Guy McClendon on Ron Paul and the LP Dilemma

Guy McClendon from the Texas State Libertarian Committee had some interesting points on the dilemma American Libertarians face due to Ron Paul's presidential run:

The LP’s big problem is that our LP Nat’l Convention is in May 2008, and the Republican Convention is in ~Sept 2008. However on the plus side, there will have been enough primaries by then to give a great idea as to where he stands by May.

The agony is that LP members need to decide much earlier than May 2008 whether to affiliate with the LP [our obvious preference], or vote for Dr. Paul in the Republican primary. For LP folks who tend to support Ron, their inclination is to do the latter. However, that’s a bad decision for several reasons. An additional 500 votes in the USA is most probably not going to impact the Republican primaries.

It’s always great to have a Plan B. If all the constitutionalists in the LP vote in the Republican primary, there will be nothing but purists in the LP convention. The purists would very likely not vote for Dr. Paul simply because his immigration position is not 100% open borders. Duh … Instead, they would probably vote for some non-credible candidate like George Phillies, or maybe someone having a criminal record. If 500 constitutionalists instead go to the LP national convention, Dr. Paul would be assured to gain the LP nomination … and, would thereby be guaranteed a slot on the general election ballot … in all 50 states.

So far as his chance to win the Republican nomination, it would be political suicide for Dr. Paul to even think about running on a ticket beside the RP ticket. So, I certainly am not going to even ask. Of course, if the neocons flood the Republican primaries and nominate a good communist like McCain, our LP ticket could start looking good to Dr. Paul in May 2008. Do you recall how Joe Lieberman flopped from Democrat to Independent during the 2006 election … AFTER having lost the Democratic primary?

Guy

Want to be part of the Rizzn-ite army? Indoctrination instructions here.

Two Interesting Technorati Things

Hey - check it out. Ron Paul is one of the most searched things on Technorati - this is a great sign for us Libertarians.

Top Searches

1. youtube
2. sarkozy
3. galilea montijo
4. myspace
5. ron paul
6. paris hilton
7. joost
8. mario lopez
9. authority
10. shoppero

Update: even better, check out this search trend graph.
Posts that contain "ron Paul" per day for the last 30 days.

Get your own chart!

Non Partisan Libertarianism

This comes from friend Wes Benedict of the Texas LP:

Friends of Liberty:

Several Libertarian Party members in Texas have thrown their hats into the ring to run for local offices in the May 12, 2007 general election. Political parties don't actually nominate candidates in these nonpartisan races, and no party affiliation is listed on the ballot (whether Libertarian, Republican, Democrat, etc.). However, all candidates listed below met the definition of membership in the Libertarian Party of Texas or National LP in 2006.

Contact the candidates directly if you would like to help with their campaigns. Some of them have been soliciting donations to help purchase yard signs and other forms of advertising. Donations can be mailed to the addresses listed below, and in some cases there's an online option on their websites.


Pat Dixon - Lago Vista City Council, Place 1 (http://patdixon.org)

5002 Sundown
Lago Vista, TX 78645
(512) 267-3941
pat@patdixon.org

Lago Vista, Texas: located northwest of Austin in Travis County
Population: 5,600

Pat Dixon is Chair of the Libertarian Party of Texas. He's running for re-election to the Lago Vista City Council, Place 1, which is an at-large seat. His only opponent is someone he actually appointed to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Pat thinks this will be a "tough" race with some insiders working against him because of his strong support for property rights and opposition to eminent domain abuse.


Michael Haven - Pine Island City Commissioner, Place 1

20341 Pierceall Rd
Hempstead, TX 77445
(281) 579-8885
mike@mphauto.com

Pine Island, Texas: located west of Houston in Waller County
Population: 830

According to Michael, "Pine Island city is the largest by area city in Waller county," even though it has a small population. He is in a two-way race against the incumbent for this at-large seat. Michael owns a motorcycle dealership in Houston.


Michael Idrogo - San Antonio Mayor (http://michaelformayor.info)

317 West Rosewood Ave
San Antonio, TX 78212
(210) 738-8780
michaelformayor@excite.com

Population: 1,250,000

Michael Idrogo is a retired U.S. Navy officer and was the Libertarian Party candidate for U.S. Representative, District 20 in November 2006. According to Carl Anderson, Bexar LP Vice Chair, "The Libertarian Party of Bexar County has expressed its unofficial support for Mr. Idrogo, as this election is nonpartisan." He has six competitors for the office, including the incumbent, Mayor Phil Hardberger.


Gary Johnson - Austin ISD Trustee, District 2

2001 Parker Ln Apt 134
Austin, TX 78741
(512) 441-6378
sedition@aol.com

Population: 690,000 (note: about one-seventh live in District 2)

Gary Johnson is a long-time Libertarian activist from Austin who runs the cable access television shows "Live & Let Live" and "Smash the State." He has run for offices in the past as a Libertarian and currently serves as Secretary of the Travis County LP. He is in a four-way race to complete this seat's unexpired term. Gary recently caused a stir by opposing taxpayer money for a television truck that would compete with private businesses. The story was covered by the Austin American-Statesman:
http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/local/03/15/15urban.html


Matthew Moseley - Richardson City Council, Place 6 (http://www.matthewmoseley.org)

P.O. Box 831734
Richardson, TX 75083-1734
(469) 879-4234

Richardson, Texas: north of the City of Dallas in Dallas County
Population: 99,000

Matthew Moseley was the 2006 Libertarian Party candidate for State Representative, District 112. He is in a two-way race for this at-large seat. Sean Haugh, who tracks Libertarian candidates nationwide, had this to say: "In my personal view you were one of the most active and exciting candidates we had in 2006 and you are putting everything you learned last year to great use in a winnable race this year."


Kevin Tunstall - Missouri City Council, District C (http://elect.kdtunstall.com)

13110 Mula Ct Suite C
Stafford, TX 77477
(281) 983-9936
info@kdtunstall.com

Missouri City, Texas: southwest of Houston in Fort Bend County
Population: 70,000 (note: about one-fourth live in District C)

Kevin is in a two-way race for this seat. He says, "I am running because folks are tired of controversy and the misplaced priorities in city government." Read about the controversy in Missouri City that drove Kevin Tunstall, Fort Bend LP Chair, to throw his hat into the ring:
http://www.fortbendnow.com/opinion/2541/in-missouri-city-sidewalk-policy-could-spark-a-political-uprising
Read about the exciting last-minute filings in his race here:
http://www.fortbendnow.com/opinion/2670/racers-take-their-marks-and-one-mayor-bets-on-another

------------------------------

-----------------------

Additional notes about local elections in Texas

Election rules, including the timing of elections, vary widely throughout the state. For example, there are no Austin City Council seats up for election in 2007, while many other cities around Texas do have elections. Some places have races for school board and community college boards of trustees.

It's not uncommon for turnout in May elections to be as low as ten percent, adding to the potential for a hard-working Libertarian with a well-organized campaign to actually win, as has been done recently: http://lptexas.org/inoffice.shtml

Note, the "at-large" designation means the candidate is voted on by the entire city, not just a district of the city.

If you're running for local office in May 2007 and I missed your name, please let me know. Candidates are listed on our state website as well: http://lptexas.org/candidates.shtml

--
Wes Benedict
Executive Director
Libertarian Party of Texas
512-442-4910

My Exit from the Libertarian Radical Caucus: Getting government out of marriage

The following was my unsubscribe message sent to the Libertarian Radical Caucus, a caucus belonging to the National Libertarian Party. Their foundation is strict adherence to Libertarian principals in promoting personal freedom (or as it's description says: a free-ranging discussion via email about the Radical Caucus and its role in the Libertarian Party).

Their moderation is spotty at best, they're highly infiltrated by liberals promoting cultural agendas instead of real promotion of freedom.

The discussion was originally about Bob Barr's support of the DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) as success for Libertarians in handing more freedom and control back to the state level instead of the Federal level.

I think I'm done with this discussion group. Rules of moderation prevent me from singling you out and saying exactly what I think of you, but since this is my parting shot, I'm not going to hold back.

I know what the legislation was meant to achieve, but when the intent behind the legislation aims for something but achieves another thing, I think it's mighty hypocritical for you as a libertarian to call upon libertarians to 'repeal it.' As I stated before, it deregulates marriage and de-regulates the definition of marriage down to the state level. This is a step in the right direction.

The only reason for the Federal government to recognize marriage is for taxation purposes, and moral gerrymandering. The federal government has no business in my romantic or spiritual life, or the lives of anyone (not to mention income taxing in the first place). Marriage is a social contract with your significant other, your community, with your family and friends, and depending on your religion, with God. If you can find a church and a community that will accept your lifestyle choice, then you should do so.

Deferring to the state on the definition of marriage makes the definition actually easier to change. Local platforms are easier to speak from than national platforms. Again, I reference the Howie Rich initiatives.

If you are supposed to be a libertarian radical through and through, you don't get to pick deregulation when it doesn't line up with your pet special interest group's wishes.

And finally, as a general aside and pet peeve of mine - I'm tired of being dismissed (by you) and accused of not "being in the same universe" (by goldrecordings) simply because I don't walk in lock step with politically correct LGBT rhetoric. The LGBT rhetoric, more than any other set of rhetoric, is full of logical and philosophical holes that thorough thinkers are expected to overlook simply because it's treason to offend someone from that special interest group. I'm not a racist, and I'm not a homophobe, and I'm not trying to justify some sort of anti-gay agenda.

I'm not here to promote liberal agenda under the guise of LPism. The right to define the word marriage is not one of the pressing social issues of our age. There are very few, if any, enslaved homosexuals being denied basic human rights, so attributing the same amount of fervor and venom to the LGBT movement as the Black Civil Rights movement is disingenuous.

On the other hand, I am here to promote civil liberties of Americans. Americans have been held without having been charged for years at at time, and it has been since way before the Patriot Act (anyone remember Kevin Mitnick anymore?). Attention to laws that abuse freedom are significantly more important than adhering to cultural liberalism and what are frankly tertiary issues.

Having said that and flouted moderation rules, I'm going elsewhere.

Peace, Love and Revolution.

/mark "rizzn" hopkins

On 3/7/07, Starchild < sfdreamer@earthlink.net> wrote:

Mark,

It's hardly just my "personal opinion." Ask any politically
well-informed person whether the people behind the "Defense of
Marriage" Act were trying to make it easier, or more difficult, for
same sex couples to have their marriages recognized. Again, please
don't quibble about the precise wording of the act. You know the effect
the legislation was meant to achieve as well as I do.

Love & liberty,
<<<>>>


On Wednesday, March 7, 2007, at 10:00 AM, Mark "Rizzn" Hopkins wrote:

> Your personal opinion of the intent behind the bill aside, it's a step
> towards, not away from, deregulation of marriage.
>
> On 3/7/07, Starchild <sfdreamer@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > Let's not mince words -- I'm speaking of the plain intent behind the
> > law.
> >
> > <<< starchild >>>
> >
> >
> > On Wednesday, March 7, 2007, at 09:31 AM, Mark "Rizzn" Hopkins wrote:
> >
> > > The "Defense of Marriage" Act does not forbid same-sex marriage.
> > >
> > > On 3/7/07, Starchild <sfdreamer@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > > > Very good; in the United States, we can start by repealing the
> > > > "Defense of Marriage" Act and other laws forbidding same-sex
> > > marriage.
> > > >
> > > > <<<>>>

Update: Susan sent a personal message to me after I unsubscribed:

That's showing real class there, Mark. *sigh*

--
/mark "rizzn" hopkins
For my blog, profile, and wikipedia entries, simply Google "rizzn"
--
intelligent discussion: http://groups.google.com/group/rizzncom-v83/
--

Ron Paul Watch

http://blog.lewrockwell.com/

Ron Paul has accepted an invitation to participate in the first national presidential debate in New Hampshire on Wednesday, April 4. It will be hosted by Wolf Blitzer and will be carried on CNN TV, radio, and cnn.com from 7-9 p.m. EST. (Thanks to Johnny Kramer.)

Politico.com and MSNBC have invited Ron Paul to join their first GOP presidental debate at the Reagan library on May 3rd.

Ron's race will not be ignored. Laughed at and otherwise attacked, perhaps, but NOT ignored. He will be invited to nearly all the debates if he announces his candidacy and will be including in polling and straw polls. I spoke with Ron the other night (at an RLC teleconference) and he was excited about having campaigners at the national YR convention in Hollywood and said he might try to get down here for that in July.

I worked like crazy for Ron in 1988 and saw him ignored nationally, although Sean and I made sure he was not ignored in Gainesville, Fla. But he won't be ignored this time. For one thing he will be in a major party primary and secondly he will be a Republican antiwar candidate, a fact the media will love. So far, the only antiwar GOPers exploring a run are Rep. Ron Paul and Sen. Chuck Hagel. If
Chuck doesn't run, Ron will own that issue.

-- Philip Blumel, www.rlcfl.org

/rizzn

Ron Paul for President

Ron Paul for President! You heard it hear first.

Representative Paul has not yet made his announcement public yet, but today incorporation papers were filed for the Ron Paul for President Exploratory Committee.

This is exciting news. Finally, a presidential candidate that I'd actually want to vote for.

/rizzn

A Day of Foreign Policy Discussion

I've had an interesting day of foreign policy discussion, and I capped it off by reading Ann Coulter's article at Human Events Online about President Ford and the Democrats inability to prosecute a war competently. I have to say, Ann Coulter is one of my favorite writers. She is very compelling, and if you have a conservative bone in your body at all, she knows how to appeal to you quite exquisitely.

Of course, bagging on Democrat foreign policy isn't that hard. History is replete with Democrat screwups - from Truman to Clinton and a host of congressional idiots of all ages.

Libertarian foreign policy is harder to pin down. I spent a lot of today conversing with Susan Hogarth of the LRC (Libertarian Radical Caucus - a group of Libertarians who believe themselves to be the core of the LP). I'm a pretty strong LP supporter, but I've always had a hard time pinning down exactly what it meant to be libertarian in the realm of foreign policy.

Today, the opportunity arose for me to participate in a discussion with Susan that might illuminate it for me. The Green Party press release I discussed earlier today rippled throughout the LP discussion lists, and shortly after my post about it, it was brought up on the LRC discussion group by Susan.

Susan Hoggarth:

It would be nice to have the LP issue a release something like the one the GP released[.] I guess our platform does not have a death penalty plank and as a Party there is some division on this question, but the other two points (dealing with the complicity of the US government in Hussein's crimes) are still valid.

I'm just thinking the LP is not hitting the war issue very strongly. Where is the outrage against he war against Afghanistan, for instance?

I can't speak for all LPers, but in Texas, especially, a lot of conservatives take refuge in the LP, and aren't very strongly aligned against the war (not to say they are big supporters of it either). According to Susan, speaking for hard-line libertarianism, traditionally, the far-right wing of American conservativism have been opposed to foreign intervention for any reason, citing John T. Flynn's World War II activism.

John T. Flynn opposed war and militarism on the precept that it was a job making boondoggle. Flynn was one of the founders of the America First Committee which opposed Roosevelt’s foreign policy. Flynn became head of the New York City chapter which claimed a membership of 135,000. The Committee charged that Roosevelt was using lies and deception to ensnare the United States into the war. It mounted campaigns against Lend Lease, the Selective Service, and other initiatives by Roosevelt.

Although Flynn scrupulously distanced the Committee from the ravings of extremist and anti-Semitic groups, such as the National Union for Social Justice, his old pro-war leftist allies cut him off and the New Republic pulled his regular column, “Other People’s Money.”

During the Cold War period, Flynn continued his unflagging opposition to interventionist foreign policies and militarism. He was an early and prophetic critic of American involvement in the Indo-Chinese War on the side of the French. He charged that sending U.S. troops would “only be proving the case of the Communists against America that we are defending French imperialism.”

Flynn became an early and avid supporter of Senator Joseph McCarthy in great part because McCarthy shared his contempt for the eastern Cold War elite.

Despite this ill-conceived association with McCarthy, Flynn remained fairly consistent in his foreign policy views. In 1955, he had a formal falling out with the new generation of Cold War conservatives when William F. Buckley Jr. rejected one of his articles for the new National Review. It had attacked militarism as a “job-making boondoggle.” Flynn retired from public life in 1960 and died in 1964.

Despite my strong beliefs coming into the LP long ago, I've had very little problem integrating my philosophy with LP philosophy. However, as I've said, militarism and waging wars have always been a problematic potential contention of mine in conjunction with Libertarian philosophy. Granted, most wars waged in modern times are boondoggles, it seems, but there has to be the allowance for the possibility that a war can be waged by America outside of simple self defense in today's modern times. Capitalism can cure most things, but it can't cure a madman dictator with a big red button - and we seem to have a few of those running around the world these days.

Digressing a little bit, however, one has to wonder how mad these madmen really are. I think most of us would agree that Saddam Hussein was just as mad of a dictator as any Jong-Il or Chavez or Mudeniajawhatever from Iran. As Saddam's snuff film proves, he goes out like just about any of us would facing immenent death - praying to his God for salvation (in case you missed it, his last words words were: "There is no God but Allah, and I testify that His prophet is Mohammad") .. one has to wonder if all the madmen of his ilk by inference are similarly afraid of death, and if so, are they as ready to start the Armageddon as they proclaim?

Coming back to the topic at hand, though, for us as Libertarians to come out against the war at this point in the game is a little bit like a 'me-too' syndrome. If it's not something we've been championing as a party for the last several years, then why do it now, unless it's to be disingenuously capitalizing on current political trade winds?

I expressed these sentiments to Susan, and she responded by saying: "That reminds me of the people who say they were opposed to the war, but since the US is *there*, it might as well be conducted 'right'. We might as well get out!"

I've always been a foreign policy wonk, even before I came over to the LP, and I must admit that this brand of logic appeals to me (that we must do it right since we're there) - most of the chaos and violent repercussions in history have been resultant from either bad decisions of hasty retreat, end or otherwise cessation of conflict when it isn't a direct result of an evil madman's plan for world domination. Getting out of a bad situation the right way is very important in my view. For further exposition on that, see what Ann Coulter has to say today.

As the discussion wore on, it became clear what the policy was. Hoggarth termed it as non-interventionist, and suggested that she would take up arms personally, as other citizens of a libertarian nation would, against threats against American security.

Susan says:

I oppose wars of aggression because they are aggression. I oppose government-led wars at all levels because taxation in the pursuit of war is aggression against a government's own people. When such an occasion arises, I'll be there with my SKS.

My contention is that with rogue nations and unstable nations running around with world-destroying weapons, we won't feel threatened until the shadow of the nukes loom overhead. India and Pakistan threaten each other daily with nuclear attacks. China regularly threatens Taiwan with nukes. North Korea regularly threatens America, as does Iran threaten Israel and America, and both nations purportedly have nukes. Chavez may not have nukes now, but he has openly declared war on America and has aligned his nation with other nuclear powers.

We have been threatened, is the point. The average American won't take up arms, and the administration is too busy conducting war on their personal vendettas to pay attention to these threats. All it takes to end it all is for one of these nations to follow through. What makes the situation even more frightening is that most of these nations mentioned don't have sufficient checks and balances on the process of engaging nukes - so a rogue faction can come into power within the military and decide to end it all on behalf of that military's president or nation.

Susan said: "Perhaps [those that [you] have talked to with a clear image of their ideal foreign policy, it didn't seem sufficiently well thought through] is simply because you disagree with them?"

Perhaps so. I'm not advocating any particular foreign policy in mentioning all this - I'm more in search of a foreign policy I can adopt and advocate. My problem is a self-defense or non-interventionist policy doesn't take into account these types of modern-world situations, things I deem as real threats to American and world-wide security.

Heck, I don't even know that a use of force against these countries to forcibly remove the red button from their cold dead fingers is even the answer - I just know that at any moment it could all end because we as a country failed to see the contingencies and results of our actions in decades past... Nuclear proliferation by Reagan, Carter, Nixon and Ford during the Cold War as a result of poor judgement from President Truman in deciding what parts of the world the Europeans and Soviets got to keep, as a result of getting involved with a world war by Roosevelt....

It's well and good to say that someone is against war - it's like being against abortion, or against killing. Sure, it sounds great to say "Let's get out of Iraq now!" But like death, abortion, or any major hotbutton issue, its impossible to have a black and white policy on such topics.

For example - killing is wrong (except when in self defense, or when it's defending the defenseless in your care, or in certain cases defending your property). Or another example: Abortion is a woman's right (except if you believe that killing is wrong and that a fetus is a defenseless human under your care, in which case, see killing (except if the woman's life is in danger, in which case the mother's life takes precedence).

My point is that there are almost always caveats. These caveats mentioned above don't necessarily reflect my viewpoints, but a number of viewpoints that conflict with one another that must be reconciled for the plurality of America to agree with a policy on what should seemingly be a black or white topic.

The grey areas must be thought about and discussed, or else it's just rhetoric.

Anyone out there have any input? Let me know.

Texas Green Party blasts Operation Enduring Freedom

The Green Party of Texas issued a press release today:

Here in the holiday season, George W. Bush's immoral and illegal occupation of Iraq has reached a grim milestone. As of December 31st, 2006, 3000 honorable men and women of our armed forces have died in this reckless and atrocious act of aggression.

Every claim made to justify this war has been a lie:

• The claims that Iraq was manufacturing weapons of mass destruction
• The claim that somehow Iraq was a clear and imminent threat to the United States
• The claim that our purpose in Iraq was to "liberate" the Iraqi people from tyranny
• The claim that the Hussein regime was in some way connected to the attacks of September 11, 2001.

The invasion and occupation of Iraq has cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi women, children and men, has cost the lives of 3000 American military men and women, has injured almost 25,000 of our military, has cost this country almost half a trillion dollars, has shattered our foreign relations, and has fostered deep contempt and anger against our country across the globe. Our military presence in Iraq is fueling the civil war growing there and is inflaming sectarian violence. Our outrageous policy of torturing prisoners of war in Iraq constitutes a horrific violation of American values and principles that puts our own military men and women in grave danger of being tortured themselves.

The Green Party of Texas calls on the White House and Congress to immediately withdraw the American military troops from Iraq and fund an internationally-diverse humanitarian and diplomatic mission to that country.

I could pick this press release apart bit by bit, but is it really necessary? I guess that people still spew garbage like this is evidence that it is.

• WMDs were found in Iraq on multiple occasions.
• That Saddam used them on his own people and would have loved to have used them on Israel given the chance is a threat to national security, and the security of the world.
• How can motivation for or against liberty be judged? Does the Green Party have a magical device used to divine the president's true motivations?
• Saddam and Bin Laden did work together.

That we are grimacing as a country at the loss of 3000 troups is deplorable, and shows that America is no longer worthy of the mantle of 'Superpower' any longer. Compare death rates of Iraq and WWII for evidence.

That the Green Party thinks that throwing more money at this quagmire in the form of diplomacy and humanitarianism is idiotic, as eight years of diplomacy and humanitarianism in the face of terror and anti-Americanism under Clinton showed us that nothing can be achieved by this route.

Say what you want about my party of Libertarians - but hey, at least we're not Greens!

/rizzn

Update:

Fred Drew of the TxSLEC had the following to say on the press release:

I am sad that the Green Party has determined to pursue that tactic as it will alienate about 80% of the families in South Texas, who believe like President Ford, that Bush used the wrong message to justify the war and that Congress supported it wrongly by authorizing it, as required by the War Powers Act.

Most of rural America doesn’t support Bush but believes the troops are doing the right thing because they are the families of the troops and are being told directly from the horse’s mouth that progress is being made with the exception of certain areas in particular, Bagdad.

They are also not the stupid underachievers that they were called by Congressman Rangel.

There is a lot of difference between commencing a war for what appear to be the wrong reasons and then trying to get out later. If you walk away without a clear victory the same folks that heckle a dying man on the gallows will be even more convinced that they can defeat our way of life militarily, not to mention the kind of mid-eastern National Leaders that I watched describe how they would kill all of the western cultures. Remember, Armageddon is a goal to them, not a consequence.

Those, that think they can, will. Look back at the progress of events beginning in 1938. Dejavu

One Vulture, Two Wings

The far left crows about how Chavez is great because he "stood up" to Bush, but they completely ignore that he has spooked investors who would invariably help Venezuela's economy into a self-sustaining system.

How many Americans would tolerate Bush calling Keith Olbermann, Al Franken or Mike Molloy "coupist" or "terrorist" or shutting them down completely? Chavez, the enemy of your enemy, Bush, is NOT necessarily your friend.

It's a shame that both sides can't see how their leader "darlings" are each one wing of the same vulture that feeds on the misery of the individuals they exploit, abuse and kill with their government powers.

"Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has said he will not renew the license for the country's second largest TV channel which he says expires in March 2007," reports the BBC. "The move could help silence some of his critics in the media who have been a thorn in his side for several years, he says."

In the Cato policy analysis "Corruption, Mismanagement and Abuse of Power in Hugo Chávez's Venezuela," Gustavo Coronel details various forms of corruption under Chávez, which demand scrutiny by an active media: "The dramatic rise in corruption under Chávez is ironic since he came to power largely on an anti-corruption campaign platform. To truly fight corruption, the government needs to increase the transparency of its institutions and reduce its extensive involvement in the economy, something that has placed Venezuela among the least economically free countries in the world."

Read More Here.

Draft = Slavery

A military draft is slavery.

Slavery was outlawed by the 13th Amendment.

It is ironic that a black Democrat, Charles Rangel, proposes this nonsense regardless of his logic. He will only be encouraging government intervention in the lives of supposedly "free" Americans, thus proving we are not free.

A draft is unnecessary in a justified act of self-defense.

Read more about it here.

/rizzn

What's Wrong with the NYC Libertarians?

New York City Libertarians are going through what may only be described as pre-pubescent in-fighting and mud-slinging. I'm a member of discussion lists of Libertarian groups throughout the country, and therefore get a decent feel on the pulse of the nation's Libertarians. I must say, of all the groups in the country, the NYCers are the one's taking this cycle's walloping the worst.

As a libertarian, I'm fairly used to being disappointed by the cycle's election returns. We had our hopes up pretty high this year, too, and the only major sucesses were Howie Rich's emminent domain initiatives passing around the country. I've discussed the minor victories we achieved in Texas and South Florida, but the results in NYC were particularly dismal for a major population center with a fairly active Libertarian core group.

Unfortunately, this group hasn't taken it very well. Instead of analyzing their work and defeats extensively, and beginning planning for next year's Muni-Elections, they've decided to turn on one another like wild dogs. It mostly centers around a fellow named Dr. Tom Stevens, who if you believe his detractors, is a ego-maniacal pedophile. His supporters call him a Libertarian purist. In actuality, he was the leader of the Queens LP group, one of the fastest growing contingents of the NY Libertarian party.

The controversy started when a quorum met to de-certify the Queens LP as no longer being affiliated with the NY State LP. Apparently, this was building up for some time by those who were either jealous of or in some way inhibited by Dr. Stevens' ambition. Unfortunately, there is now a rift in the party of those loyal to Dr. Stevens, and those who will stop at nothing to get him out of the party. The latest effort to stir up the drama pot was by Mark Axinn's resignation as Manhattan's representative to the state party convention, and an attempt to replace himself with Dr. Stevens.

The Secretary of the NY LP accepted the resignation of Mr. Axinn, but did not accept the nomination of Dr. Stevens, citing an obscure portion of party by-laws.

The details of the case are inconsequential, and are symptomatic of a bigger problem - the inability of certain sects of the LP to put aside differences and focus on the real fights; the inability to 'save it for the game' if you will. I think this is because after repeated thrashings, and the inability to really see the difference they are making, they feel the need to lash out and manipulate things in a court where they know they can make a difference - in parlaimentary politics. Unfortunately, this is ultimately counter-productive, and needs to stop.

I say to the NY LP what I said to my parents after they decided to divorce after 29 years of marriage: "Grow up, stop acting like children, and get back together."

/mark "rizzn" hopkins

Libertarian Strategy: Should We Focus Democratic?

The conversation more or less says it all.  It took place this weekend on the Texas State Libertarian Executive Committee.  The linked article also provides background and is worth reading.

Pat Dixon:

As a Libertarian I will not coerce you, but I strongly recommend and request you regard this link as required reading and consider its pertinence to the 2008 campaign.

Jeff Daiell:

Pat, thanks for posting this, as I long ago got tired of being slammed for saying we should reach out to lefties as well as righties. For that matter, we need to reach out to a *lot* of constituencies we haven't approached much so far -- African-Texans, Texan Indians, GLBT individuals, Mormons, evangelicals, labor, etc.

John Shuey:

I disagree with Jeff...and some of the Cato article...in that I  believe the Democratic core is too heavily invested in class warfare and income redistribution to ever buy into the LP's positions. But there are those fiscally conservative Dems who, again, might possibly be converted.

Jeff Daiell

Depends on what you mean by "core". Yeah, the
brazenly socialist activists within the DP will not
accept any tolerance toward the free market. But,
just as many Greens have over the last few years
joined us when they realize that statism is bad for
the environment and other living things, so might some
lefties who are lefties because they don't realize
government is the tool, the plaything, and the weapon
of the privileged move our way when they realize that
it is.

Also, many groups align with the Democrats because the
Democrats aligned with them, at least officially, and
alleged advocates of free enterprise disdained them.
Those are groups we can recruit from.

Finally, keep in mind that even if we peel away 3-5%
among any of these groups, and especially if we do so
from more than one, the bipartisans will notice and,
however grudgingly, will move in our direction on some
issues to attract those folks back.

Interesting Demographic Factoid

The word Libertarian in the following factoid tripped my Google Alert on the topic, but it's an interesting nugget to store away:

Nearly half of all Connecticut voters (45%) are registered Independant whlie only one-third are registered Democrat. (This would mean that around one-fifth are Republican with the remainder being Libertarian, Green, and "Other".)

[via Catholic Democrat ]
--
/mark "rizzn" hopkins
For my blog, profile, wikipedia and digg entries, simply Google "rizzn"
Check out Season 1 of Podded Meat, my new Vodcast Network (SFW): http://poddedmeat.com
Check out: http://ModernOpinion.com

Third Party Explanations

Hey folks. It's a holiday weekend, and you probably won't do much reading today, so just to keep you busy over the weekend, here's a load of links that I found interesting. Check em' out!

/rizzn

Short term political action links:

http://www.lpalaska.org - the libertarian party with the best chance of a near-term electoral victory, Statewide.
http://www.stomptheban.com - the political property-rights cause in Alaska whose support will gain the libertarian movement of Alaska the most short-term political success (and short term political success can be translated into long-term political success).
http://www.stomptheban.com/donate/donate.html - Donate online today, to create a libertarian victory at the municipal level. (A victory on the issue of smoker's rights today will help build a strategic partnership that will reform 'eminent domain' government land grabs in Alaska).

Here is a wonderful perspective about third parties by Rick Gaber:

“They give the otherwise ignored, used, abused, betrayed, disgusted, disappointed, frustrated, victimized, insulted, and/or outraged voter a chance to cast a vote without feeling dirty afterwards, a reason to go to the polls AT ALL in the first place, and maybe even to come out of the voting booth feeling GREAT!”

In contrast to lesser-evil voters -- third party voters proudly vote their conscience. They know that the odds are totally against their choices winning. Yet they do not stay home. They are true believers in American democracy. Their votes are strong messages. They are more strategic voters with long term hopefulness about political reform, as compared to tactical lesser-evil voters hoping against reality that when the two-party pendulum swings to the other side something really good happens.

Michael Kerner explains why you shouldn't be a Republican anymore:

When I first became politically aware as a teenager, Barry Goldwater was running for president. He called his philosophy conservative. He believed in small and obedient government, obedient to the constitution. That notion attracted me and the majority of the 1960s Republican Party and he was the 1964 candidate for president.

Lyndon Johnson (widely known as landslide Lyndon for his 48 vote victory in a Texas Senatorial election where several ballot boxes went missing) did a very good job of convincing the public that if they voted for Goldwater, he would blow up the world and certainly escalate the Viet Nam war. He did such a good job that even Kansas went Democratic that year.

Johnson left office in disgrace for his Viet Nam war mistakes and Republican Richard Nixon won a squeaker in 1968. This was the year of my first vote and I voted for Nixon. He was from the same party as Goldwater and I expected the same philosophy. Boy was I disappointed!

Many people of my generation became disenchanted with the Republicans as a source of conservative thought and action and the Libertarian Party was founded in 1971 as a reaction to Nixon's treachery. Other conservatives stayed with the Republicans out of some misplaced loyalty, true hate for the Democrats or just an example of the power of faith over experience. They are still conservative in the original meaning of wanting a small, obedient government.

/rizzn

Milton Friedman, a Leading Economist, Dies at 94

As a libertarian, Mr. Friedman advocated legalizing drugs and generally opposed public education and the state's power to license doctors, automobile drivers and others. He was criticized for those views, but he stood by them, arguing that prohibiting, regulating or
licensing human behavior either does not work or creates inefficient bureaucracies.

Mr. Friedman insisted that unimpeded private competition produced better results than government systems. "Try talking French with someone who studied it in public school," he argued, "then with a Berlitz graduate."

Socialists really hated this guy. They heckled him when he received the Nobel Prize and he was harassed by them on many other occasions.

An Interesting Selection of Quotes

I found an interesting series of quotes. Perhaps I'll be able to tie them all together into a cogent article with a theme, but don't count on it. More than likely, Smokey will come up with a smart-ass theme that will be common to all the quotes after it goes up to the list, count on that.

I have altogether too many news alerts dumping into my email box these days, but they do provide interesting fodder with which to talk about - it's just that I spend the first two hours of my day cleaning out my box and clipping quotes that I share with you, my loyal Rizznites, who are by now no doubt sick of hearing of Libertarian politics. Well, I'll probably be done with this LP news kick here in another week or two - or maybe not. We'll see. If it ceases to interest me, we'll probably go back to updates about other things.

Finland for Thought, a libertarian blogger, misses the mark today when he pegs the LP as not 'socially liberal, fiscally conservative.'

What the U.S. needs is a "socially liberal, economically conservative" libertarian party and the LP isn't, and will never be, it. You might say, "well even 20% of the vote isn't enough to get elected", but it is enough to be taken serious by the media and get the usual 5%-15% support required to participate in major debates. Honestly, what we need is a well-known, wealthy America to get things started. John Stossel would be an ideal candidate.

On the one hand, John Stossel would be an ideal candidate. Before I was involved with LP party politics heavily, I understand that for the 2000 or 2004 presidential nomination bid, the LP had a potential Kinky situation on it's hands for it's Presidential nomination. Some fellow who was a bigshot out of Hollywood was running for the LP nomination. The guy was well funded, well connected, and could have made quite a splash on the national media. It's doubtful that he would have won, of course, but he would have had a lot better chance than Michael Badnarik.

My point in mentioning this is that the LP's problem with campaigning has little to do with what their positions are on the issues - heck, the LPTexas slogan is "social tolerance, fiscal conservativism." It has to do with a basic lack of understanding of the principals of marketing and campaigning. Over and over again, LP members and LP refugee members in other parties continually demonstrate a lack of understanding of even the most basic of principals of marketing. Until we hire a marketing guru to work for us, we're going to be SOL.

In the meantime, LPers are playing kingmaker. Another recently disclosed area in which an LP member played a major part in annointing a Democrat over a Republican in this election cycle, Open Democracy shares this tidbit:

In Wyoming, the hard-pressed Republican incumbent, Barbara Cubin, after a televised debate, vented her frustrations by turning on her Libertarian opponent, Thomas Rankin, who has multiple sclerosis and uses a wheelchair. "If you weren't sitting in that chair, I'd slap you across the face", she said.

After apologising, she explained that she had been inspired by Limbaugh's example in his attack on Fox. Cubin narrowly survived on election-day. But, in Missouri, McCaskill ousted the Republican, Senator James Talent, in an indispensable victory in turning the Senate Democratic.

Granted, the LPer didn't do much but sit there, but still - we played a part.

OK, not the LP's most shining moment, and I'll understand if Redpath doesn't include that in the next 'give us money' letter. But the LP isn't the only one short of shining moments right now. As I and most mentally present Republicans (a much smaller number than one would hope) have been saying lately, the Democrats have no plan for getting us out of Iraq.

Well, today I found the Democrat plan. Just so it's clear, I want everyone to realize this is a QUOTE of a Democrat on a highly trafficked Democrat blog, and in no way reflects my opinions:

The Democrats can't 'cut and run' in Iraq. Someone, probably James Carvelle, is telling them right now "If you force Dubya to withdraw our troops from Iraq, they will tattoo that on our foreheads in 2008". And they believe him. And that's all they care about. Morality is just a word they campaign with.

Here's a suggestion I have for what to do with the Iraq mess -- pull the troops out. (Duh.) Spend, say, a trillion dollars setting up air transport from Iraq to the U.S.. Any Iraqi national who wants to can come live in America. We'll give them a green card, find them a place to live, help them find work, give them a grant to set up their own business.

Or, if they want to stay there, we'll have this little package for them. Kind of an 'Iraqi survivor kit. A generator, a year's worth of MREs, a couple of M16 A1s and a few thousand rounds of ammunition, a Kevlar helmet and vest. Some water purification tablets. A good pair of boots. A box of Hershey bars. A signed apology from Dubya for, you know, breaking their fucking country.

James Dobson will insist we throw in a Bible; that's fine, the apology will only be good for one bowel movement, anyway.

In exchange, we get them to sign one of those releases that Lucy used to circulate in the PEANUTS strip absolving us of all blame. Everybody goes home happy.

Of course, then the goddam Negroes and the friggin' Injuns will be all like "Well, where's OUR Hollywood movie check?" but, you know, scroom. They, at the very least, have frickin' electricity. They should count their blessings. And vote Democrat, dammit.

That's all I got for now. I won't even attempt to follow that.

/rizzn

Quote of the Entry:
"The wages of sin are death, but by the time taxes are taken out, it's just sort of a tired feeling."
- Paula Poundstone


--
/mark "rizzn" hopkins
For my blog, profile, wikipedia and digg entries, simply Google "rizzn"
Check out Season 1 of Podded Meat, my new Vodcast Network (SFW): http://poddedmeat.com
Check out: http://ModernOpinion.com

Bill Redpath of the LP Speaks Out

November 14, 2006

FROM THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY:
Dear Libertarian,

The days after Election Day are never a fun time for Libertarians. Let's face it, we work as hard as we can over a long period of time all for one single day, and when the votes have been cast and counted, our success seems to be as far away as ever.

I wish I had some amazing story to share with you of a miracle "big" win for the LP but I don't as we probably both know that there is no such thing. We have to work for every vote and there is no silver bullet for electoral success.

But there are significant signs of progress . . .

This year, well over 700 Libertarians ran for office! We saw victories at the local level in at least Alaska, California, Indiana, Louisiana, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee.

In Texas, we witnessed something amazing happen. Due to the very hard work of the Texas LP, 168 of our candidates were on the ballot. These candidates significantly increased vote percentages and of state and federal candidates, 22 of them received over 20% of the vote. The last time a Libertarian candidate broke 20% in Texas was in 1992!

Other successes include maintaining ballot access in many states including California, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, Texas, Wisconsin, Wyoming. Those victories will save the LP hundreds of thousands of dollars in expenses for 2008!

Over the weekend, our executive director, Shane Cory, told me a story from last week in which a reporter called him for comment on our election results. The reporter stated that in Montana our U.S. Senate Candidate, Stan Jones, beat the margin and it can be said that the Libertarian Party was responsible for the Republicans losing the Senate. Shane was asked if we "felt bad" about that. . .

Now, I'm sure we would all have different responses to that question ranging from sheer laughter to rage.

Shane's response was simple and somewhat diplomatic. He stated, "No, maybe if the Republicans learned how to govern better, we wouldn't take so many of their votes."

But this question being asked proves a point on its own: the Libertarian Party is becoming more effective. Soon, we'll be seeing more instances of Republicans AND Democrats moving public policy in a libertarian direction in order to capture the Libertarian vote.

That's why every election cycle, regardless of the depth of our victories, is important to the LP and our nation.

In 2007, we will be focusing on local and state elections while we prepare for the 2008 presidential season. Without a doubt, the work that we do in 2007 is vital to our progress in 2008.

This past weekend, the Libertarian National Committee met in Alexandria, Virginia to establish a budget for 2007. After a great deal of deliberation, a core budget was approved for $1,693,000.

This new budget includes $250,000 for ballot access drives across the nation along with $150,000 for vital voter data for the LP Ballot Base that was launched this year. Additionally, it includes $186,000 for membership building efforts and new fundraising tools.

In addition to setting our budget at this LNC meeting, we first established our goals for the term of this LNC board. One of the top goals was to meet our reserve requirement (something that we have only been able to achieve briefly in April of 2004). In a nutshell, this means that we pledge to be fiscally responsible. If we demand as much from Congress, we should be able to set the example.

We have high expectations for 2007 as we know that if we expect to make progress in 2008, we have to do the work now.

One of the most important ways that you can help the Libertarian Party meet its goals and make progress is by starting a monthly, reoccurring donation with the LP if you haven't already done so.

How it works is you click here, fill out the form, choose your monthly donation amount and that's it. Your donation of $10, $25, $50 or more will be automatically charged at the beginning of each month. Also, you're under no obligation and may cancel your gift at any time by calling LPHQ or sending them an e-mail.

In 2006, our monthly donors will have generated over $320,000 in revenue for the LP! They have also saved us many thousands of dollars more in renewal notices and other solicitations.

Personally, I have been a monthly donor to the LP since 1989, starting with a gift of $10 per month. I ask that you join me and the 1,200 others who are part of this program by clicking here.

We have a great deal of work to do in 2007 and it all starts with generating the funding to accomplish our goals.

I appreciate your consideration and time and look forward to serving as your Chairman during this time of growth for the LP.

Sincerely,

William Redpath
Chairman
Libertarian National Committee

Target G.O.P.: At Last, a Libertarian Party Strategy

Sean Galt of the Broward LPers sent this to me a couple weeks ago. I pass it along to you.

http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle1997/le970601-01.html
By L. Neil Smith lneil@lneilsmith.org

Exclusive to The Libertarian Enterprise

Americans could have a free country again -- starting within less than two years -- if Libertarians show enough intelligence, courage, and integrity.

Since its inception 26 years ago, the Libertarian Party has never had anything resembling an overall, long-range strategy. During that time, argument has raged over whether the LP's first priority should be educating the public or getting its candidates elected (and whether either of those alternatives excludes the other), and whether -- assuming the latter of the two were chosen -- state parties should attempt to fill every slot on the ballot or focus all their limited
resources on a single "winnable" race.

Through all those years, it's occurred to very nearly nobody to question the staggering amount of time, energy, and money expended without significant result on seven presidential campaigns that educated nobody, got nobody elected, and, unforgivably, squandered limited LP resources on the single least winnable race in American politics.

Even more unforgivably, with each year wasted this way by the so-called "party of principle" (a salutary expression we seem to hear less and less these days), America has come more and more to resemble the very police state that the LP was created to prevent.

The hour has passed for further examination of this failure. It's crucial now -- for the first time -- to produce a real strategy which will not only make America free within a reasonable amount of time, but quickly engender enough easily-seen improvement to forestall the violent reaction which the major parties appear suicidally determined to foment.

Such a strategy already exists and has proven successful -- so far mostly by accident -- in the recent past. Although a majority of Libertarians appears unaware of its profound significance, it's something the LP has demonstrated on at least three occasions it can do -- almost without trying -- in Oregon, Georgia, and California.

"He who can destroy a thing controls a thing." -- Frank Herbert, Dune

The strategy is simple: identify Republican office holders who won their last election by a margin of five percent or less. Ignore every other position on the ballot. Run Libertarians against these Republican five-percenters, the object being to deny them their five percent and put Democrats in office in their place.

If the prospect of handing Democrats control, not only of the White House, but of both houses of Congress and many more state legislatures, alarms you, then you haven't been paying attention the last five years: Republicans "gave" us RICO and the War on Drugs; "gave" us the Brady
Bill and a ban on semiautomatic weapons; "gave" us a national ID card.

At worst, electing Democrats instead of Republicans will merely accelerate this country's race toward fascist authoritarianism -- and the inevitable reaction -- and get the whole thing over with that much sooner. At worst, history will have been wiped clean of a gang that claims to favor liberty, but never does anything consistently but undermine it.

Certain observers have always maintained that (for some reason they never get around to specifying) America is inherently a two-party nation. Fact is, what the Founders really wanted was a no party nation -- but fine. The LP isn't going to go away; that means one of the others
has to go. At worst, Libertarians can always say afterwards that they had to destroy the GOP in order to save it.

But if the five-percenter strategy works as it's intended to, Republicans will eventually notice what's being done to them, or -- if this essay is spread far and wide enough* -- even anticipate it.

Understand clearly: there can be no selectivity, there can be no exception. Libertarians mustn't argue among themselves over individual cases. If a Republican won by five percent or less last time, he's fair game. Promises don't count; we should be well beyond that by now. Introducing "good" bills, or even voting for them doesn't count.

They know how to fake that one, too.

Even repealing bad laws doesn't count, and it's important to understand why. The only way Republicans can be allowed to save themselves is to be better than Libertarians on important issues. For this to work -- and keep on working -- Libertarians must keep the pressure up relentlessly. Republicans must genuinely change, not just as individuals, but as a party. If a Republican congressman protests that he's really a "good-guy", he must be told that he's a member, by his own choice, of an evil collective that has to change as a whole.

He has to make it change, or he's out of work.

It's the "good" Republican who's likeliest to engineer the needed changes anyway. He must be given an "incentive" equal to that given any "bad" Republican. He must know that it's in his hands: if he and his party genuinely change for the better, then nobody will vote for Libertarians, because there'll be no need to.

To survive, Republicans must restore the rule of law, the highest law of the land, the first ten amendments to the Constitution. They must come to see it, not as a list of taboos to be gotten around, but as the Ten Commandments of American politics.

They must enforce the Bill of Rights.

Libertarians will know it's time to stop taking the GOP's five percent away (and this is the only measure to go by) because they won't be able to.

The best part is that once Democrats and the media catch on that Libertarians are out to destroy the Republican Party, Libertarian candidates will suddenly find themselves invited to all the debates and receiving all the air-time and column inches they could possibly desire. They may even suddenly find campaign contributions a little easier to come by.

As this is written, there's a congressional election seventeen months away. If Libertarian state parties begin preparing now to employ this strategy -- consistently and to the exclusion of all others -- America could turn a corner within those seventeen months, on its way back to being a free country.

And about damned time.

L. Neil Smith is the award-winning author of The Probability Broach, Pallas, Henry Martyn, and other novels, as well as publisher of The Libertarian Enterprise, available free by e-mail subscription or at http://www.webleyweb.com/tle/ His own site, the "Webley Page" is at http://www.lneilsmith.com//

*Readers are urged to pass this on to all Republican office-holders.

A Message from the LP-Texas Chair

Fellow supporter of Liberty,

Before much time passes, I want to share with you my candid impressions of Tuesdays results, concerns that I have, and future plans.

Generally, the elections results were a dramatic boost to the Libertarian Party of Texas:
- It is irrefutable that our numbers went significantly up. Comparing similar races and candidates to previous years, this conclusion is obvious.
- We automatically qualified the party for the ballot in 2008, saving us a quarter million dollars
- We had excellent press coverage and very little negative about our party or candidates
- The fact that we were in excess of the margin of victory in several races gives us additional negotiating power in the legislative session
- Both our staff and many of our candidates are highly motivated with the results and ready to start working on 2008
- Having lots of candidates on the ballot gives us more data and better analysis of our results

A few concerns I have are:
- Several of our more active campaigns may not have measured up to your expectations and investment. I donated money towards these campaigns as several of you did and appreciate the market forces of getting a good return on investment. It is unclear whether active campaigns muster significantly better results than paper candidates at this point.
- A key metric is to exceed 5% in a 3 way statewide race. We are not quite able to reach this goal. In 2002 Barbara Hernandez got the highest 3 way statewide vote at 4.12% and this year Judy Baker got 4.38% in a statewide 3 way.
- My perception is that our party label image does not have yet have universal appeal. Putting a bunch on money behind a candidate with the “Libertarian” label may not be able to overcome the uncertainty a voter has about the perception of that label.
- Any progress we have made in the last 2 years can disappear if we do not retain our staff and raise the revenue to make their compensation competitive.
- I heard several reports of people having problems voting. Some precincts could not get the machines working. Although I think the results are generally accurate, I cannot rule out that some votes did not get counted.
- Many of us yearn for instant gratification. When we do not see immediate success we may give up and burn out. The LP has been working for 35 years and is not yet competitive in partisan races. We are dependent on those committed to the cause and growing new arrivers for patient progress.
- There were complaints from some of our supporters that some of our candidates did not show up for interviews with the media. I recognize we had people on the ballot that have families and careers and could not actively campaign. However, I think generally the quality of our candidates has gone up. I hope our nominating conventions will become more competitive and our delegates will have increased scrutiny in their selections.
- Some may perceive this was a one-time bump as a results of independent Kinky and Grandma voters casting ballots. It is hard to measure this effect, but I believe it is intuitively credible. We may not have the same dynamic in future elections and those voters could stay home. On the other hand it may also mean that if voter turnout goes up it favors us, as well as gives our party more exposure without the spotlight on celebrity independents
- Despite copious notice, our election night party in Austin was not as well attended as I hoped for. We had a decent crowd, but perhaps I was overly optimistic

Where do we go from here?
- First, lets clean up after ourselves and pick up any yard signs that we have put out. We can reuse these as well as the door hangers in the future, so lets be responsible stewards of our neighborhoods and resources
- While we do not yet compete for victories in partisan races, we do win local non-partisan races. Those interested in the May municipal elections can contact me, and I will be very happy to help.
- We will be active in the 2007 state legislative session and I expect better success in pushing reforms that will improve the electoral process and advance the cause of liberty
- We have until December 2007 to recruit our next slate of candidates. Preliminary plans are to make some trips around the state to help with local efforts to organize and get candidates filed for nomination

In summary, I think that although a candid opinion admits imperfection in the analysis, I feel we absolutely have made a measurable improvement that has been worth our investment. I want to thank everyone that has helped our efforts over the last 2 years. I especially want to thank every candidate that put their name on the ballot next to the “Libertarian” label.

I look forward to the next 2 years and appreciate your sustaining support.


Yours in Liberty,

Patrick J Dixon
Chair, Libertarian Party of Texas
www.LPTexas.org

Silence of the Lambs: More post-election roundup from an LPer

I know I talked a bunch about this yesterday, but I'm going to talk a bunch about it today, as well. Well, not so much talk about it but quote other people. There is a buzz on the Libertarian effect on the nation's election results, as is evidenced by an Economist article today:

In two of the seats where control looks likely to switch, Missouri and Montana, the Libertarian party pulled more votes than the Democratic margin of victory. Considerably more, in Montana. If the Libertarian party hadn't been on the ballot, and the three percent of voters who pulled the "Libertarian" lever had broken only moderately Republican, Mr Burns would now be in office.

Does this mean that the libertarians are becoming a force in national elections, much as Ralph Nader managed to cost Al Gore a victory in 2000?

Similarly, the Dallas Morning News today made an interesting note on the Libertarian vs. Democratic presence in Texas elections:

Campaign officials said Mr. Perry won as much as 37 percent of the Hispanic vote, which they attributed to his working with local officials – oftentimes Democratic – along the border. Several Democratic sheriffs made TV commercials with the governor. In addition, his win was attributed to the lack of grass-roots organization on behalf of the other candidates.

Independents Kinky Friedman and Carole Keeton Strayhorn had to cobble together a constituency, and Democrat Chris Bell was left with a "hand-to-mouth" existence, with few resources.

The senior campaign officials likened the state Democratic Party to a car that has been left in the garage for years and has difficulty getting down the road – it did not have the organization and focus to promote a statewide Democratic candidate.

In fact, the Libertarian Party had more candidates in state races than the Democratic Party.

Frank Gonzalez, the man with whom I'm constantly butting heads with, who ran a LP campaign on the Democratic ticket down in Florida this year actually made some points today that I had to agree with:

I had very high hopes for Badnarik as the savior for the Libertarian Party on Election Night too. I watched for his results but noticed his two opponents took over 95% of all votes.

This left me with the very disappointing feeling that most of his campaign's missives were based on fluff and completely void of real hope. This hope is what motivated supporters everywhere, including myself, to contribute to his campaign and I now I feel deceived.

Think of the long term damage this will do to the LP. Did he not think this would be exposed for all to see later?

I want the LP to be successful, but until you address these screaming inefficiencies and self-delusions, you will always remain a social club of ideologues not much more effective than a large Dungeons & Dragons campaign--no offense to D&D player as I've loved the game myself.

Now is the time for the Libertarian party to separate themselves publicly and create a real third party movement like the one that has been so effective in Texas. The base exists for them to capture a new seats in the House. They lack the universal support for the Presidency but there is no reason they can't make themselves a strong but small unified front against Democratic Socialism and Republican Extremism.

The Republicans and Democrats have become so corrupt because there is no one to tell them apart. A Democrat can make a case with many reasons why they won this election but ultimately it comes down to this: in practice what real difference is there between Republicans and Democrats anymore? Except their stance on religious matters, where Republicans have taken a decidedly pro-religious stance, they are more or less the same.

Simply put the Democrats won because the Republicans have abandoned their traditional platform of smaller government, less government spending, and strong national security, not to mention that have sold the party to the fringe elements of the Christian Coalition.

Where has all this gotten them? It elected Nancy Pelosi Speaker of the House, that's what. The public on the whole has lost faith in George W Bush, so the question becomes: "What harm was there in voting for a Democrat it’s basically the same person only with a more flashy tie?"

Democrats have claim a mandate but look at all the races they won. Almost everyone of the ended with a slim margin of victory of less than 5,000 votes and many of them were hovering around the 2,000 mark. This is hardly an overwhelming show of support - basically they won by a thread but that thread was just enough in every important race for them to win. The people still believe and want these old school Republican values - they simply couldn’t find them anywhere.

I seriously doubt the Republicans will see this as a moment of truth, there are no Newt Gingrich’s in Congress anymore, there is a monumental leadership void across the board in Congress on both sides of the isle. Now is the time for Republicans to go back their roots - but they won’t. They much like their Democratic bretherin, they have found out that there are riches to be had in manipulating the government to their own needs, not to mention it’s easier to be a populist as opposed to making a stance on an issue. Currently, practically all politicians in America are populists both parties are littered with them.

The public wants someone of substance someone who actually stands for something and isn’t out for themselves. They want principal. The LP is, if nothing else, a party of principal.

/rizzn

Update: Read this post here. It's mostly quoting an article from a paper called the "News Democrat." But it talks about disenfranchised conservatives new port of harbor.