Libertarian Party running Philip Z. Berg against John Dennis

[Jeremy]

http://www.phil4congress.com/

(Not the same Phil Berg as the 9/11 truther from PA)

But he is running on the LP against John Dennis.

Ask why: philip@choosepeacenow.us (be nice)

[Brian4Liberty]

http://www.phil4congress.com/

(Not the same Phil Berg as the 9/11 truther from PA)

But he is running on the LP against John Dennis.

Ask why: philip@choosepeacenow.us (be nice)

Well, they are a Political Party, so they probably want to always have a presence on the ballot. Can't imagine he would get a lot of votes this time.

[chudrockz]

As a member of the LP I think it's unfortunate to run a candidate there.

I think that whenever there's a *true* freedom Republican (or Democrat, for that matter) running, they should endorse that person and leave it at that.

[dmanson]

Phil needs to drop out. I was at the rally Saturday and spent some time speaking to John, who is very approachable.

John Dennis is a very good man. He needs to win. It's not just "the lesser of two evils", John really has the interests of us. We have to do everything we can to help him win.

[Inflation]

For the long term, it's best that the LP maintain a credible presence on the ballots.

Once off, it's really hard and expensive to get back on them.

The (Califronia) LP is no longer the "party of principle" anyway, having endorsed state interference in marriage, so as to capture maximum political benefit from the ongoing controversy.

[libertybrewcity]

The libertarian never gets more than a few hundred votes anyways. And almost as much as the Republican! lol

[Nathan Hale]

For the long term, it's best that the LP maintain a credible presence on the ballots.

Once off, it's really hard and expensive to get back on them.

The (Califronia) LP is no longer the "party of principle" anyway, having endorsed state interference in marriage, so as to capture maximum political benefit from the ongoing controversy.

It's best for the LP, but not best for the liberty movement. I agree with the other poster who said that when there is a liberty republican/democrat running, the LP candidate should drop and endorse.

Well, there's no law against pressuring the candidate to drop and endorse. We should flood this guy's email to get him out.

[Working Poor]

I bet Nancy is funding his campaign...

[Nathan Hale]

I bet Nancy is funding his campaign...

Funny you should mention that. I forget where I heard this piece of advice, but it was once said that the best use of donor dollars isn't to the campaign of the candidate you want to win, but to the campaign of the third party candidate most closely aligned to the major party candidate you want to lose.

[wormyguy]

I remember hearing that the LP chose not to run a candidate against Rand. Of course, the Democratic Party didn't "drop and endorse" Lincoln Chafee, and the Republican Party didn't "drop and endorse" Zell Miller, so you could say there is a bit of a double standard being applied here. Of course, a movement like ours can't really afford to be derailed by party hackery, unlike mainstream liberalism or neoconism, so the LP and the CP probably shouldn't run when a genuine liberty candidate is on the ballot.

[Nathan Hale]

I remember hearing that the LP chose not to run a candidate against Rand. Of course, the Democratic Party didn't "drop and endorse" Lincoln Chafee, and the Republican Party didn't "drop and endorse" Zell Miller, so you could say there is a bit of a double standard being applied here. Of course, a movement like ours can't really afford to be derailed by party hackery, unlike mainstream liberalism or neoconism, so the LP and the CP probably shouldn't run when a genuine liberty candidate is on the ballot.

Of course there's a double standard. Unfortunately, the double standard is part of the landscape on which we are fighting this battle, so we're forced to acknowledge it and work around it.

[chudrockz]

It's best for the LP, but not best for the liberty movement. I agree with the other poster who said that when there is a liberty republican/democrat running, the LP candidate should drop and endorse.

Well, there's no law against pressuring the candidate to drop and endorse. We should flood this guy's email to get him out.

I've been a member of the LP since about 1995. If Ron Paul were to get the GOP nomination for 2012, and the Libertarian Party ran some other candidate, I'd immediately and permanently cancel my membership.

[Nathan Hale]

I've been a member of the LP since about 1995. If Ron Paul were to get the GOP nomination for 2012, and the Libertarian Party ran some other candidate, I'd immediately and permanently cancel my membership.

Will you drop your membership knowing that the LP ran a candidate against RP for his house seat on numerous occasions? I actually got into a fight over email with their 2008 nominee, who was only running because he disagreed with Paul's position on immigration, and was willing to play spoiler based solely on Paul's position on that one issue.

[wormyguy]

When you think about it, from a strategic ideological standpoint, the Democrats could get a lot more accomplished if they didn't run candidates against liberal Republicans, and the Republicans could get a lot more accomplished if they didn't run candidates against conservative Democrats (since the first would encourage more Democrats to run as conservatives, and the second more Republicans to run as liberals). Of course, the major parties are less about getting a legislative agenda through (unless real ideologues like Obama/Pelosi are in charge), and more about keeping/getting their prized committee positions.

[Nathan Hale]

When you think about it, from a strategic ideological standpoint, the Democrats could get a lot more accomplished if they didn't run candidates against liberal Republicans, and the Republicans could get a lot more accomplished if they didn't run candidates against conservative Democrats (since the first would encourage more Democrats to run as conservatives, and the second more Republicans to run as liberals). Of course, the major parties are less about getting a legislative agenda through (unless real ideologues like Obama/Pelosi are in charge), and more about keeping/getting their prized committee positions.

Well, the problem there is that a lot of people run centrist to win a seat in a sketchy district, and then just vote with their party once in office.

[libertarian4321]

It's best for the LP, but not best for the liberty movement. I agree with the other poster who said that when there is a liberty republican/democrat running, the LP candidate should drop and endorse.

Well, there's no law against pressuring the candidate to drop and endorse. We should flood this guy's email to get him out.

Why bother?

JOHN DENNIS IS NOT GOING TO WIN- it doesn't matter if the Libertarian drops out and sends a few hundred more votes his way- about all that will do is turn it from Pelosi 77%-Dennis 23% to Pelosi 76.5%-Dennis 23.5%, give or take.

I say the Libertarian Party has the right to run a candidate and should do so.

[libertarian4321]

I remember hearing that the LP chose not to run a candidate against Rand.

If the LP decides not to run against a Ron Paul type Republican in a close, winnable race, I don't have a problem with it. As a frequent LP candidate, I'd have no problem doing this if I agreed with the Republican's positions.

However, I see no reason for the LP to not run a candidate in a race that is not competitive, and the Pelosi-Dennis race is NOT competitive- it's going to be a blow out, regardless of what the LP does.

[klamath]

I remember hearing that the LP chose not to run a candidate against Rand. Of course, the Democratic Party didn't "drop and endorse" Lincoln Chafee, and the Republican Party didn't "drop and endorse" Zell Miller, so you could say there is a bit of a double standard being applied here. Of course, a movement like ours can't really afford to be derailed by party hackery, unlike mainstream liberalism or neoconism, so the LP and the CP probably shouldn't run when a genuine liberty candidate is on the ballot.
Actually not. It is a constant drum beart that the main parties are in it for their team-the party. Well this apears the Libertarian party is in it for their party and not principals.

[K466]

That sucks, he will just draw much needed votes from Dennis.

[MRoCkEd]

There is a Libertarian running against Amash too. The guy is criticizing Justin for publishing his votes online. WTF?

[Nathan Hale]

Why bother?

JOHN DENNIS IS NOT GOING TO WIN- it doesn't matter if the Libertarian drops out and sends a few hundred more votes his way- about all that will do is turn it from Pelosi 77%-Dennis 23% to Pelosi 76.5%-Dennis 23.5%, give or take.

Not true. he's not likely to win, but there's a chance. It's the only reason he has such widespread backing in the liberty movement. This movement is not about running candidates to "educate", i.e. the traditional LP model.


I say the Libertarian Party has the right to run a candidate

Of course, it's a free country. Hey, if I were in the LP I'd be pissed that the liberty movement was taken away from me.


and should do so.

Well, this morality works if you're an LP backer, but it doesn't work for the movement, and it doesn't work for the ideology.

[Nathan Hale]

There is a Libertarian running against Amash too. The guy is criticizing Justin for publishing his votes online. WTF?

The Libertarian Party is a magnet for the politically retarded. Sure, you can have great fireside philosophical chats with them, but the moment it comes down to practical political action or strategy they just shit the bed. I've been there in the LP trenches and have seen it time and again.

[libertarian4321]

The Libertarian Party is a magnet for the politically retarded. .

Libertarians are "politically retarded."

This coming from the guy who thinks John Dennis has a chance of beating Nancy Pelosi?

God lord, I can't think of anything more politically naive (or, as you say "politically retarded") than thinking a Republican can win Pelosi's district. I can't think of a single district out of 435 where the Republican has less chance of winning than in the CA 8th district. No Republican has ever managed more than 19% against Pelosi in 9 tries (see my comments on the other thread)- and that includes "good" and "bad" years for Republicans.

You might want to take a look at the Demographics of the district before you start calling others "retarded"- because you are the one who looks politically retarded here.

If you choose not to apologize for your comments now, you can do so after Nancy Pelosi crushes John Dennis in November...

BTW, I love his stands on the issues, but you folks need to understand that what works in most of Texas or Kentucky or Idaho (where Dennis would win) just doesn't fly in San Francisco or Massachusetts or NY. You have to understand who the voters are in a given district.

Because he's running in a "Republican" year, and because he has raised a decent amount of money, Dennis will likely easily surpass the dreadful numbers of previous Pelosi opponents, but to go from the typical 12-15% percent that Republicans usually get to "winning" is just a pipe dream.

[Nathan Hale]

His stand on the issues is what makes him different than the GOP candidates who would win in Texas or Idaho. And yeah, I'm not ducking the fact that he's a dark horse, but if any candidate in the history of opposing Pelosi had a chance, it's John Dennis.

Perhaps I'm delusional with faith in John Dennis, but the Libertarian Party is delusional in every race. They've even run candidates against Ron Paul, simply because of a difference of opinion on a single issue. Honestly, if the LP ran the liberty movement we'd give our left nut to hit 19% in any race, let alone a race for Pelosi's seat.

[heavenlyboy34]

The Libertarian Party is a magnet for the politically retarded. Sure, you can have great fireside philosophical chats with them, but the moment it comes down to practical political action or strategy they just shit the bed. I've been there in the LP trenches and have seen it time and again.

Including RP, who is a lifetime member of the LP? :eek:;) (You are acting like typical partisan hack here, resorting to insults against those who disagree)

[nobody's_hero]

"Politically retarded" is not the most gentle way that Nathan Hale could have put it, but he may have a point.

Disclaimer: I am supporting the libertarian candidates on the Georgia ballot this year, but I live in a very conservative state with very conservative 'morals' and yet we have less-than-conservative "conservatives" in on the "republican" ballot this year. For the governor's race, we have Nathan Deal the "republican outsider" career politician, Roy Barnes (former governor, actually more fiscally conservative than Nathan Deal but thinks that the Federal Government is superior to the states), and John Monds, a libertarian and the only fresh face in the race for governor.

But, getting back to Nathan's comment, and an example:

Gay marriage is a non-critical issue for me. I doubt any changes will occur in Georgia overnight, but this is not likely to win votes in Georgia:

YouTube - Libertarians John Monds, Chuck Donovan and Shane Bruce Politickin' at the Atlanta Pride Festival.AVI (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hXihqqjqa8)

Now, I'll admire these guys for doing what they feel without giving a damn about what anyone thinks, but some (okay a lot of) folks would probably consider this a "politically retarded" move in the state of Georgia.

[libertarian4321]

His stand on the issues is what makes him different than the GOP candidates who would win in Texas or Idaho. And yeah, I'm not ducking the fact that he's a dark horse, but if any candidate in the history of opposing Pelosi had a chance, it's John Dennis.

Perhaps I'm delusional with faith in John Dennis, but the Libertarian Party is delusional in every race. They've even run candidates against Ron Paul, simply because of a difference of opinion on a single issue. Honestly, if the LP ran the liberty movement we'd give our left nut to hit 19% in any race, let alone a race for Pelosi's seat.

The Libertarian Party has "major party" status in Texas. That means we get on the ballot here without jumping through the hoops that most states require. We've maintained that status for a number of years- it's based on vote totals from the most recent election. We have to maintain that status every 2 years by pulling in enough votes.

The Libertarian Party has had a goal of running a candidate in every congressional race. We typically contest more races than either the Dems or the Reps. We feel that the more candidates we run, the more serious we look as a party, and the more likely we are to retain Major Party status. When a voter see's 15 Libertarians running up and down the ballot- from President to US House to State Rep and on down to Justice of the Peace, it looks far more impressive than when he sees only a couple of candidates only for the top slots (e.g. President, Governor, Senate) like other third parties have done (e.g. Green Party, Reform Party, Natural Law, and others over the years). It's working so far.

In the past, there has been some discussion about running against Ron Paul when he has a legitimate opponent- and in at least one case several years ago, the Libertarian candidate did pull out. However, in most cases, Ron Paul is not seriously challenged in the general election- so running a Libertarian against him does not hurt him, but can help the LP.

Also, it gives the voters an option for those libertarian minded people who don't agree with RP on everything, or who may simply refuse to vote for any Republican.

[Aratus]

massachusetts regularly has had LP candidates up here and has had LP candidates since 1971 & 1972!
admittedly joe kennedy(I) got about 1% of the vote in our january senate race, and yes, he pulled votes
away from scott brown! by the same inference, john dennis has the possibility of doing what scott brown
did, namely 52% of the vote come election day, however unlike sen. scott brown who had an actual 50/50
odds last december of going the distance, john dennis has ONE IN TEN odds of PULLING OFF A WIN! as i
said i expect him to come so painfully awfully damn close. i expect the GOP to spend six months kicking
themselves in the buttocks over and over again when they tally up the new set of HOUSE members. had
they as a party devoted twice as many campaign resources to ms. nancy pelosi's house district, the poll
numbers would be quite acutely painful now. it doesn't take much to get up an initial name recognition!!!

[libertarian4321]

massachusetts regularly has had LP candidates up here and has had LP candidates since 1971 & 1972!
admittedly joe kennedy(I) got about 1% of the vote in our january senate race, and yes, he pulled votes
away from scott brown! by the same inference, john dennis has the possibility of doing what scott brown
did, namely 52% of the vote come election day, however unlike sen. scott brown who had an actual 50/50
odds last december of going the distance, john dennis has ONE IN TEN odds of PULLING OFF A WIN! as i
said i expect him to come so painfully awfully damn close. i expect the GOP to spend six months kicking
themselves in the buttocks over and over again when they tally up the new set of HOUSE members. had
they as a party devoted twice as many campaign resources to ms. nancy pelosi's house district, the poll
numbers would be quite acutely painful now. it doesn't take much to get up an initial name recognition!!!

I keep telling you, comparing a statewide election in MA for an OPEN seat to running against an incumbent in SF are not the same thing.

MA, while leaning strongly Dem, is NOT a "one-party rules" state. Republicans can, and do, win state wide election there. Scott Brown was NOT the first Republican to win state wide in MA.

FOUR of the last 5 governors of MA have been REPUBLICANS.

It is NOT the same as San Francisco, where Democrats ALWAYS WIN IN A LANDSLIDE.

You can't just say "Scott Brown won in a mild upset against a bad Dem candidate for an open seat in MA, therefore John Dennis can beat an incumbent Dem in ultra liberal San Francisco"- it doesn't make any sense. There is little similarity between the electorate in MA and the electorate in SF.

John Dennis doesn't have a 1 in 10 chance, he doesn't have a 1 in 100 chance, he doesn't have a 1 in a million chance.

He has NO CHANCE- none, nada, zip.

I'm pretty sure he's smart enough to know he has no chance, but a lot of folks on this forum continue to make "pie in the sky" predictions about candidates who have no chance.

If he cracks 40% (note: 40% ain't enough to win), throw the guy a damn parade, because that would be a miracle of Biblical proportions. Hell, I'll contribute money to that party.

The guy has some potential as a candidate, but he isn't going to win in that district. If he wants to have a chance, he's going to have to move to another district.

[Nathan Hale]

The Libertarian Party has "major party" status in Texas. That means we get on the ballot here without jumping through the hoops that most states require. We've maintained that status for a number of years- it's based on vote totals from the most recent election. We have to maintain that status every 2 years by pulling in enough votes.

Oooh.


The Libertarian Party has had a goal of running a candidate in every congressional race. We typically contest more races than either the Dems or the Reps. We feel that the more candidates we run, the more serious we look as a party, and the more likely we are to retain Major Party status. When a voter see's 15 Libertarians running up and down the ballot- from President to US House to State Rep and on down to Justice of the Peace, it looks far more impressive than when he sees only a couple of candidates only for the top slots (e.g. President, Governor, Senate) like other third parties have done (e.g. Green Party, Reform Party, Natural Law, and others over the years). It's working so far.

It's not working at all! The LP's membership isn't up. Vote totals aren't up. The LP isn't winning serious races and when they do win some bullshit dogcatcher race it's overwhelmingly non-partisan. The LP is all about looking like a serious party, which is ironic because they ignore the one thing that makes a party serious - FOCUS ON VICTORY.


In the past, there has been some discussion about running against Ron Paul when he has a legitimate opponent- and in at least one case several years ago, the Libertarian candidate did pull out. However, in most cases, Ron Paul is not seriously challenged in the general election- so running a Libertarian against him does not hurt him, but can help the LP.

The recent LP candidate with whom I crossed paths had other reasons for running, but even if that was just a line to cover for what you say above, refer to our other thread - there are better ways for him to use his and his supporters time and money.


Also, it gives the voters an option for those libertarian minded people who don't agree with RP on everything, or who may simply refuse to vote for any Republican.

And if we had a system of approval voting, IRV, or something like that I'd be all in favor of that. But plurality voting is about the lesser of two evils. I hate it, but it's true. Perhaps you should dedicate dollars and hours toward changing that before you attempt to penetrate the impenetrable wall.

[Nathan Hale]

Including RP, who is a lifetime member of the LP? :eek:;) (You are acting like typical partisan hack here, resorting to insults against those who disagree)

I never said that every LP member is politically retarded, only that the party serves as a magnet for the politically retarded. I signed on as a life member too, back when I was young and foolish.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

I never said that every LP member is politically retarded, only that the party serves as a magnet for the politically retarded. I signed on as a life member too, back when I was young and foolish.

The Dems are magnets for the politically successful. Whether you like health care or not they expanded the size and scope of government... again.

The LP is a magnet for statist GOP exiles who want to co-opt the party into GOPLiteP.

The GOP are magnets for the politically retarded. Only in the GOP can you find people retarded enough to sell and believe one election is going to somehow put limits on government that haven't happened in two centuries.

But under threat of ban duress, and out of courtesy to Dr. Paul, I am going to give the GOP the benefit of the doubt but if the size and scope of government is not reduced after gaining seats this election... the GOP is done. GOP failures at limiting government for the past century will be complete and there won't be any BS we will get them next time sales pitch that is going to save you.

[libertarian4321]

Oooh.

It's not working at all! The LP's membership isn't up. Vote totals aren't up. The LP isn't winning serious races and when they do win some bullshit dogcatcher race it's overwhelmingly non-partisan. The LP is all about looking like a serious party, which is ironic because they ignore the one thing that makes a party serious - FOCUS ON VICTORY.



You say I should switch tactics and vote for the lesser evil because voting Libertarian isn't working.

By the same token, I can tell you that your strategy isn't working either. I don't see a whole lot of movement toward lesser government when we support Republicans, do you?

Perhaps if all the libertarians who support the "I'm voting for the lesser evil" idea were to vote for what they believe in, the Libertarian Party would have a chance to actually make some impact.

One thing I can say, though. As a Libertarian, I feel pretty good. Whenever I get back into the Republican Party, I feel filthy- like all the water in the world will never make me clean again. If both strategies are failing, I'd rather not join the Republican Party and end up puking into my mouth every time I tell people what party I belong to.


The recent LP candidate with whom I crossed paths had other reasons for running, but even if that was just a line to cover for what you say above, refer to our other thread - there are better ways for him to use his and his supporters time and money.

I'm sure not every Libertarian does it for the same reasons I do.

Some run message campaigns, some run to win, some probably run just to see their name on the ballot.

But as I said, there is no way to get more bang for my buck than running for office. I can get free air time worth thousands of dollars for nothing more than the cost of registering (about $12 to get a notary seal on the registration paperwork) and gas money. I could never get that kind of bang for the buck by tossing money at a Republican candidate.

I will, of course, support that rare Republican, like Ron Paul, who is a decent candidate.

[klamath]

You say I should switch tactics and vote for the lesser evil because voting Libertarian isn't working.

By the same token, I can tell you that your strategy isn't working either. I don't see a whole lot of movement toward lesser government when we support Republicans, do you?

Perhaps if all the libertarians who support the "I'm voting for the lesser evil" idea were to vote for what they believe in, the Libertarian Party would have a chance to actually make some impact.

One thing I can say, though. As a Libertarian, I feel pretty good. Whenever I get back into the Republican Party, I feel filthy- like all the water in the world will never make me clean again. If both strategies are failing, I'd rather not join the Republican Party and end up puking into my mouth every time I tell people what party I belong to.



I'm sure not every Libertarian does it for the same reasons I do.

Some run message campaigns, some run to win, some probably run just to see their name on the ballot.

But as I said, there is no way to get more bang for my buck than running for office. I can get free air time worth thousands of dollars for nothing more than the cost of registering (about $12 to get a notary seal on the registration paperwork) and gas money. I could never get that kind of bang for the buck by tossing money at a Republican candidate.

I will, of course, support that rare Republican, like Ron Paul, who is a decent candidate.

Glad to know that you never vote the lesser of two evils and always for principals :rolleyes:

Libertarian4321;
So I voted for Obama as an official SCREW YOU to McCain, Palin, Tones, and EndtheFed. First time I've ever voted for a Democrat at any level- and I have Tones and EndtheFed to thank for helping me make this decision

[Aratus]

the LP exists so that RINO/DINO gop people can borrow what they can't thunk out in full...

we have this flip side of the coin symbiosis sorta like that between eugene debs and FDR!

[libertarian4321]

Glad to know that you never vote the lesser of two evils and always for principals :rolleyes:

Libertarian4321;

Yes, I do follow that rule WHEN THERE IS A NON-EVIL CANDIDATE ON THE BALLOT!

It is not a violation of those principals to vote for the lesser evil when faced with nothing but evil.

In 2008, I had the choice of 3 bad candidates- Obama (liberal who at least pretended to be anti war with an old political hack for a running mate), McCain (neocon warmonger and a douche with a malicious nincompoop running mate), and Barr (neocon warmonger and a bit of a douche with a slimy war monger for a running mate). And yeah, the wars were a HUGE issue for me. I also wanted to send a bit of a SCREW YOU message to both the Republican and Libertarian parties for nominating such horrendous candidates.

Had the Libertarian Party had the sense to nominate a libertarian candidate, I would have voted for him. Given a choice of three bad candidates, I voted for the one who was closest to me on the war issue and seemed to be less of a d-bag than the others.

I hope I've cleared this up for you.

[Schiff_FTW]

Yes, I do follow that rule WHEN THERE IS A NON-EVIL CANDIDATE ON THE BALLOT!

It is not a violation of those principals to vote for the lesser evil when faced with nothing but evil.

In 2008, I had the choice of 3 bad candidates- Obama (liberal who at least pretended to be anti war with an old political hack for a running mate), McCain (neocon warmonger and a douche with a malicious nincompoop running mate), and Barr (neocon warmonger and a bit of a douche with a slimy war monger for a running mate). And yeah, the wars were a HUGE issue for me. I also wanted to send a bit of a SCREW YOU message to both the Republican and Libertarian parties for nominating such horrendous candidates.

Had the Libertarian Party had the sense to nominate a libertarian candidate, I would have voted for him. Given a choice of three bad candidates, I voted for the one who was closest to me on the war issue and seemed to be less of a d-bag than the others.

I hope I've cleared this up for you.

You must be quite naive to have been duped so easily. Obama never "pretended" to be an antiwar candidate. His statements and more importantly his U.S. Senate VOTING RECORD made it quite clear that he would continue to fully support the foreign policy status-quo.

[Aratus]

hubert h. humphrey in october of 1968 was more anti-war than barack obama ever was?

[libertarian4321]

You must be quite naive to have been duped so easily. Obama never "pretended" to be an antiwar candidate. His statements and more importantly his U.S. Senate VOTING RECORD made it quite clear that he would continue to fully support the foreign policy status-quo.

Let me lay it out for you.

You had one candidate who, while not voting to cut off funding for soldiers already in the field, was openly against the Iraq war, and who said he'd bring the troops home as soon as was practicable.

You had the other candidate who enthusiastically supported the wars, voted for every pro-war funding bill, was gleefully in favor of starting starting yet another war (with Iran), and had no problem with leaving our soldier's in harms way indefinitely. That's a war monger's war monger.

I can't read the future, but given those two stances, it was obvious that I wasn't going to vote for the open and unapologetic aggressive war monger (McCain).

Any way you look at it, McCain was the more aggressive war monger, and therefore the greater evil.

The funny thing is, in the 2000 primaries, I was hoping McCain would beat Bush. I thought he was a decent guy.

Boy was I wrong. By 2008, I found myself despising John McCain- more so than any of the Republican candidates (yes, I know, all of them were war mongers except for Ron Paul, but McCain was the most aggressive pro-war cheerleader).

[Nathan Hale]

You say I should switch tactics and vote for the lesser evil because voting Libertarian isn't working.

By the same token, I can tell you that your strategy isn't working either. I don't see a whole lot of movement toward lesser government when we support Republicans, do you?

Yeah. The liberty movement is better positioned now that we've adopted Ron Paul's "infiltrate the mainstream" plan than we've ever been under the banner of the LP.


Perhaps if all the libertarians who support the "I'm voting for the lesser evil" idea were to vote for what they believe in, the Libertarian Party would have a chance to actually make some impact.

It wouldn't, because most "libertarians" who qualify as libertarians on the WSPQ are NOT libertarians according to the party. The party demands Randroid, tip-of-the-Nolan-diamond zealotic adherence to the single axiom of the Zero Aggression Principle. Most WSPQ libertarians are comparatively moderate, and thus vote "within the box" from the perspective of the LP, EVEN WHEN THEY VOTE THEIR HEARTS. But regardless of that truth, you're pining for what is not going to happen and using the fact that it is not going to happen to blame the populace for the failure of the LP to reach out to moderates and embrace the political process.


One thing I can say, though. As a Libertarian, I feel pretty good. Whenever I get back into the Republican Party, I feel filthy- like all the water in the world will never make me clean again. If both strategies are failing, I'd rather not join the Republican Party and end up puking into my mouth every time I tell people what party I belong to.

Politics is a dirty game. I admire that you hate the idea of it, but that's what it is. So you need to ask yourself whether you're willing to get a little dirty or whether you're more comfortable being clean and watching America burn.


I'm sure not every Libertarian does it for the same reasons I do.

Some run message campaigns, some run to win, some probably run just to see their name on the ballot.

Unfortunately, I think there is a dearth of the second reason in the LP, and even for those who run to win, running to win is not enough. You see, Joe Schmoe with zero community exposure and zero money can "run to win" in his Congressional district, but that doesn't make his candidacy wise. In order to be credible, a candidate needs community exposure (i.e. "experience"), a strong presence, a solid core support group, and a heaping helping of charisma.


But as I said, there is no way to get more bang for my buck than running for office. I can get free air time worth thousands of dollars for nothing more than the cost of registering (about $12 to get a notary seal on the registration paperwork) and gas money. I could never get that kind of bang for the buck by tossing money at a Republican candidate.

It takes more than that. Bob Simmons of the Crustacean Freedom Party can do that, but he doesn't get any exposure worth mentioning unless he campaigns. That means his time, which has an equivalent in money. That means the time of his volunteers, which are necessary to drum up the support needed to gain exposure in any race big enough to gain the kind of exposure that you claim is worth it. And that means money, money to print up literature, signs, etc. As I said in the other thread, you can get equal or greater exposure by dedicating yourself to a cause and exposing yourself to the media for that


I will, of course, support that rare Republican, like Ron Paul, who is a decent candidate.

You're going to need to start looking at our 70% friends as well, because politics is compromise.

I think you'd benefit from some great articles on being an effective libertarian. from the Libertarian Reform Caucus:

http://www.reformthelp.org/reformthelp/strategy/top/serious.php
http://www.reformthelp.org/reformthelp/strategy/top/seriousLPCandidates.php
http://www.reformthelp.org/reformthelp/strategy/candidates/moreToDo.php

[klamath]

Let me lay it out for you.

You had one candidate who, while not voting to cut off funding for soldiers already in the field, was openly against the Iraq war, and who said he'd bring the troops home as soon as was practicable.

You had the other candidate who enthusiastically supported the wars, voted for every pro-war funding bill, was gleefully in favor of starting starting yet another war (with Iran), and had no problem with leaving our soldier's in harms way indefinitely. That's a war monger's war monger.

I can't read the future, but given those two stances, it was obvious that I wasn't going to vote for the open and unapologetic aggressive war monger (McCain).

Any way you look at it, McCain was the more aggressive war monger, and therefore the greater evil.

The funny thing is, in the 2000 primaries, I was hoping McCain would beat Bush. I thought he was a decent guy.

Boy was I wrong. By 2008, I found myself despising John McCain- more so than any of the Republican candidates (yes, I know, all of them were war mongers except for Ron Paul, but McCain was the most aggressive pro-war cheerleader).

I guess we all have our line that we will vote for the lesser of two evils. I guess you got duped by Obama's somewhat anti war stance like I got duped by Bush's "no nation building humble foreign policy" in 2000.

[libertarian4321]

I guess we all have our line that we will vote for the lesser of two evils. I guess you got duped by Obama's somewhat anti war stance like I got duped by Bush's "no nation building humble foreign policy" in 2000.

Hope springs eternal.

It took me a long time to give up on the Republican Party- it wasn't easy- I'd been raised a Republican and had been campaigning for them since I was 9 years old (sign waving for Nixon in '72).

The GOP always SAID the right thing, but never DID the right thing. It was always "do as I say, not as I do." For many years, I hung on, hoping that they'd change. I voted for Bush Sr. in '92 for that reason (basically voted for the "lesser evil" even though I'd become aware that the Libertarian Party was an alternative.

After that, I gave up on the GOP, and have voted Libertarian every election since '94 with rare exceptions (such as not voting for Bob Barr and WAR in 2008- two neocon jackasses who slipped into the party while most of us were out helping Dr. Paul).

[libertarian4321]

[QUOTE=Nathan Hale;2947574]

It wouldn't, because most "libertarians" who qualify as libertarians on the WSPQ are NOT libertarians according to the party. The party demands Randroid, tip-of-the-Nolan-diamond zealotic adherence to the single axiom of the Zero Aggression Principle. Most WSPQ libertarians are comparatively moderate, and thus vote "within the box" from the perspective of the LP, EVEN WHEN THEY VOTE THEIR HEARTS. But regardless of that truth, you're pining for what is not going to happen and using the fact that it is not going to happen to blame the populace for the failure of the LP to reach out to moderates and embrace the political process.

Sure, there are zealots in the LP, just as there are in both major parties, but I'm not a zealot, and I've never felt pressured to be a zealot. I never used litmus tests when I was a local LP officer (county chair)- as long as the person agreed with general Libertarian principles, I welcomed them (and tried to convince them of the error of their ways where they did not agree- opposing the failed "war on drugs" was one issue that a lot of people had a problem with initially, but were fairly easy to convert, over time)


Politics is a dirty game. I admire that you hate the idea of it, but that's what it is. So you need to ask yourself whether you're willing to get a little dirty or whether you're more comfortable being clean and watching America burn.

If I thought for second that working within the GOP would help, I'd do it.

But libertarians trying to influence the GOP are like a flea on the ass of a German Shepard trying to keep that dog from chasing the mail man, it ain't going to work.

So this flea is going to stay away from the smell ass of the GOP and do what he can without getting shit all over himself.

BTW, as time goes by, I start feeling less and less like the GOP is the "lesser evil." At this point, if I had to choose which major party was the "lesser evil", I'd have to think long and hard. The GOP, in recent years, has done it's best to become utterly repugnant.

[Nathan Hale]

[QUOTE]

Sure, there are zealots in the LP, just as there are in both major parties, but I'm not a zealot, and I've never felt pressured to be a zealot.

Problem is that in the LP, the inmates are running the asylum.


I never used litmus tests when I was a local LP officer (county chair)- as long as the person agreed with general Libertarian principles, I welcomed them (and tried to convince them of the error of their ways where they did not agree- opposing the failed "war on drugs" was one issue that a lot of people had a problem with initially, but were fairly easy to convert, over time)

Then you're on the more tolerant end of the spectrum. I've seen too many county and state groups dissolve under the stress of philosophical debate over purity.


If I thought for second that working within the GOP would help, I'd do it.

We're not talking what might happen in the future, it's working - right now.


But libertarians trying to influence the GOP are like a flea on the ass of a German Shepard trying to keep that dog from chasing the mail man, it ain't going to work.

So this flea is going to stay away from the smell ass of the GOP and do what he can without getting shit all over himself.

You're talking like it's 2007, at which point I would have agreed with you.


BTW, as time goes by, I start feeling less and less like the GOP is the "lesser evil." At this point, if I had to choose which major party was the "lesser evil", I'd have to think long and hard. The GOP, in recent years, has done it's best to become utterly repugnant.

You're right, that's why we made inroads and captured some of their key positions.