to spread the message of liberty in Arizona and to show up John McCain for the opportunistic hypocrite that he is.

If everyone receiving this message sent $118, we'd raise almost $85,000. Please visit our campaign website and give what you can. http://www.nolan2010.org

MRoCkEd
08-11-2010, 04:03 PM
True, but sending it to LP candidates is even worse.

Kludge
08-11-2010, 04:10 PM
True, but sending it to LP candidates is even worse.

:)

qh4dotcom
08-11-2010, 04:12 PM
True, but sending it to LP candidates is even worse.

Does that apply to anyone who sent Ron Paul money in 1988 when he ran as a Libertarian?

Jordan
08-11-2010, 04:12 PM
True, but sending it to LP candidates is even worse.

:)

:)

low preference guy
08-11-2010, 04:14 PM
Libertarian Party founder said this? Hilarious.

dannno
08-11-2010, 04:15 PM
When some people go into the voting booth, they don't know who they are going to vote for. Inevitably, they might end up voting for a random person.. also there are libertarians out there and Schiff's name didn't have (L) next to it, so there was nothing like that to distinguish him from McMahon on the ballot.

What I'm saying is that the votes the guy in the OP actually GOT with his money that he wouldn't have gotten otherwise, had he not spent any money, it probably works out to be a much higher dollar value closer to what Schiff ended up spending.

JenH88
08-11-2010, 04:17 PM
lol.. funny i had done the math per vote too... altho linda spent nearly $400 per vote... insane...

i dont believe donating to peter was a waste. the libertarian party always seems to be talking smack.. where are the libertarian parties voting numbers again??

wizardwatson
08-11-2010, 04:20 PM
I point this out because when I ran for U.S. House in 2006, I spent about $5.50/vote - about 1/20 of what Schiff spent, and 1/60 of what McMahon spent. I cannot guarantee that my U.S. Senate campaign will be as cost-effective as my 2006 campaign, but I can assure you that every dollar we spend will be used to spread the message of liberty in Arizona and to show up John McCain for the opportunistic hypocrite that he is.

Politicians crack me up.

Send money to me! Last time I ran for office I lost too, but I'll waste your money more efficiently than the other guy!

malkusm
08-11-2010, 04:20 PM
http://www.nolan2010.org/

I'm not saying there's any envy involved.....I'm just saying....

ItsTime
08-11-2010, 04:22 PM
eh, who cares?

qh4dotcom
08-11-2010, 04:27 PM
Politicians crack me up.

Send money to me! Last time I ran for office I lost too, but I'll waste your money more efficiently than the other guy!

Spreading the message of liberty isn't a waste even if you lose...maybe it's a waste at $118 vote but not at $5.50/vote.

muzzled dogg
08-11-2010, 04:28 PM
btw peter was the keynote speaker at last year's CT LP convention

Thrashertm
08-11-2010, 04:29 PM
It wasn't a waste of money - I got a lot of good entertainment out of it. Phonebanking was fun.

nobody's_hero
08-11-2010, 04:29 PM
Does that apply to anyone who sent Ron Paul money in 1988 when he ran as a Libertarian?

Eh. While I agree, if your point is that no one should tell other people how to donate their money. . .

—what exactly came out of 1988?

I never heard of Ron Paul until he stood up on a stage twenty years later with a panel of "republicans" and was diametrically opposed to everything they represented.
A real attention getter, those South Carolina republican debates.


===========
Response to David Nolan

If anyone wasted their money, Peter Schiff was definitely at the top of the list of wasters. He spent one million of his own money to get a decent message out to the other 77% of Connecticut GOP members, while McMahon spent $20 million of her husband's money purely on herself.

That brings up an interesting perspective that I hadn't thought of until I just now typed out my thoughts.

No one wastes resources on a candidate who desires to save our country. We waste resources on voters who aren't interested in saving the country.

Aratus
08-11-2010, 04:31 PM
linda mcmahon spent easily MORE THAN TWICE as much per vote
than peter schiff and got MORE THAN TWICE as many votes???

low preference guy
08-11-2010, 04:31 PM
Spreading the message of liberty isn't a waste even if you lose...maybe it's a waste at $118 vote but not at $5.50/vote.

What about $6.1/vote? Is $17.4 per vote wasteful? Is $70/vote?

RileyE104
08-11-2010, 04:31 PM
David Nolan seems arrogant to me.
Especially when you read some of his FB comments.

Michael P
08-11-2010, 04:32 PM
http://www.nolan2010.org/

I'm not saying there's any envy involved.....I'm just saying....

LMAO...

If Peter runs and wins in 2012 everyone who says it was a waste this year will be eating crow.

low preference guy
08-11-2010, 04:33 PM
linda mcmahon spent easily MORE THAN TWICE as much per vote
than peter schiff and got MORE THAN TWICE as many votes???

She spent not twice, but about eight times what Peter spent.

Didn't she spend $22 million and Peter about $3 million? I think Nolan's math is wrong.

ronpaulhawaii
08-11-2010, 04:34 PM
...Phonebanking was fun.

priceless...

wizardwatson
08-11-2010, 04:36 PM
Spreading the message of liberty isn't a waste even if you lose...maybe it's a waste at $118 vote but not at $5.50/vote.

Every candidate in every race pretty much believes they are "spreading the message of liberty". The real message of liberty is that we all need to do more to end the suffering and injustice in the world or else it will soon be upon us. The only message I see transmitted in these campaigns is that we need to send money to candidate x and vote for candidate x and we can turn this all around.

It's about money. In 90% of cases the one who spends more wins. It isn't about the message in a campaign, for the most part. The message is always watered down so that the candidate has as much appeal as possible in relation to the opponent.

Part of the gift of mistakes and failure and losing is figuring out how to change and do better. If we keep patting ourselves on the back with every failed endeavor in this movement with a, "well, we were really just spreading the message of liberty, that was most important" we're buying into our own bullshit.

A political campaign has to be about the least efficient way to educate the public.

K466
08-11-2010, 04:56 PM
Pretty dumb comment by Nolan. How many elected libertarians do we have in the federal government? Compared to how many elected libertarian-Republicans we have?

specsaregood
08-11-2010, 05:09 PM
Pretty dumb comment by Nolan. How many elected libertarians do we have in the federal government? Compared to how many elected libertarian-Republicans we have?

Let alone the senate. I mean maybe a house seat as a LP candidate, maybe.....but a senate seat? I guess it takes one to know one in regards to wasting resources.

RonPaulFanInGA
08-11-2010, 05:31 PM
The founder of the frickin' Libertarian party, a party (including both the main party and all the candidates that have ran under its label) that has taken God knows how much money in its nearly forty year existence and put up a gigantic goose egg when it comes to the number of House and Senate seats won, Governorships and of course the White House. A party that peaked in presidential runs thirty years ago in 1980 with a whooping 1.1% of the vote.

Good grief.

low preference guy
08-11-2010, 05:32 PM
The founder of the frickin' Libertarian party, a party (including both the main party and all the candidates that have ran under its label) that has taken God knows how much money in its nearly forty year existence and won put up a gigantic goose egg when it comes to numbers of House and Senate seats won, Governorships and of course the White House. A party that peaked in presidential runs thirty years ago in 1980 with a whooping 1.1% of the vote.

Good grief.

yep

qh4dotcom
08-11-2010, 05:39 PM
What about $6.1/vote? Is $17.4 per vote wasteful? Is $70/vote?

It depends...if for $70 you get just a vote, probably yes...now if for $70 you manage to get a vote plus educate someone about the principles of liberty and they join the cause then of course not.

iFollowPeterSchiff
08-11-2010, 05:56 PM
A political campaign has to be about the least efficient way to educate the public.

No, at over $10,000 per student per year, I would say our public education system is far more inefficient.

james1906
08-11-2010, 06:11 PM
True, but sending it to LP candidates is even worse.

Like a presidential candidate that bites the hand that feeds him.

klamath
08-11-2010, 06:21 PM
The founder of the frickin' Libertarian party, a party (including both the main party and all the candidates that have ran under its label) that has taken God knows how much money in its nearly forty year existence and put up a gigantic goose egg when it comes to the number of House and Senate seats won, Governorships and of course the White House. A party that peaked in presidential runs thirty years ago in 1980 with a whooping 1.1% of the vote.

Good grief.

I have to agree with you there.

MozoVote
08-11-2010, 06:56 PM
Has the LP ever gotten even 25,000 votes in Connecticut? Schiff topped that in a frickin' PRIMARY.

Sheeeeeshhh.

wizardwatson
08-11-2010, 07:14 PM
No, at over $10,000 per student per year, I would say our public education system is far more inefficient.

Well, I'd give you a touche', but for most Americans public school is simply daycare services since the tax burden/cost of living forces both parents to work in many cases.

Kotin
08-11-2010, 07:50 PM
Schiff has put himself in a much better position to run another year like 2012 etc..


I don't feel my donations were a waste.

G-Wohl
08-11-2010, 08:08 PM
Does that apply to anyone who sent Ron Paul money in 1988 when he ran as a Libertarian?

Yes, it absolutely does. Anybody who supports, or runs in, the libertarian party has severe psychological issues and should have their head checked.

How the Libertarians can speak such hypocrisy is beyond all reasoning and logic. They are such a perversion of liberty that it makes me truly wonder what side they are on. Did he ACTUALLY just use Schiff's loss in an attempt to legitimize his own pathetic winless campaign for the Senate in Connecticut?

t0rnado
08-11-2010, 08:09 PM
Pottle, kettle, black, etc.

Umbro2914
08-11-2010, 08:25 PM
She spent not twice, but about eight times what Peter spent.

Didn't she spend $22 million and Peter about $3 million? I think Nolan's math is wrong.

The math is $$ spent per vote. Linda gained more votes, so it dosent seem like she spent that much more, thats where your confusion lies.

KCIndy
08-11-2010, 09:16 PM
But clearly, sending money to Schiff's campaign was a colossal waste of resources.


Geez! Kicking the other guy and tearing him down is NOT a good way for one to make oneself look better or more important. Someone needs to explain this to Mr. Nolan.

:(

tpreitzel
08-11-2010, 10:14 PM
LOL at nutty Nolan ... Haven't we been through this erroneously foolish argument enough already? Apparently not ...

Daamien
08-11-2010, 10:32 PM
Being hypocritical is fun.

Austrian Econ Disciple
08-11-2010, 10:35 PM
Oh man Nolan is a idiot. That diatribe was hilarious. He basically insulted himself. If you don't like the GOP and you want to run for office, do not run as LP, but as an Independent. The laws in this country make third parties all, but impossible. If you do decide to run as LP goddamn run as a libertarian please. WAR, Barr, and the rest are disgusting.

Kludge
08-11-2010, 10:40 PM
Oh man Nolan is a idiot. That diatribe was hilarious. He basically insulted himself. If you don't like the GOP and you want to run for office, do not run as LP, but as an Independent. The laws in this country make third parties all, but impossible. If you do decide to run as LP goddamn run as a libertarian please. WAR, Barr, and the rest are disgusting.

I really, really tried to like the LP. Some folks in there like Mary Ruwart and Scotty Boman are fantastic people and would make great candidates, if only for their great speaking skills in teaching others about libertarianism. However, the overall LP's hostility toward GOP candidates trying to accomplish similar ends is ridiculous, especially when their argument is NOT founded on libertarian purity, but a political party they have personal attachment to. It's pretty obvious to anyone who has studied the LP - they aren't going to be making significant political change any time soon. Given how intense the bickering/"politics" of the LP are, it's really kind of silly not to work with either the GOP or Dems for people trying to work within government. Though definitely not the exclusive example, the LP showed they are a party of compromise when they nominated Barr & Root. It's time for them to go.

LeifEiriksson
08-12-2010, 12:03 AM
How many times do I have to say it. Schiff would have been a game changer, he simply would not have been another vote in the congress. He would've changed this nation. He is a leader and the whole country would have followed him.

Kludge
08-12-2010, 12:08 AM
How many times do I have to say it.

As many times as the Catholic Church will have to say the Pope is infallible.

aspiringconstitutionalist
08-12-2010, 12:08 AM
Which of us, 3 years out from the Ron Paul moneybombs, would say that our money there was misspent? Yes, Ron Paul lost, but he singlehandedly revolutionized the political landscape of America, and, to an extent, the world.

In 2009 and 2010, our money helped Peter Schiff broadcast a message of liberty across New England that many may have never heard, spoken so eloquently, before. And this week, nearly a quarter of voting Republicans in Connecticut chose an Austro-libertarian for Senate. That's a huge stepping stone.

To an extent, donations to political candidates, even libertarian ones, can be a waste of money, because it is simply diverting resources into the state's own game. But donations to certain libertarian politicians can be extremely worthwhile, if they hijack the state's own game to broadcast the ultimate anti-state message to a wide number of people, using the state's own apparatus against it.

low preference guy
08-12-2010, 12:11 AM
As many times as the Catholic Church will have to say the Pope is infallible.

LOL!

Anyway, Peter Schiff 2012!

Kotin
08-12-2010, 12:20 AM
Peter Schiff 2012!

:cool:

AJ Antimony
08-12-2010, 12:24 AM
Ha! What an asshole! Sending money to the Losertarian Party is the biggest waste of resources.

Schifference
08-12-2010, 04:25 AM
I am 48, been unemployed for a couple of years, going to nursing school, owned a business for 13 years, closed it and went bankrupt. We live in CT off of 1 income and have no entitlements. We supported and donated to Schiff. I do not think it was a waste of money. In all my years of voting he is the only candidate that I can say that I truly supported. I am proud to have supported Peter Schiff. Peter is an intelligent person and if he chooses to run in 2012 the results will be different. We won, Connecticut lost. Peter's name got out and we endorsed the best candidate possible for U.S. senate. Schiff could have easily won in a different state.

cbc58
08-12-2010, 06:53 AM
Which of us, 3 years out from the Ron Paul moneybombs, would say that our money there was misspent? Yes, Ron Paul lost, but he singlehandedly revolutionized the political landscape of America, and, to an extent, the world.

Don't take this the wrong way - but that's not being realistic. What has revolutionalized the political landscape is a crash in the economy, massive unemployment, stock market losses and voter unrest. Yes RP is vocal about the economy but he has had very little impact on the average voter. What you are seeing is a very small group of people getting vocal... which is going to happen with or without RP and his candicy. I support RP and various liberty minded candidates, but most voters are not going to come around until it hits them squarely in the face and in their pocketbooks.

Frankly the RP campaign was a big disappointment and a waste of money IMHO. Not the man himself but the campaign organization in general. And the fact that this group is fragmented and can be hijacked by tea-party movements speaks to the fact that it needs work.

K466
08-12-2010, 08:23 AM
Don't take this the wrong way - but that's not being realistic... speaks to the fact that it needs work.

Paul got in the debates. That cannot be underestimated. It brought many new people to our side.

Baptist
08-12-2010, 10:12 AM
Getting 1.9% (http://www.azcongresswatch.com/?p=2456) of people from an independently-minded state to vote for your libertarian principles = $5.50 a vote.

Getting 20%+ of people from a socialized state to vote libertarian for the first time in their lives = PRICELESS.

Schiff > Nolan

amy31416
08-12-2010, 10:24 AM
Don't take this the wrong way - but that's not being realistic. What has revolutionalized the political landscape is a crash in the economy, massive unemployment, stock market losses and voter unrest. Yes RP is vocal about the economy but he has had very little impact on the average voter. What you are seeing is a very small group of people getting vocal... which is going to happen with or without RP and his candicy. I support RP and various liberty minded candidates, but most voters are not going to come around until it hits them squarely in the face and in their pocketbooks.

Frankly the RP campaign was a big disappointment and a waste of money IMHO. Not the man himself but the campaign organization in general. And the fact that this group is fragmented and can be hijacked by tea-party movements speaks to the fact that it needs work.

Have to disagree.

I came around to RP prior to the crash in the economy, massive unemployment and stock market losses.

RP's platform is a principled alternative to the status quo of both sides, and continues to be such.

Some of the failures of the campaign and C4L are aggravating, but I don't regret donating as I did because of the ripple effect the campaign has had. I do regret donating to Murray Sabrin and a few others, but not RP--so I'm not some uncritical supporter. In regards to the hijacking of the tea party--perhaps all we'd need is the enthusiasm we had in '08 to get it back.

RP is more of a philosopher-statesman than a suave politician--do you expect the masses to swoon over him?

libertarian4321
08-12-2010, 06:10 PM
lol.. funny i had done the math per vote too... altho linda spent nearly $400 per vote... insane...

i dont believe donating to peter was a waste. the libertarian party always seems to be talking smack.. where are the libertarian parties voting numbers again??

I think Nolan's response was because so many people (usually libertarian Republicans) come out and say "it's a waste to support a Libertarian when they have no chance to win"

Nolan is turning that back on those people, because Schiff had no chance, either.

He makes a strong point if you are one of those people who promote the "vote for a bad Republican over a good Libertarian because the bad Republican is slightly less bad than the Democrat" argument.

You should always support and vote for the best candidate, whether he be a libertarian Republican or a Libertarian. It's unconscionable to support a really bad Republican just to (maybe) beat a really bad Dem when you could have voted for a good Libertarian.

libertarian4321
08-12-2010, 06:16 PM
Getting 1.9% (http://www.azcongresswatch.com/?p=2456) of people from an independently-minded state to vote for your libertarian principles = $5.50 a vote.

Getting 20%+ of people from a socialized state to vote libertarian for the first time in their lives = PRICELESS.

Schiff > Nolan

Actually, he got 20% of the Republican primary voters, not "20% of the people."

0.7% of the people of Connecticut actually voted for Schiff.

wizardwatson
08-12-2010, 06:17 PM
I think Nolan's response was because so many people (usually libertarian Republicans) come out and say "it's a waste to support a Libertarian when they have no chance to win"

Nolan is turning that back on those people, because Schiff had no chance, either.

He makes a strong point if you are one of those people who promote the "vote for a bad Republican over a good Libertarian because the bad Republican is slightly less bad than the Democrat" argument.

You should always support and vote for the best candidate, whether he be a libertarian Republican or a Libertarian. It's unconscionable to support a really bad Republican just to (maybe) beat a really bad Dem when you could have voted for a good Libertarian.

This is how most people behave though. Just like sports they are sad/happy when their team loses/wins. Its the same with voting.

Being associated with the winner is more popular than being associated with the what is right.

This is why democracy is dangerous and not even tolerable without being encased in the framework of a country based on law. But people I know, smart people still don't get this, and think the President and Senators should all be based on popular vote, and all issues of policy should be national referendum.

dannno
08-12-2010, 06:18 PM
20%


23%

libertarian4321
08-12-2010, 06:18 PM
Ha! What an asshole! Sending money to the Losertarian Party is the biggest waste of resources.

I'd love to hear how it is a "waste" to support a Libertarian candidate who has no chance to win versus "not a waste" to support a libertarian Republican (like Schiff) who has no chance to even get nominated (let along win the actual election).

G-Wohl
08-12-2010, 06:45 PM
I'd love to hear how it is a "waste" to support a Libertarian candidate who has no chance to win versus "not a waste" to support a libertarian Republican (like Schiff) who has no chance to even get nominated (let along win the actual election).

Because the libertarians are deranged and unnecessarily taking money and support from a party that has the potential to espouse the same views.

Austrian Econ Disciple
08-12-2010, 06:50 PM
Because the libertarians are deranged and unnecessarily taking money and support from a party that has the potential to espouse the same views.

There was a reason the LP was founded. Do you know the history? The LP were actually defects from the GOP because they saw how the GOP was purged. The GOP are in reality bigger Government shills than the Democrats, which ironically, is pretty funny. At least back then, the LP was more libertarian. Still though, not nearly libertarian enough. Hence why they did so poorly in 1980 Presidential election when they essentially ran on the same talking points as Ronald Reagan lmao. Look at what Reagan then did.

G-Wohl
08-12-2010, 07:23 PM
There was a reason the LP was founded. Do you know the history? The LP were actually defects from the GOP because they saw how the GOP was purged. The GOP are in reality bigger Government shills than the Democrats, which ironically, is pretty funny. At least back then, the LP was more libertarian. Still though, not nearly libertarian enough. Hence why they did so poorly in 1980 Presidential election when they essentially ran on the same talking points as Ronald Reagan lmao. Look at what Reagan then did.

Yes, I am aware of their history. In a more uninformed, unfortunate part of my youth, I was a member.

The country has laws which make third parties incredibly uncompetitive. The rational members of the party have left, which is why only lunatics and weirdos remain. The GOP is the obvious choice for people of a limited government persuasion in today's climate.

Political education really doesn't come from a political campaign. It's an extremely inefficient way to spread a message. Think tanks, PACs, books, articles, hell, even letters to the editor, are much better methods, and much more cost effective.

Austrian Econ Disciple
08-12-2010, 07:28 PM
Yes, I am aware of their history. In a more uninformed, unfortunate part of my youth, I was a member.

The country has laws which make third parties incredibly uncompetitive. The rational members of the party have left, which is why only lunatics and weirdos remain. The GOP is the obvious choice for people of a limited government persuasion in today's climate.

Political education really doesn't come from a political campaign. It's an extremely inefficient way to spread a message. Think tanks, PACs, books, articles, hell, even letters to the editor, are much better methods, and much more cost effective.

Are you willing to bet 50$ that when the GOP takes the House and Senate again they will decrease the size of Government? I will bet 50$ that they increase it.

It is much easier to influence your county, or state than the .Fed. If we are ever going to change the size of Government through political ends its going to come from the States asserting autonomy. I still would like to see Schiff, Kokesh, et. al up in DC if for no other reason as to give me a reason to watch C-Span :p

G-Wohl
08-12-2010, 07:56 PM
Are you willing to bet 50$ that when the GOP takes the House and Senate again they will decrease the size of Government? I will bet 50$ that they increase it.

It is much easier to influence your county, or state than the .Fed. If we are ever going to change the size of Government through political ends its going to come from the States asserting autonomy. I still would like to see Schiff, Kokesh, et. al up in DC if for no other reason as to give me a reason to watch C-Span :p

Nope. I have little hope in the ability to get anything done in the congress, no matter which party controls it. That's the best we can hope for in this political climate: gridlock.

We cannot have a better government until we have a better People. Our country has a philosophical problem, not a political problem. Education is the key to fixing this problem. Until we get a better-educated public, all we can hope for is the most minimal amount of new legislation getting passed.

XxNeXuSxX
08-12-2010, 08:33 PM
Nope. I have little hope in the ability to get anything done in the congress, no matter which party controls it. That's the best we can hope for in this political climate: gridlock.

We cannot have a better government until we have a better People. Our country has a philosophical problem, not a political problem. Education is the key to fixing this problem. Until we get a better-educated public, all we can hope for is the most minimal amount of new legislation getting passed.

Exactly. Once again I point to Constitutional exams upon registration. Obviously it would be great if they taught ideology vs coalitions in Public schools. But that should be the job of the states' anyway; but as long as the Federal Government controls it, Congress will do whatever it can to get re-elected.

Austrian Econ Disciple
08-12-2010, 08:35 PM
Nope. I have little hope in the ability to get anything done in the congress, no matter which party controls it. That's the best we can hope for in this political climate: gridlock.

We cannot have a better government until we have a better People. Our country has a philosophical problem, not a political problem. Education is the key to fixing this problem. Until we get a better-educated public, all we can hope for is the most minimal amount of new legislation getting passed.

Seems you are at an impasse then, because the Government controls education. Special interests also control media, which is another outlet for mass propaganda. The Government also protects these media interests through legislation.

I agree education is important, but action is more important. America, we need a velvet revolution. Gridlock is fine and all, but it really doesn't accomplish anything. Personally, I would rather have one Ron Paul in congress than fifty-DeMints.

Remember again, this is just my personal opinion. Take it as you will. You are free to do whatever you want.

Austrian Econ Disciple
08-12-2010, 08:36 PM
Exactly. Once again I point to Constitutional exams upon registration. Obviously it would be great if they taught ideology vs coalitions in Public schools. But that should be the job of the states' anyway; but as long as the Federal Government controls it, Congress will do whatever it can to get re-elected.

How does that help anything? Geraldo Rivera is educated on the Constitution yet he is a big Gov shill. Besides, I don't buy into the ends justify the means.

libertarian4321
08-13-2010, 06:38 PM
Because the libertarians are deranged and unnecessarily taking money and support from a party that has the potential to espouse the same views.

What party might that be? Certainly not the Republican Party. With luck, someday there might be another "Ron Paul" or two holding office as a Republican, but that's a far cry from "the party espousing libertarian views."

The Libertarian Party doesn't "take" money from the Republican Party. I assure you that any and all monies I have sent to the LP over the years would NOT have gone to the Republican Party otherwise.

libertarian4321
08-13-2010, 06:56 PM
The country has laws which make third parties incredibly uncompetitive. The rational members of the party have left, which is why only lunatics and weirdos remain.



The leaders of your party include the likes of Michael Steele, George W. Bush, Rush Limbaugh, Dick Cheney, Sean Hannity, Sarah Palin, Pat Robertson, Rudy Giuliani, Newt Gingrich, Mark Levine, and John McCain.

While the LP has been invaded by neocons in the past couple of years (when many Libertarians came over the the GOP to help Ron Paul), people like Bob Barr, bad as he is, are rank amateurs when it comes to evil compared to that lot.

So you may want to re-evaluate where the "crazy" is...


The GOP is the obvious choice for people of a limited government persuasion in today's climate.

The GOP is going to bring about limited government? Really?

Wow, you are a dreamer.

Trusting the GOP to bring "limited government" makes about as much sense as trusting Ted Bundy to baby sit your teenage daughter.

libertarian4321
08-13-2010, 07:00 PM
Are you willing to bet 50$ that when the GOP takes the House and Senate again they will decrease the size of Government? I will bet 50$ that they increase it.



That'd be the easiest money you ever made! Like stealing candy from a baby...

The GOP decreasing the size of government, lol- that's funny.

libertarian4321
08-13-2010, 07:02 PM
This is how most people behave though. Just like sports they are sad/happy when their team loses/wins. Its the same with voting.

Being associated with the winner is more popular than being associated with the what is right.



Unfortunately, this is true.

teamrican1
08-14-2010, 11:22 AM
I don't agree with his assessment, but David is a good candidate and I'll send some money his way. The LP is the ONLY option in that race and they actually have a chance because so many people in AZ are sick to death of McCAin. One thing David is forgetting in his criticism is that elections in CT are way more expensive than anywhere else because to get on TV you have to buy ads from the NYC networks, which is the most expensive market in the USA.

Galileo Galilei
08-14-2010, 12:08 PM
True, but sending it to LP candidates is even worse.

Not really, unless you think party building the GOP is a good thing, and party building the LP is a bad thing.

Aratus
08-14-2010, 12:26 PM
The 30 million Dr. Ron Paul ran with and on has helped out Rand's recognition factor in a way less
expensive Kentucky. IMOHO should Peter Schiff run again after he has his campaign operation
shifted down several adroit notches to a low key, low gear quietude til the next senate seat
is up for voter scrutiny, he will then be in a situation quite similar to Rand's at FANCY FARM!

libertybrewcity
08-14-2010, 06:47 PM
Schiff could be the nominee in 2012 BECAUSE of his run this time.


Ain't this kinda ironic a libertarian is saying this? LOL as Nolan, not with him. I don't think I would donate to libertarian unless it was RP or someone who had a chance in hell.

michaelwise
08-14-2010, 09:59 PM
Bullshit! The awareness that was raised was well worth the effort. You people have to start thinking on a macro-economic(psychological) scale.

senatorpjt
08-14-2010, 10:19 PM
You have to consider the results in light of the original conditions of the race. If Dodd had not retired and McMahon had not decided to buy the nomination, Peter may very well have won.

Peace&Freedom
08-15-2010, 06:18 AM
The founder of the frickin' Libertarian party, a party (including both the main party and all the candidates that have ran under its label) that has taken God knows how much money in its nearly forty year existence and put up a gigantic goose egg when it comes to the number of House and Senate seats won, Governorships and of course the White House. A party that peaked in presidential runs thirty years ago in 1980 with a whooping 1.1% of the vote.

Good grief.

You're comparing apples to oranges. Libertarian educational campaigns paved the ground over 30 years, and provided the main activist base for the Paul revolution of 2007 and forward. And I'll take 30 years of LP electoral failure over 80 years of Republican legislative failure anytime. The money knowingly spent to mainly get a liberty message out through a candidacy, and to put a real liberty choice on the ballot, is a different investment than one involving trying to ELECT a candidate. So the LP's successful efforts getting at the liberty side at least represented on the ballot should not be confused with active efforts to get certain candidates in office.

When you buy a bike, you have expectations limited to a bike---but when you buy a car, you expect it to do a lot more things. Nolan suggests that money poured in with a primary intent to elect a candidate, should be related to their likelihood of actually being competitive. I've advocated that our funds, in trying to get liberty candidates elected, should be restricted to competitive races. I thought in foresight that Schiff had a real chance, all elements considered, while Nolan thinks in hindsight Schiff never had a real shot. To each his own, but if you think blowing $33 million without even seeing a primary victory was worth it, well, come back to us after you've contributed to 100 $33 million campaigns without victory. You might become a tad more selective in which candidacies you will support. That's all Nolan is suggesting.

raystone
08-15-2010, 06:42 AM
Mr. Nolan may still be steaming after the smackdown Schiff put on the Libertarian Party at their own state convention. YouTube - Peter Schiff gives the Libertarian Party some tough medicine "We Need to Influence the GOP!" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ncLTFoTFa8)

FrankRep
08-15-2010, 08:41 AM
True, but sending it to LP candidates is even worse.

Yep. Can't win elections with 5% of the vote.

Kludge
08-15-2010, 09:38 AM
Yep. Can't win elections with 5% of the vote.

... Unless there are over 20 candidates!


What we need are... more ineffective political parties!

Peace&Freedom
08-15-2010, 09:46 AM
Yep. Can't win elections with 5% of the vote.

But the point isn't just to win elections, it's to ACHIEVE something in office that reverses the Total State, and brings us back to a culture of Liberty. GOP candidates have been winning elections since forever---are we more free, as a result? Frankly, it takes a long time to turn the public around on many issues. Third parties have served the thankless task of helping to set the stage for that turnaround, with all those 1-5% campaigns. Let's not demean the LP for doing at least that, to get the word out.

I have known about Ron Paul since 1980, whereas most Paul supporters only heard about him from 2007 onwards. So excuse me when I suggest it's taken a long time to get his ideas to gain wide traction. Meaning, BESIDES winning elections, you also have to win hearts and minds, as in running symbolic or educational campaigns that get you 5% of the vote today, but a bigger victory later. That 'later' may be decades away, not the next election cycle. It's a long game, so appreciate the LP for having had the patience to play it, to make it easier for current liberty candidates to outright win some elections. Just telling you now, before it's 2040.

Galileo Galilei
08-15-2010, 10:12 AM
Yep. Can't win elections with 5% of the vote.

Nolan understands that most GOP victories at the polls are by those who favor big government. The LP accomplishes more by never winning an election than the GOP ever has.

FrankRep
08-15-2010, 10:14 AM
Nolan understands that most GOP victories at the polls are by those who favor big government. The LP accomplishes more by never winning an election than the GOP ever has.
How did Ron Paul become a Congressman?

Peace&Freedom
08-15-2010, 11:05 AM
How did Ron Paul become a Congressman?

He played the two party duopoly game of running as a Republican, but in a district that tolerates him running and legislating on a principled libertarian agenda. He uses the Constitution as a positioning device to mainstream his positions, and for unifying libertarians and paleo conservative base support behind him. Paul also used national mailings to raise the appropriate amount of money to stay in office, thus never became mired in PAC money and its Big Corporate influences.

Galileo Galilei
08-15-2010, 01:19 PM
How did Ron Paul become a Congressman?

We have one pro-liberty congressman out of almost 200 GOP House members, and none in the Senate that are pro-liberty. The bad things these GOP do outweighs what good Ron Paul does. And I have not even mentioned Bush.

MatM
08-15-2010, 06:44 PM
We have one pro-liberty congressman out of almost 200 GOP House members, and none in the Senate that are pro-liberty. The bad things these GOP do outweighs what good Ron Paul does. And I have not even mentioned Bush.

There are a couple pro-liberty guys, Jeff Flake, for example, has been a pretty reliable ally.

Galileo Galilei
08-15-2010, 08:52 PM
There are a couple pro-liberty guys, Jeff Flake, for example, has been a pretty reliable ally.

This doesn't refute David Nolan's point.