ok..i gotta get into this a bit

first i do tend to empathize with many of the Libertarian platform views...especially the perennial "none of the above" plank..

that being said, it has always been my personal contention that NO third Party stands a snowball's chance in hell on the National scene UNTIL they start at the beginning...

get some folks actually ELECTED to some offices...Dog Catcher...School Board...Town Council...Mayor...State Congressman or Senator...mebbe even a Governor...hell the Reform Party got a governor in..and there have been quite a few Independants

THEN you work on getting Federal offices..House, Senate...

THEN you take some of those candidates that have served on one of the "lower levels" to run...you know..someone with a Record and mebbe some National recognition

until then each of these wanna be third parties..the Libertarians, the Greens..all of them, just waste time , energy and money...all for a losing cause..

i am NOT saying give up and leave your Party of choice...far from it..i am saying read some fucking Sun Tzu or Machievelli...learn how politics work in this country and make a strategic approach

until then, fielding a Presidential candidate is akin to the mice voting to bell the cat...

nuff said?

Excelsior!

There are more Libertarians in those local, grass-roots offices than you realize, gonzo - many of those offices are non-partisan, meaning that no party is listed on the ballot.

I know personally one Libertarian candidate for a post in S.California who spent less than $20 in his bid for election, and came in close second to the incumbent, who spent over $10,000.

i understand yer point DrPat..

but i stick with my assessment...

ANY third Party needs to get a hold of local offices, then run regional

even in your exaple..the Libertarian came in second

which emphasises what i've been trying to say..

if these third Parties would just spend the cash they waste on Presidential bids
towards winning local offices, then work on state offices..we might see them as Governors...THAT is when they can start being viable for Federal offices..

i know of many Governors that were Independants..and one Reform party governor..

can you name me a siongle Libertarian governor...ever?

Excelsior!

It would be way better to just get behind the Republican Liberty folks and endorse Tom Tancredo for president, but the Libertarians will never be able to bring themselves to endorse a candidate who might have a real chance.

Dave

The national election is the biggest single "advertising" event for a political party. Lots of people paying attention, free exposure on C-SPAN, many radio & periodical interviews, much talk on the internet.

So running an attractive, attention-getting national candidate creates much awareness, which benefit trickles down to candidate running for smaller offices.

no Mr Nalle..most of them have to strong a sense of Principle to sell out to the Foe

and Thomas, i understand your point..but mine is that you folks are farting in the wind until you win some of those local elections..

i know it feels good and gives yas the warm and fuzzies to run a Presidential candidate...but you folks got less votes than Ralph Nader last two times for heavens sake

start at the beginning...pay the dues and sing the blues, then mebbe you have a chance at the gold ring..

just call me Cassandra...they never listen..

Excelsior!

>>no Mr Nalle..most of them have to strong a sense of Principle to sell out to the Foe<<

I'm pretty sure that the RLC whose basic principles are identical with the LP isn't the 'foe'. They're just realistic Libertarians who like the idea of actually getting people elected to office and implementing some real change.

I know after 20 years with the LP I got pretty damned tired of wasting my time but having pure principles. I'm willing to make a couple of compromises if it actually gets something done.

Dave

and those "couple of compromises" extend to bowing to the will of the fundamentalists that are running the Party..

being politically aligned with the big government GOP that has gone from surplus to record defecits NOT counting the "war on terror" costs...or maybe the progenitors of Terri's Law..

and on and on...

the "Liberty Wing" is just a self delusional as the "Log Cabin" wing..

both sell out their own Interests just to be on the winning team...

sad, really...

Excelsior!

"It would be way better to just get behind the Republican Liberty folks and endorse Tom Tancredo for president, but the Libertarians will never be able to bring themselves to endorse a candidate who might have a real chance."

Heh.

I wouldn't just vote for Tancredo. I'd donate $ to his campaign, I'd volunteer my time for his campaign, I'd become a wild-eyed, proselytizing True Believer for that guy...

But you're right. The LP would never accept a guy who could actually, you know, win. They prefer dogma over practicality all the time...

The RLC and the Log Cabin folks and the moderate Republicans have been here longer than the Neocons and we'll be here after they flame out. Unlike them we CAN work together. There's nothing in the RLC philosophy which doesn't work well with the Log Cabin agenda, and the moderates are much more willing to work with Liberty Republicans than with Neocons. Delay and his pals have enough rope to hang themselves now while it's not a critical election period. We'll see how things shape up in '08.

Dave

'08 is one thing...'06 will show quite a lot more about the "soul" of the GOP

and you know i'll be "watching"

Excelsior!

One of the problems for '06, Gonzo, is that if the Democrats keep offering up more and more extreme candidates - as they seem bent on doing - they just justify the rise of extremist candidates on the right.

When the choices are between two extremes people go to the one which is less unacceptable, and that's often a religiously right republican, even if that's not what those people really want. They just hate their religious agenda less than the socialist agenda of the moveon.org canidates. And it all comes down to money. While the religiously right Republicans have some very stupid ideas, they're less likely to impoverish the nation and destroy individual wealth than extreme socialists are, and when it comes down to making a hard choice it's all about the voters pocketbooks.

Dave

once again, Mr Nalle..we will just have to disagree..

first i see no signs of this "socialist agenda" that you speak of..but you just keep on hammering away at it...it seems to justify your jumping ship to the GOP, so whatever works for you

i still find no real evidence to support your claim that the Dem leadership is so hell bent on any kind of "socialist agenda"...if you are privy to the inner workings and planned policies, please share...many are interested..

until then..i will stick with the Idea that there are many moderate candidates from BOTH parties out there..comprising the majority by far of our elected Officials..

the BIG problem here is that the GOP is being run by the extremest faction, and that THEY are in charge of House, Senate and Executive right now...even you seem to concede that fact..

stipulating that as a Postulate, it would seem that the moderates within the GOP are powerless to stop the extreme Agenda of their Leadership...and so..casting oneself in Opposition would be the only sane response for ANY moderate voter in '06

how sane or "conservative" is it to slash Medicare for the poorest of our population by 14 billion dollars(possibly only 10 by the time it comes out of committee)in the current budget...but still putting in over a hundred billion in even more tax cuts..

oh yeah..that is fiscally responsible when we are running record Defecits, WITHOUT even counting the costs for the Conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan...

let's look at some more GOP accomplishments this term...

"bankruptcy reform"...take away the ability of the middle class to shield themselves when something goes wrong..so the credit card companies can get their due...but let the government bail out pension funds ( that's you and me paying for those airline bankruptcies folks), and still allow the loop holes that enable high income folks to shield their homes and assets after their bankruptcies..( check Ken Lay and others..still got their 10 million dollar homes after bankruptcy, but make under $50k and you will be lucky to keep yours under the current law)

Class Action "reform"....another Gift to big business...now folks can't take unified action to stop egregious offenses and blatant disregard for public safety by filing suit in their own States..( so much for "state's rights" form the so called "conservatives")

and on and on...anyone that keeps an eye out on the real deal behind the headlines can see it...Medicare "reform" that provides a windfall for the drug companies and shields them from lawsuits at the same time..without the government ever having the ABILITY to negotiate prices....

you get the idea..

so instead of the moderates within the GOP standing up against the worst of this and trying to work on behalf of the well being of their constituents, folks like you, Mr Nalle , will instead distract and attempt to scare people about some nebulous, unfounded "socialist agenda" by the Opposition rather than deal with the actuality of what is being done with the complicity of the "moderates" within the GOP

i leave it to you, gentle Readers, to decide these things..don't take my Word for it all..don't take ANYBODY's word for it..do your own homework..look it up..decide for yourself..

then pull that level in '06 and help shape the fate of our Nation..

'nuff said?

Excelsior!

Sun Tzu & Machiavelli..!!!!!

As Gonzo states ----
Reality IS ---
Politics IS a "dirty endeavor" :
to actually Win and take office today requires expediting strategies that ARE based upon The Art of War and The Prince.
As a Political Science/Law school graduate I can assure you this IS the way the American political system operates.

To get in there and practice ethics and integrity and honesty will result in a losing campaign. As pointed out above here---some "compromise" and STRATEGY taken from Sun Tzu and Machiavelli MUST be used if one wants to actually WIN in American politics.

You can be naive and fantasize about how "honesty" is the best policy and "the truth shall prevail" --- but you will never WIN based upon those principles.

Gonzo, the issues you bring up are either trivial or entirely meaningless to most of the public. No one cares about tort reform or bankruptcy reform. They don't expect to go bankrupt or have to sue a big corporation. What they DO expect is to have to pay taxes every year. And if the Republicans lower taxes that wins them half the battle, because we all know the Democrats would never do it.

Most voters have a very simple mindset. They vote for whoever helps them the most. The social agenda of the religious right only really upsets a tiny majority of the population. It may be unappealing to many more, but it's not personally offensive to them. A straight person who supports gay marriage isn't personally impacted by government policy in that area, but he is personally impacted by taxes. If his choice is between supporting a candidate who will cut his taxes and one who will let his neighbor marry a man, he'll reluctantly go with the one who lowers taxes and express his regret and sympathy to his neighbor.

I know you don't understand that the Democratic party has been completely subverted by the ultra left, but the longer it stays out of power the worse it's going to get. Failure dooms the mainstream Democrats and gives the extremists a justification for taking over. Just go and READ the moveon.org website. They're the people who are going to be running the Democratic party by 2008, and at that point it's not going to be a mainstream party by any definition any more.

>>so instead of the moderates within the GOP standing up against the worst of this and trying to work on behalf of the well being of their constituents<<

Which they are actively doing every day

>>, folks like you, Mr Nalle , will instead distract and attempt to scare people about some nebulous, unfounded "socialist agenda" by the Opposition rather than deal with the actuality of what is being done with the complicity of the "moderates" within the GOP<<

It's hardly nebulous and unfounded. It's very specific, and absolutely clear what's going on. Only wishful thinking keeps you from seeing it.

>>i leave it to you, gentle Readers, to decide these things..don't take my Word for it all..don't take ANYBODY's word for it..do your own homework..look it up..decide for yourself..<<

I'm all for that too. Articles like the one that started this thread are designed to help people see the truth so that they can make an informed decision.

>>then pull that level in '06 and help shape the fate of our Nation..<<

And that will be in the Spring of '06 when you vote in the Republican primary.

Dave

again..i must disagree, and state for the Record..i believe the "wishful thinking" is on the part of moderate GOP officials that believe this is "all for the best"

you are accurate in that Time will tell..

to my Observations it seems that the current Regime's Agenda is all about paying their buddies in Big Business back for their contributions, and screwing the dwindling Middle Class that comprises the majority of the Population..

but you deem this "trivial"

enjoy your war profits from Haliburton, it is easily apparent which side you fall on

your mileage may vary...

Excelsior!

>>to my Observations it seems that the current Regime's Agenda is all about paying their buddies in Big Business back for their contributions, and screwing the dwindling Middle Class that comprises the majority of the Population..<<

The logical flaw here is that the Middle Class realizes that policies which help big business help them as well, especially reductions in taxes and regulation. Every small business wants to grow bigger and every middle class worker wants to move up economically. The policies of this administration encourage that and make advancement attractive, and even if a person is not yet in a position to enjoy all the advantages, if he sees how he could be there in a year or two then he's going to keep supporting the administration.

>>but you deem this "trivial"<<

No, I deem what you said wrong, not trivial. What's trivial is things like tort reform and bankruptcy law which people only care about in theory but not in practice.

>>enjoy your war profits from Haliburton, it is easily apparent which side you fall on<<

The smart side? Anyone who had money to invest at the start of the war and didn't put it into Halliburton was just hurting themselves. I have no personal affection for the company, but if we're going to have a war, I damned well want to be on the profitable side of it - and the one group that ALWAYS wins in a war are the defense contractors, no matter how the war comes out.

Dave

"I'm pretty sure that the RLC whose basic principles are identical with the LP isn't the 'foe'. They're just realistic Libertarians who like the idea of actually getting people elected to office and implementing some real change."

You mean like Ron Paul? What has he accomplished as a Republican aside from gaining a reputation as "Dr. No". I'd rather be with a 3rd party that has little chance, than ride the coattails of a team just because they can win. If my agenda isn't heard what's the point? Puleasse.

And yeah, Nader beat us in votes last 2 elections. So what? We've had practically no media attention while he's garnered free media attention so they could pawn him off as a potential spoiler. But the Greens are done, just like the Reform Party. Give the Libertarians more media coverage so that the party's name is at least mainstream and this country will never look back.

Come on, you pansy's are conciously blocking us out of the debates? And in the next breather your telling us to start low? Give me a break. We're there, we just need to be heard.

http://www.opendebates.org

The LP has had 34 years to get some attention and it's been doing worse and worse each year since it peaked in 1980. I was with it all that time and there comes a point where if you want to get something done you have to embrace reality.

Ron Paul may be a one-trick pony, but there are other liberty Republicans who hold public office who are much more versatile and are actually listened to in the GOP, and there will be more and more.

And I'm all for open debates, btw. Most Republicans of all stripes are. Open debates hurt the Democrats far more than the GOP.

You know, when the Neocons brought a small number of votes into the Republican party they got a voice out of proportion to their actual numbers. If we could bring all the Libertarians into the party we'd probably have the same impact to swing the GOP back to its original values.

Dave

I don't see much difference in the economic policies of the GOP and Dems. By 1920s standards, both parties are socialist.

And tax cuts alongside massive spending increases are meaningless, as those spending increses will have to be paid for in the future. Today's borrowing will be repaid by tomorrow's tax increases.

I don't think the religious right is now, or ever will be, all that powerful. They make a lot of noise, and get a lot of promises in return, but abortion remains legal and prevelant, gay marriage is slowed but inching forward, stem cell research is slowed but inching forward. The religious right has lost, and continues to lose even as it elects candidates who promise support. The neocon militarists and corporate globalists contemn the religious right, whatever bones they may toss them in public.

Nor will the wealthy Dem establishment toss more than a few bones to Moveon.org.

Thus, the Dems and GOP are pretty much identical in deed, if not in noise, so why not vote for a third party?

>> and still allow the loop holes that enable high income folks to shield their homes and assets after their bankruptcies..( check Ken Lay and others..still got their 10 million dollar homes after bankruptcy, but make under $50k and you will be lucky to keep yours under the current law)<<

I've heard this, but don't understand it. I've not read the bankruptcy law, but how is it that rich folks' houses are exempt, but not poorer folks houses?

>>I've heard this, but don't understand it. I've not read the bankruptcy law, but how is it that rich folks' houses are exempt, but not poorer folks houses?<<

They're not. This is just the left's spin on the issue. and in fact it's just about exactly the opposite of the truth. What the bill does is cap the homestead exemption at $125,000 if you bought your home within the 3 years before going bankrupt. This gets around the state law in states like Florida and Texas which have unlimited protection for homes if you go bankrupt. So what the new bill does is make some rich people liable to lose their houses who were completely protected before. For info on the bill check out http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24940-2005Mar10.html

Dave

Don't push Tancredo. The man's big issue is blaming Mexicans. Sounds like Hitler on Jews.