All the more reason why you should run for LP nomination in 2008 Paul. After all, you are most certainly NOT a celebrity.
Though you might be soon, after your comments that "it's a shame Reagan didn't die when he was shot." --- In [email protected], "Paul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Running a celebrity is a bad idea because it gives us the impression > of being a circus like the Reform Party. We are not a circus, and we > would never run people who advocate violation of libertarian > principles, like Dennis Miller, Neal Boortz, Tom McClintock, etc. > > > > --- In [email protected], "Eric Dondero Rittberg" > <ericdondero@> wrote: > > > > Excellent post. Well thought out, and well-reasoned. > > Congratulations. > > > > I would respond that my preferred strategy is not in your list. > > What I would preferably like to see for the overall libertarian > > movement is the following (which by the way is the one strategy that > > I actually think can work): > > > > The Libertarian Party nominates a celebrity candidate for President; > > John Stossell, Dennis Miller, Neal Boortz, Walter Williams, Tom > > Mcclintock, Ron Paul, Leon Drolet, Tammy Bruce, Drew Carey, et.al. > > > > That candidate gets well over 1 million votes after running a > > spectacularly successful campagin which garnered excellent media > > attention. > > > > The American public now thinks "libertarians are cool." They're the > > hip ones in American politics. > > > > In the 2008 race Hillary gets clobbered by Mitt Romney, however, the > > Libertarian vote scared the pants off of the Republicans. So much > > so, in fact, that Romney and the Republicans are forced to pay > > attention to libertarian ideals. After all there's Election Year > > 2010. And the LP is coming on strong promising a top-notch slate of > > Congressional candidates for the mid-terms. > > > > The GOP, particularly the boys at RNC HQ, get more and more > > frightened of the LP's potential impact, and advise GOP candidates > > nationwide to start ADOPTING LIBERTARIAN POSITION. > > > > Moreover, they go all over the country looking for libertarian- > > leaning GOP candidates to run in 2010, even managing to steal a > > couple top-notch candidates away from the LP itself, by promising > > them all sorts of money and backing. > > > > It's a success. In 2010 the Democrats get slaughtered. The > > libertarian-leaning GOPers win. Once in Congress they start > > instituting their proposals to cut back on government, and President > > Romney signs the bills. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "Eric S. Harris" > > <eric_harris_76@> wrote: > > > > > > Compared to the Constitution Party, the LP has been more > > successful at > > > accomplishing some necessary steps, and some highly preliminary > > phases > > > of other necessary steps. I'm not sure that's saying much. > > > > > > Losing the race for president with less than 1% of the vote I > > would call > > > a highly preliminary phase of a necessary step, at best. Doing it > > > chronically isn't a success, by any stretch, especially as the > > trend > > > line is not upward. (I note that the LP website no longer seems > > to list > > > the presidential candidates and their vote totals. Or if the list > > is > > > there, it's damned hard to find. For some reason.) > > > > > > Those things listed below are milestones and metrics of progress, > > but > > > they aren't successes. Successes would be things like repealing > > the > > > federal drug laws, or stopping the Social Security boondoggle > > (even if > > > were "merely" replaced by a Chile-style mandatory IRA-/401(k)- like > > > account of the sort that gives dogmatic Libertarians the screaming > > > meemies), or having no more of a military presence in other > > countries > > > than they have in ours (like "none"). > > > > > > Neither party has actually succeeded at reducing government and > > > increasing freedom. > > > > > > The LP's pace is glacial, even at accomplishing these intermediate > > > goals. And a celebrity candidate won't help quicken the pace, I > > > believe. YMMV. > > > > > > Here's an experiment to consider. > > > > > > Rank these events in the order you expect them to occur: > > > o The Social Security administration pays more benefits than it > > receives > > > in Social Security taxes. > > > o The LP gets rid of the "oath" membership requirement. > > > o The number of U.S. military personnel inside Iraq is less than > > the > > > total number of U.S. military deaths in this Iraq war. > > > o The LP's members of at least one house of Congress number more > > than > > > the difference between the Democrats and the Republicans; the > > > Libertarian Caucus is the swing bloc in that house. > > > o Federal spending declines, one year to the next. > > > o The LP nominates a "celebrity" candidate for president, such as > > those > > > in the quoted text below. > > > o The LP presidential candidate is elected. > > > > > > If you draw up a list and yours is in a dramatically different > > order > > > from this, I'd be interested in the reasoning that lead to that > > > particular ordering. > > > > > > If I don't find the reasoning convincing, perhaps a wager is in > > order. > > > You may end up paying or being paid by my estate before the list > > is > > > exhausted, as I'm over 50. Even my maternal ancestors only lived > > into > > > their 80s. -Eric > > > > > > > > > Eric Dondero Rittberg wrote: > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > [snipped: old quoted quoted text] > > > > > > -- > > > Eric S. Harris > > > > > > If this address ever fails, try visiting http://www.returnpath.net > > > > > > 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/
