Intrguied by your comments on the Constitution Party. But fact is the Libertarian Party is and has been 10 times more successful over the years, when you measure vote totals both in Presidential races and local races, actual elected officials, membership, fundraising, and most especially ballot access.
The LP, hapless as it is, has the CP beat in every category. There was a brief period a couple years ago, when the CP pulled ahead of the LP in one single category; elected officials. Ron Jore in Montana switched from GOP to Constitution Party for a few months. But then something happened and he switched back. (Still quite curious about that whole affair; never got a complete explanation???) For that period, I'd agree the CP WAS AHEAD of the LP, but as of this moment as far as I know the CP has less than 10 elected officials nationwide highest office being some town councilman in Iowa. While the LP has over 500, highest being a couple City Councilman in Troy, MI (pop. 70,000), a Councilman in a Denver suburb, a couple small town Mayors and a couple County Supervisors. Plus the ballot access situation shows a profound difference. In every election cycle in the past two decades the LP has made it on the ballot in either all 50 states of over 46 states. The CP in comparison is lucky to get over 30. No, if there's gonna be any viable third party movement in the US in 2008, it's going to be with the Libertarian Party. Let's hope the LP smartens up and nominates a Jesse Ventura, fmr. NM Gov. Gary Johnson, John Stossell, Walter Williams, Charles Murray or some other celebrity this time, and doesn't go with a Party hack/No name Michael Badnarik type. --- In [email protected], "Eric S. Harris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Jim Syler wrote: > > [snippage] > > > The point of the train metaphor is that you have this "libertarian > > train" that is leading toward liberty. It starts here, at the horrible > > situation we are in now, and has several stops on the way, that might > > be called "lower taxes," "fewer business regulations," "greater > > personal freedoms," "abolishment of the income tax," "re- establishment > > of Constitutional government," and finally "anarcho-capitalism." The > > idea is that everybody can get on the LP train, then get off when they > > have reached their desired level of freedom. > > This assumes that anarchy is a reasonable destination. Not everyone who > wants to see dramatic decreases in government -- people who SHOULD BE > voting for a "third party" which intends to reduce government and > increase freedom -- agrees that is the case. Some think it > unattainable. Some think it attainable but undesirable. Some aren't > sure one way or another, and prefer to focus on things they know are > true: government is too big and too intrusive, and needs to be reduced > and decentralized, dramatically, now. > > No sensible person is going to buy a train ticket for a trip between two > cities in North America if the ticket agent says that the train's final > stop is in Australia. The ticket agent -- from the benighted > perspective of a disbeliever in amphibious railroads -- is clearly a > loon, and his tickets are worthless. > > That potential passenger might even be skeptical of a final destination > in Peru, being unaware of any railroad bridge over the Panama Canal. > > And the potential passenger might be put off by someone who prattles on > about the final stop in Hoboken and how Hoboken is the best destination, > when they're trying to get from Denver to Kansas City. > > > The problem is that when you walk up to the LP conductor, he says, > > "Welcome aboard! Here's your ticket to anarcho-capitalism." (The > > ticket, for the metaphorically impaired, being the Oath.) The boarder > > says "no, there must be some mistake, I only wanted to go to > > Constitutional government." The conductor says, "That's fine, sir, > > we'll be going right past there on our way to anarcho- capitalism." > > "So," the potential passenger says, "I'll be able to get off there > > then?" "Well, no, sir, we won't making any stops until we get to > > anarcho-capitalism. If you get on here, you're on for the long haul." > > "Thanks anyway," says the potential passenger, and looks around for > > another train. The problem is, there aren't any other trains heading > > for liberty. > > That may change. The Constitution Party has some problems (let's be > kind), but it may become a successful political party which reduces > government and increases freedom. At least, its track record isn't the > decades of failure that the LP has to show for its efforts. (Yet.) > Perhaps some other party that exists now will be that party. (I would > bet serious money that it won't be the Democrats and it won't be the > Republicans.) Perhaps it will be a new party formed by a coalition of > LP affiliate parties who are tired of failure with no end in sight. > > The LP clearly is not a successful political party which reduces > government and increases freedom, and shows no signs of becoming one. > Those who expect this to change without addressing the various aspects > of the dogmatism problem, such as the oath requirement, are fooling > themselves. -Eric > > -- > Eric S. Harris > > If this address ever fails, try visiting http://www.returnpath.net > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
