A REAL third party???!!!

[covert]

???
Will there ever be a real, legit, third political party? Doesn't it seem as though these 3rd political parties just come and go? Where is their staying power? And why can't a third political party retain power, and popularity? Does anyone care to respond? If so, what do you think about this?

[wendy]

;D

Yeah, its called the Libertarian Party.




Exactly.

Every time someone holds their nose and votes Republican, they are giving the R's permission to pass legislation like the HOMELAND NO-SECURITY BILL.

Why keep giving them your votes? It's not like you don't have a REAL option.

[co-be]

November 7, 2002

Now that GOP controls Congress, hold onto your wallet, Libertarians say

WASHINGTON, DC -- Now that Republicans control both houses of Congress and
the presidency, Americans should brace themselves for an era of skyrocketing
federal spending and ballooning budget deficits, Libertarians say.

“Our prediction is that with a GOP Congress egging him on, George Bush is
going to make Bill Clinton look like a fiscal conservative,” said George
Getz, Libertarian Party communications director.

“Even when Republicans controlled only one house of Congress, Bush managed
to sign the first $2 trillion-plus federal budget, throw more money at
Clinton-era programs and propel the deficit toward outer space. With
complete congressional control, expect Bush to go on an absolute spending
rampage.”

As GOP officials celebrate their resounding victory in Tuesday’s elections,
in which Republicans expanded their House majority and reclaimed control of
the Senate, the White House is reportedly planning to “roll out an ambitious
legislative agenda.”

Unfortunately for taxpayers, Libertarians say, that agenda won’t include a
reduction in government.

“Bush’s $2 trillion budget is already scheduled to expand by 6 percent this
year,” Getz said. “Moreover, social welfare programs under Bush have grown
by $96 billion in just two years, versus $51 billion under six years of
Clinton, according to economist Stephen Moore of the Club for Growth.

“Bush’s budget also includes a number of Clinton-era programs, such as
Americorps and the ‘Gore tax’ on telephone service – not to mention more
money for socialized medicine, government-run schools and farm welfare.”

Now that Bush has more members of his own party in Congress, Americans
should expect the spending binge to continue, Getz said.

“Since no newly elected Republicans have pledged to eliminate any Bush
programs, it’s clear that two more years of George Bush equals two more
years of bloated federal spending,” he said.

Another predictable result of a Republican-controlled Congress, Libertarians
say: higher budget deficits.

According to figures from the Office of Management and Budget, Bush is now
running a $106 billion deficit, Getz pointed out.

“Since every government program has to be paid for somehow, the president
has simply chosen deficit spending over outright tax increases,” he said.
“In either case, taxpayers get stuck with the bill.”

That’s why the only thing that happened on Tuesday is that a few
tax-and-spend Democrats were replaced by borrow-and-spend Republicans.

“Now that Republicans have won control over the federal government,” Getz
said, “it’s time for Americans to start scrambling to regain control over
their own wallets.”



Nov, 20

Pentagon database is step toward police state, Libertarians say

WASHINGTON, DC -- A massive public surveillance system under development by
the Pentagon – called “Total Information Awareness” – could help lay the
framework for a police state in America and should be halted immediately,
Libertarians say.

“This is Big Brother on steroids,” said George Getz, Libertarian Party
communications director. “The government of a free country shouldn’t want
surveillance powers like these. And the fact that the government wants them
is proof that it shouldn’t have them.”

The goal of the program, funded by the Defense Advanced Research Projects
Agency (DARPA), is to construct a “virtual, centralized, grand database”
containing every Americans’ electronic transactions, such as credit card
purchases, bank and medical records, travel data, e-mails and phone calls.

That information is to be linked with biometric data such as face
recognition technology and digital fingerprints, and provided instantly to
law enforcement to detect patterns of terrorist activity, the government
says.

Spearheading the initiative is former Navy Rear Adm. John Poindexter, a
Reagan administration official who was implicated in the illegal sale of
arms to the Nicaraguan Contras.

As the anti-privacy aspects of the project have become clear, civil
liberties groups and editorial pages around the USA have urged Congress to
torpedo the program.

“This project sends a message that every American should find repugnant,”
Getz said. “Namely, that politicians and bureaucrats view America as a sea
of criminal suspects whose private behavior must be tracked, catalogued and
analyzed, just in case they commit a crime.

“So much for the presumption of innocence and the right to privacy. Just as
in totalitarian states, your rights disappear at the whim of a shadowy
government employee intent on spawning another database.

“Unless this Orwellian project is dismantled, innocent Americans will suffer
under the kind of high-tech, 24-hour surveillance that the Stasi and the KGB
would have envied.”

Like most counterterrorism measures, Total Information Awareness is based on
a myth, Libertarians say – the myth that the only way to prevent terrorism
is to erode Americans’ freedom.

“But there’s already an effective, constitutional way to gather evidence
against any criminal suspect: Go to court and get a warrant,” Getz said.
“Call it Total Constitutional Awareness.

“The fact that terrorists destroyed thousands of lives on September 11
doesn’t give politicians the right to destroy the privacy of millions of
other innocent individuals. It’s time to tell the government: We are
citizens, not criminal suspects. Pull the plug on this un-American spy
scheme.”

http://rachelmills.com/calendar.html

[Jethro Tull]

Oh, please! ::)

Roger McBride was the LP candidate for Prez in 1972, I think it was. If he wasn't on all 50 state ballots, he was darned close to it. He got about 1% of the national vote.

Thirty years later, Harry Browne gets 0.6% of the national vote. He got whipped, not only by Nader, but also by Buchanan and Hegelin.

Third party? By my reckoning, the LP is at best a 6th party, despite being years older than the other also-rans.

[hr]

The nature of American politics makes it very difficult to maintain three viable parties. It has always settled into two parties.

First there were the Federalists, who inspired the formation of the Democratic-Republicans. Electoral defeats and a lack of continuing leadership doomed the Federalists, and for a while the battle was between factions of the D-Rs.

The Whigs became the opposition party, but couldn't seem to broaden their base to be a truly national movement. They were supplanted by the Republicans, whose strong anti-slavery positions fomented a split in the Democrats, allowing the GOP to win the Presidency.

The Republicans were the last third party to become viable in American politics. There have been many who tried, and some minor parties persist, but none have shown a hint of becoming viable.

Perot had a chance in 1992, due to the widespread dissatisfaction with Bush and mistrust (well-placed, it turned out) of Clinton. But he proved himself to be completely nuts when he withdrew and reentered the race, alleging plots by Republicans to publish fake photos of his daughter, and by the Black Panthers to kidnap him (thwarted by a neighbor walking his dog, supposedly).

To be a viable third party, and eventually challenge one of the major parties, a new party must elect state legislators, Congressmen¹, governors, and Senators. When one is able to do that, we'll talk about a "REAL" third party.

1 Don't start up with Rep. Ron Paul. He runs and caucuses as a Republican. If he didn't, the GOP would run someone else for his seat and take it. So don't claim a guy is part of your party if he is too scared/ashamed/smart to claim its label! :P

[co-be]

JT

Oh, please, yourself.

"Roger McBride was the LP candidate for Prez in 1972, I think it was. If he wasn't on all 50 state ballots, he was darned close to it. He got about 1% of the national vote"


waaaaay off. He was on 2 (two) state ballots, and got less than 3,000 votes.

"Thirty years later, Harry Browne gets 0.6% of the national vote. He got whipped, not only by Nader, but also by Buchanan and Hegelin."

He did not get whipped by Hagelin. Not even close.

Buchanan *barely* beat him, which is one hell of an impressive achievement given that Buchanan is a household name who's been all over the TV, radio and newspapers for 30-40 years (as has Nader) and got $12.5 million in tax money for his Presidential campaign.

So, over all, Browne did remarkably well. The LP as a whole did even better. It was the first time in 80 years that a third party ran so many candidates up and down the ballot, elected so many people to minor offices, got so many cumulative votes, etc.

The last "third" party to have been so successful was the Socialist Party of the 20s and 30s. While they never elected any major offices either, they were successful enough to have 98% of their platform enacted into law by the Democrats and Republicans.

The LP is coming close to the same level of electoral success. 2002 was even more remarkable; almost as many candidates in a non-presidential year as they ran in 2000, including 19% in a US senate race in Mass, 10% in a Governors race in Wisconsin, and 47% for a Libertarian led initiative in Mass to do away with the state income tax and replace it with nothing.

"By my reckoning, the LP is at best a 6th party,"

Well, you need to adjust your sights then. Check ballot-access.org: by no measure, except
presidential votes for billionaires and/or celebrities, has any third party come even close to the LP.

"To be a viable third party, and eventually challenge one of the major parties, a new party must elect state legislators, Congressmen, governors, and Senators. When one is able to do that, we'll talk about a "REAL" third party."

Not necessarily. I'd call the socialists a real third party, given what they have accomplished, and they didn't do all that. The LP has elected state legislators at various times in a number of states, including four at one time in NH, and is getting very close to
possibly electing some US House/Gov/Sen.

http://www.lp.org/campaigns/pres/

However, it also needs to get back on track for these accomplishments to be worth anything;
see the "Impeach Duh!-bya" thread in its entirety for elaboration.

[Jethro Tull]

Well, you need to adjust your sights then. Check ballot-access.org: by no measure, except
presidential votes for billionaires and/or celebrities, has any third party come even close to the LP.

Um, wrong again.

1948 ~ Strom Thurmond

1960 ~ Harry Byrd, Sr.

1968 ~ George Wallace

1980 ~ John Anderson

2000 ~ Ralph Nader

All of these third party candidates got more votes than any LP candidate ever received.

I left out Perot, since you "excepted" billionaires and celebrities, but he did it twice.

I do apologize, Browne finished 5th, ahead of Hagelin, as you said, not 6th. Browne also collected about 100,000 fewer votes than he did in 1996, and his 2000 total amounts to 0.37% of the votes casts.

Yessiree, there is one party on the move! ;)

[the bib]

;D

Yeah, its called the Libertarian Party.




Exactly.

Every time someone holds their nose and votes Republican, they are giving the R's permission to pass legislation like the HOMELAND NO-SECURITY BILL.

Why keep giving them your votes? It's not like you don't have a REAL option.


That's the kind of thinking which stuck us with Clinton for two terms ..... remember Perot?

There IS a way, and within the people's power .... you know the ones who are SUPPOSED to be the gov't by and for? ;)

Vote EVERY incumbant out after two terms .... or even one. The people have the power to enforce the term limits that the Hill only pays lip service to.

The key is not who you vote FOR but who you vote AGAINST.

Without the "job security" that has become the expectation, the people on the Hill WILL take notice and perhaps even get the point that they are there to represent US not themselves, their "conscience", the special interests or the consolidation of their own corrupted power.

Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts, absolutely.

[Satan]

That's the kind of thinking which stuck us with Clinton for two terms ..... remember Perot?

There IS a way, and within the people's power .... you know the ones who are SUPPOSED to be the gov't by and for? ;)

Vote EVERY incumbant out after two terms .... or even one. The people have the power to enforce the term limits that the Hill only pays lip service to.

The key is not who you vote FOR but who you vote AGAINST.

Every vote FOR the one is an automatic vote AGAINST (all) the other(s), so I don't think that supports your argument vs. third party candidates. Using that logic, should I not vote against both of the Republicratic Parties? It's the argument that both Dems and Repubs use every election to persuade libertarians to sacrifice their principles. Politicians love for us to dwell on the faults of 'the other guy'...

"Under democracy one party always devotes its chief energies to trying to prove that the other party is unfit to rule - and both commonly succeed, and are right."
H. L. Mencken (1880-1956)

Of course 'better' and 'worse' cannot exist independently, and comparisons must be taken into account. Still, those who would have our votes should earn them, not receive them by default.

I agree with you entirely concerning strict term limits. Without them, the butcher will always have his thumb on the scale. If it's appropriate for the Chief Executive, it's just as appropriate for Congress.

[Slipped Mickey]

Term limits always struck me as a sad thing. When you consider it terms limits are not so much directed at politicians as toward voters. We the people can impose strict term limits tomorrow by not voting for the incumbant. The problem with that is you have far too many people who are afraid of change. They will vote the same party regardless. Then they complain because things don't really get any better. ::)

[Jethro Tull]

Agreed! The best term limiter is the ballot box.

I, for one, would never suggest that anyone go against their principles to vote for someone. I don't do that, nor would I ask anyone else to do so.

I vote for the candidate who most closely represents my views, who has a legitimate chance to win. There are no candidates who reflect my positions 100%, so in that respect, any vote is a "compromise" in some respect. If I find none of the candidates in a race acceptable, I don't vote for any of them! But most often I find one who is less objectionable than the rest.

I insist that my candidate have a real chance to win, because I am unwilling to see a candidate I find more objectionable win office so I can "make a statement." We have freedom of speech in this country, and I can make statements 24/7/365 if I so choose. The cost of having a most objectionable officeholder is too high, in my view, to make one more statement.

My objections to the Libertarians fall into two categories: 1) some of their positions are, IMO, more anarchic than anything else, and 2) their repeated claims that they are a legitimate 3rd Party. I have discussed the positions in (1) repeatedly and will do so again. My position on (2) is that the LP remains on the political fringe, and has not demonstrated viability as a legitimate 3rd choice in American politics.

The best illustration of this is the record of third party candidates during the LP's lifetime. Several have drawn more votes than any LP candidate, despite less of a history and fewer volunteers. Perot was actually leading the opinion polls in May of 1992, when he proved he was nuts by withdrawing and reentering the race. America was, and is, receptive to a reasonable third alternative. Every poll shows that most Americans wish they had other choices in every race.

But the LP has been there, on the ballot, through all that. Clearly, the American public has never accepted the LP as a legitimate, or sufficiently attractive, alternative. Supporters can claim all the massive growth and success they want to, they do so after every election. It just isn't true.

[covert]

:o
What about bringing back some of those old political parties like the Whig party. It was already registered within the election place somewhere. Maybe it could be called the New Whig party. I remember that there were a few other political parties way back when, they could be used today also, since those political parties are registered too. :)

[fellingus]

Jethro....

1948 ~ Strom Thurmond

1960 ~ Harry Byrd, Sr.

1968 ~ George Wallace

1980 ~ John Anderson

2000 ~ Ralph Nader

All celebrity candidates, so co-be was right.

You seem a little too focused on presidential politics,
how about getting over 1 million votes for Congress?
No other third party has ever done that. The LP did
it twice - 2000 and 2002.

The LP ran 1400+ candidates in 2000 and 1600+ in 2002,
including a majority of Congressional seats. No other
third party since the Socialists in 1920 has come close.

Same goes for the number of Libertarians in office,
even though those offices are low level.

You can look at the number of dues paying party members
or the number of active local chapters. Again, the LP is
way ahead of all other third parties.

In fact, it is ahead of all other third parties
COMBINED.

And even as far as presidential politics goes...

Yes, Browne came in fifth and got fewer votes than he did
in '96. Actually, all third parties did worse than expected
because the D/R contest was so close, so more people fell for the
pernicious "wasted vote" fallacy.

The fact that Browne came close to beating Buchanan, who is
a celebrity, and who had a lot more money and media attention,
combined with the strong showing of other Libertarian candidates
down the ticket and in 2002, is more to the point.

[Jethro Tull]

Those are "celebrity" candidates? Well, okay, fine. You still couldn't beat any of them. John Anderson a celebrity? . . . never heard that before, he was a pretty boring guy. He had been elected to Congress, which is more than any LP candidate can say.

The number of votes for congressional candidates means nothing if you win ZERO seats. Many people vote LP in uncontested races, or in districts like mine - the Democrat has a safe seat, and the GOP has run the same idiot against him for 4 straight elections.

I have been listening to glowing reports of LP "progress" for over 25 years now. If they had grown half as much as the aggregate claims over that time, they would be at least the second largest party in the country by now.

All I hear is pathetic excuses for perpetual losers. I don't care what your "paid membership" is, you can't beat the Greens anyway, and won't as long as they run a candidate. Anderson had no party at all, and whipped the heck out of the LP. His vote total may be more than the eight LP candidates combined. Certainly Perot's was. Thurmond and Wallace actually won Electoral College votes, something LP candidates only fantasize about.

If the LP was a new party, in their 2nd or 3rd major election, I would watch them. But they have been around since 1972, and the line is flat. LP candidates can't seem to win ANY office where political philosophy is a significant issue. A Library Commission in one county, Zoning Council in some township . . .

After a while, it isn't enough to keep pulling < 1% of the vote and keep on claiming to be growing so fast. It just doesn't pass the laugh test. It doesn't matter what lame excuse you can supply as to WHY people don't vote for your candidates. The fact is, they DON'T.

If you want to claim to be the 'biggest' third party, despite the Greens and Reforms outpolling you, fine. The FACT remains, you wouldn't be competitive if all three were combined!

[Thunder Bay]

Hey, everybody;

As long as your third parties keep up the lunatic fringe appearance, things will remain stagnant. As I tried to tell fern and druth, you need a viable candidate(a GOOD clintonesque BS'er) who is moderate but leans slightly to the right; and a base group of large proportions that are like-minded...for example, the Boomers...remember, AARP was just a bunch of old people 'til they organized; now they are possibly over-influential. Should only take ten yrs. Go! ;D

[fellingus]

JT>> Those are "celebrity" candidates? Well, okay, fine. You still couldn't beat any of them.


Fellingus> Yes, but so what? Of course someone that few people have ever heard of is unlikely to beat someone who is known to the public.


JT>> John Anderson a celebrity? . . . never heard that before, he was a pretty boring guy. He had been elected to Congress, which is more than any LP candidate can say.

Fellingus>> Ron Paul was elected to Congress, previous to being an LP candidate.
However, he did not have nearly the money or media attention John Anderson got.


JT>> The number of votes for congressional candidates means nothing if you win ZERO seats. Many people vote LP in uncontested races, or in districts like mine - the Democrat has a safe seat, and the GOP has run the same idiot against him for 4 straight elections.

Fellingus>> If it means ZERO, how come no other third party has come close to doing it since the Socialists of the 20s and 30s?

It shows a certain level of being organized all over the country which other parties are not. No other party (except the majors) has an organization in every state or has been on the ballot in every state for more than one election.

How many seats did the Socialists win? Not many, if any, yet they got their agenda heard because they were the balance of power in many elections. The LP can have that same effect. And is starting to.


JT>> All I hear is pathetic excuses for perpetual losers. I don't care what your "paid membership" is, you can't beat the Greens anyway, and won't as long as they run a candidate.


Fellingus>> LOL> The greens? They had 58 people at their NATIONAL convention this year.
They didn't run nearly as many candidates as the LP, and where they did the LP usually beat them.

If you mean Nader, he is not even a member of their party, and points it out every chance he gets. He agrees to run as their presidential candidate - so what? Of course he will get a higher vote total, everyone already knows his name. But what can the greens do without him?

JT>> Anderson had no party at all, and whipped the heck out of the LP. His vote total may be more than the eight LP candidates combined. Certainly Perot's was. Thurmond and Wallace actually won Electoral College votes, something LP candidates only fantasize about.


Fellingus>> Actually, they got an electoral vote way back in '72, not that it matters. You are waaay to focused on presidential races. The way to build a party is not from the top down, it's from the bottom up - by winning the most local types of races. That's what the LP is starting to do now; and what no other third party has done.

JT>> If the LP was a new party, in their 2nd or 3rd major election, I would watch them. But they have been around since 1972, and the line is flat. LP candidates can't seem to win ANY office where political philosophy is a significant issue. A Library Commission in one county, Zoning Council in some township . . .

Fellingus>> Wrong again. Mayors in several towns, including some with 100,000+ population. City councils, including a majority in a couple of Utah towns. State legislators - including two at one time in Alaska, and four at one time in NH. And races like Library Comission and Zoning Council are important. You need those on your resume to go for higher office. They also have an effect on many local issues - the zoning commission is a good example.

JT>> After a while, it isn't enough to keep pulling < 1% of the vote and keep on claiming to be growing so fast. It just doesn't pass the laugh test. It doesn't matter what lame excuse you can supply as to WHY people don't vote for your candidates. The fact is, they DON'T.

Fellingus>> The fact is, they DO. 19% for US Senate in Mass, 10% for Governor in Wisconsin with both Ds and Rs in a competitive race- and that's just in 2002. Notice the rash of articles the Republicans have written lately about the LP's "spoiler effect"? That's because it's really starting to bite them in the ass. Just wait until they lose a major election...then they will really howl. Of course, it will be their fault.

JT>> If you want to claim to be the 'biggest' third party, despite the Greens and Reforms outpolling you, fine.

Fellingus>> Once again...they don't.

See above.

[Jethro Tull]

fellingus ~ Ron Paul is a Republican. He has run on the Republican ticket every time. He caucuses with the GOP. If he is really LP, why is he too ashamed of his party to stand up for it? Probably because if he did, the Repubs would run someone else for his seat and beat him, and he knows it.

The single electoral vote in 1972 was cast by Roger McBride, later the 1976 LP candidate, who was pledged to Nixon. The LP did not win that vote.

Which mayors of cities over 100,000 are LP again? On the LP website, they list mayors in Saratoga, CA, Gold Hill, CO, Mt. Hop, KS, Chillicothe, MO, Spray, OR, Valley-Hi, PA, Big Water, UT, Sumas, WA, and Ladysmith, WI. I count NINE. Are any of these over 100,000? There were also a few "Mayors Pro Tem," but as I'm sure you know, they are NOT mayors.

Fellingus>> Wrong again. Mayors in several towns, including some with 100,000+ population. City councils, including a majority in a couple of Utah towns. State legislators - including two at one time in Alaska, and four at one time in NH.

The LP site doesn't know about any city councilmen in Utah. They list the mayor above, and a Water Board member. One state rep in Wisconsin, NONE in Alaska, NONE in New Hampshire. There is an LP member of the NY State Supreme Court, though.

www.lp.org

Forgive my cynicism. I've been hearing what a great deal of progress the LP is making for many, many years now. At this rate, they will be competitive in another 100 years or so. Good luck.

[fellingus]

I didn't say Ron paul is a Libertarian. Actually he is both, as he is a member of the party
but elected as a Republican. Similarly, John Anderson was not elected as an inddependent to Congress. I don't remember whether he was elected as a Democrat or Republican, but it was one of the two.

Not all of the local offices I mentioned are current, which is why they are not listed on the LP site.

"Competitive"....it depends on what you mean by competitive. Was the Socialist Party of the 1920s and 1930s competitive? Not in terms of major elections, but yes, in terms of policy it was, because it held a balance of power. That is the sense in which the LP can be competitive. If the pretense of free elections is allowed to continue, which won't happen for long.

As for me, I'm moving to Mexico. For those of you who stay here, I no longer advocate the third party route. The only solution is anarchist revolution.

Third parties play into the illusion that the election system is legitimate. Actually, it's a scam. At this point, the only way to remove the party of power (it's really only one party pretending to be two) is through violence.

[Jethro Tull]

Okay: I said no LP candidates were elected to Congress, you brought up Ron Paul because . . . ?

Anderson was a liberal Republican. He only ran for President as an Independent. He wasn't particularly well known before that run, but still managed to outpoll any LP candidate ever.

Not all of the local offices I mentioned are current, which is why they are not listed on the LP site

Okay, so all the higher offices of which you bragged in saying the LP was making such great progress, they no longer hold? So then, the LP is regressing, in fact, correct?

Have fun in Mexico. Don't drink the water.

[fellingus]

"Okay: I said no LP candidates were elected to Congress, you brought up Ron Paul because . . . ?

I was responding to:

"He (Anderson) had been elected to Congress, which is more than any LP candidate can say."

Actually, Anderson was elected to Congress as a Republican and ran for President as an Independent, which is exactly analogous to Ron Paul being elecetd to Congress as a Republican and running for president as a Libertarian.


"Anderson was a liberal Republican. He only ran for President as an Independent. He wasn't particularly well known before that run, but still managed to outpoll any LP candidate ever."

He was certainly given far more media attention than any LP candidate ever.

He also probably had some big money backing, although I don't know that for sure.

"Okay, so all the higher offices of which you bragged in saying the LP was making such great progress, they no longer hold? So then, the LP is regressing, in fact, correct?"

Incorrect. Big Water, UT is (I believe) current, and Leadville, CO was very recent. Most of the others were also recent - mid to late 1990s, with (I think) the exception of Alaska.

And anyway, as I said. This is no longer important, as the amount of time it would probably take for the Lp to make the impact it needs to make - although only a few years - is more than the oligarchy will grant, as the pretense of "free elections" will probably be suspended no later than 2004.

"Have fun in Mexico. Don't drink the water."

LOL mijo, that's what we have Agua Botella and Cerveza for.

Have fun in national socialist Amerikkka.

[Jethro Tull]

LOL mijo, that's what we have Agua Botella and Cerveza for.

Well, at least we can agree on something! ;D

Have fun in national socialist Amerikkka.



One reason Libertarians aren't making any progress is that y'all are a bunch of drama queens! Virtually everybody in the world wants to come here for freedom and opportunity unparalleled in human history. Sure, we are way overtaxed and way overregulated, but only the Libertarians seem to foam at the mouth over it.

If there's nobody home in Mexico when you get there, it's because they're up here.

[fellingus]

I am not a Libertarian anymore.

As I said before, voting for any party is acknowleding that the system is legitimate. I don't.

You know that wall the gringos are building at the border?

It will be two years, tops, before it becomes another Berlin wall. You think they are building it to keep others out, but the real purpose will be to keep you in. Once the wall is built it's easy to turn the guns around.

The whole world doesn't want to move to the USSA, and the ones that do...mostly only for the money, and then they want to leave.

Nobody home in Mexico?

I go there all the time, and there's plenty of people there. And most of them want nothing to do with the USSA, at all.

"Unprecedented freedom and opportunity"...you're full of yourself. And out of touch with reality. But it won't be long before you find that out for yourself. By then, the guns will be turned around.

Okay. I've waited long enough. It's bugged me since day one. What is a fellingus? Is it like a combination of a "fellatio" and a "cunnilingus?"

Please explain.

[fellingus]

It's sort of like a Rorschach test.

"the obeserver creates the observed through the process of observing"

It's sort of like a Rorschach test.

"the obeserver creates the observed through the process of observing"


Oh. I always answered those blotter tests..."Looks like two people fucking."

Well, they did.

[fellingus]

Hmmmm...blotter? How about microdot?

Liquid crystal?

It's all good..................

Hmmmm...blotter? How about microdot?

Liquid crystal?

It's all good..................


"Give me Librium, or give me Meth." ~badnews~ (circa...I don't remember)

[fellingus]

If you can remember the 2000s, you aren't really here.

http://www.thememoryhole.org/

[co-be]

Election Analysis: No silver bullets, lots of silver linings

by Ron Crickenberger
LP Political Director


It's no secret that the past year has been tough for the Libertarian Party. In times of war or other national crisis, voters tend to"rally 'round the flag," and third parties historically suffer a decrease in support. Now our government even tells us that just to question its assault on our liberties means we are "aiding terrorists."

Donations to the LP, and to most non-profit organizations, have been way down since the September 11 terrorist attacks. Membership has fallen significantly as well over the last year.

This on top of the fact that we are already trying to do something that is so difficult that no one has succeeded in more than 100 years: build a political party that replaces one of the current major parties.

Yet in this hostile atmosphere, and with significantly diminished resources, the LP moved forward in most electoral categories.

We set new LP records for cumulative top-of-the-ticket votes, cumulative gubernatorial votes, total number of candidates run, and wins in an even-numbered year.

We ran the biggest slate of third-party candidates since before World War II. In all, 1,645 candidates made the ballot for the Libertarian Party -- more than twice as many candidates as all other nationally organized third parties combined -- and 200 more candidates than we ran in 2000. We're still collecting the results for many local elections, but we've already totaled more than 10 million votes for Libertarian candidates.

We challenged a majority of Congressional seats for the second election in a row. No third party but us has done this in more than 80 years. Our U.S. House candidates pulled more than 1 million votes both in 2000 and this year, and no third party but us has ever done this. We received more publicity than ever before about our ability to influence Congressional elections.

Libertarian candidates for the office at the top of the ballot topped 1 million votes for the first time ever. Libertarian candidates for governor polled about 763,392 votes, almost twice as many votes as our previous best showing.

And we elected at least 43 Libertarians in fall elections, and 55 for the year.

What lessons can we learn from setting these new records? And how can we take these lessons, and use them to advance the LP faster and further?

Although third party candidates rarely win statewide or Congressional office, in many cases they can control which of the major parties does win by purposefully siphoning off votes from one of the major-party candidates. The media has tagged this ability of third-party candidates to control elections the "spoiler effect," although a better name for it might be "incumbent killer," as the person being defeated is typically an incumbent evildoer.

Don Gorman has called the "spoiler effect" the "biggest stick the LP has," and Libertarian Party candidates have been credited with controlling the outcome of numerous Congressional and statewide elections.

In the past, the LP's use of the spoiler effect has been essentially random, and often unintentional. This year, for the first time, we made an effort to use the spoiler effect intentionally, in an orchestrated effort to defeat some of the worst drug warriors in Congress.

Three of our five targets for the year were defeated, although in one case we can claim no credit, because we ended up not having a candidate in the race due to ballot access problems.

In addition to our targets, we were also credited with controlling the outcome of races from South Dakota to Alabama. The New York Times, Fox News.com, National Review, the Washington Post, and more covered our "Incumbent Killer" candidates and their effect on the race.

Our opponents certainly recognize our power in this area. Michael Medved, a chief apologist for the Republican's big-government programs, raked us over the coals for costing "good Republicans" their seats. A good Republican for Medved is one who supports the "Patriot Act," budget-busting pork projects, and the War on Everything -- so if we are making him mad, we must be doing something right!

In a State Assembly race in California, Democratic organizations spent $147,000 to promote Libertarian candidate David Eaton. In New Hampshire, the Democrats mailed three full-color brochures highlighting Libertarian candidate Dan Belforti's positions on gun control and taxes in an effort to lure voters away from the Republican.

In Georgia, we raised $13,000 from conservatives to help oust Max Cleland by drawing black voters away from the Democrat incumbent to Libertarian Sandy Thomas. Personally, I love the idea of getting our opponents to contribute money to us, for us to use against them.

Lesson learned: The spoiler effect can be a powerful weapon to affect the make-up of Congress, and therefore the direction of public policy, and can also be an effective tool for generating publicity. We got more publicity this year for our potential and actual effect on major elections than in any previous election.

And the second lesson learned: To be positioned to take advantage of these opportunities, we have to run candidates in those races. Since we don't always know in advance where the close races will be, we must run candidates in as many spots as possible.

We also set a new record for the number of Libertarian wins in an even-numbered year. If you look at the states that elected the most Libertarians this year, California and North Carolina, you notice two things: They both ran record numbers of local candidates. And they had near full slates at the upper level races as well.

Many libertarian voters only come out to vote if they have the opportunity to vote for a Libertarian candidate in a major partisan race. If those voters know there is a Libertarian running in a non-partisan race lower on the ticket, they will then vote for them as well. This is just one example of the definite synergy created by full slates of candidates.

In California, several of the victories were "wins of opportunity." Our candidates won just because they bothered to file for the office -- and no one else did. Some of the others won without running any significant campaign. This shows we must fill as many spots as possible at the lowest level of the ticket as well.

Are you sensing a theme to the lessons learned?

More candidates equal more victories and more influence in moving public policy in a Libertarian direction.

[lgllady]

Libertarians will never be elected to a major office because they are pro legalization of drugs.

Whether an individual is personally for or against legalizing drugs doesn't matter. The fact is the majority of people are against it (as in the recent election in Nevada) and this position is hurting the libertarian party.

[co-be]

Actually, that's probably the position that will cause Libertarians to get elected to
more and higher offices. Opinion is moving our way on this one. It's a sea change from
even 10 years ago. Prohibition is on its way out, and Libertarians are poised to be the one party speaking for the increasing number of people that want to end this disastrous war.

Nevada was something of an aberration. The number of people that voted for the correct
position (ending the ridiculous prohibitionist law) was about 200,000, which is what it
usually takes to win an election in Nevada. However, there was a very high turnout
by Republicans this year nationally, and a new Congressional distrivt in Nevada which caused
an increased turnout.

Nevertheless we got about 40% for a very bold initiative in a conservative state.
Medical marijuana has also passed in every state it's been on the ballot in, and
support for every type of decriminalization is growing in the polls although in many cases not yet a majority.

This is one of the party's most strategically sound positions, and they should be more anti-war in general to capture the increasing opposition to the war (war on terrorism, foreign wars, etc). It would tie in well with the anti-drug war stance.

This is definitely the wave of the future, and Libertarians should ride it. Whether they will or not depends on whether they can be quick enough about casting aside trying to appeal
to conservatives and reich wingers, which has been a failed strategy. 100% of the focus should be, from now on, getting young people, immigrants, and others coming from a leftist perspective into the party, and if that causes Republitarians to leave...good.

If the LP follows this line..it will be successful. If not, it will fail as people increasingly turn away from failed reich wing policies.

[lgllady]

Democracy in action.

The right side would win if the others would just stop voting!

[Jethro Tull]

The real problems the LP has are several.

They let themselves get so attached to the underlying principles, that they cannot help but apply them to extremes.
They allow people who are basically anarchists claim their mantle, and do not repudiate them.
They often succumb to contests of ideological purity, and in doing so turn off mainstream voters who lean toward libertarian principles.


Oh, and they never seem to win any important elections. They are viewed as a handy protest vote by most people.