S.R.,
Good call…may help Root…or Barr (if he runs)...or better yet… ROOT/BARR ‘08

I have my doubts about many of the other candidates. If the LP nominates a warmonger or a Christian Nationalist (somebody who denies the Theory of Evolution, the existence of the Wall of Separation between Church and State, or the fact that America wasn’t founded as a Christian Nation), I’d probably vote for Ralph Nader as socialism is the lesser evil.

How about Cosby-Foxworthy ‘08???

Yes. All of those things make you NOT Presidential. Why do you think those things are going to be a point in your favor when voters have traditionally not voted for someone with those personal experiences?

You also wrote: “Well, if you read The Libertarian Vote & conclude that a reliable 13% of the vote is at least possibly reachable to the LP, then you are halfway there”

Halfway where, to the Moon? 13% of the vote is not reliably Libertarian. Go and do some real research on past Presidential races. The Libertarian candidate can reliable get about 400,000 votes.

It’s March already. You don’t have 40 supporters yet. How are you going to get 40 million supporters by November?

If you think you have a magic strategy, then go work on it for the next four years and show us. For example, the LP certainly needs to reach out to left-libertarians. If we had Karl Hess here, he would be the ideal person with the clout and contacts to try it out. But what clout and contacts does Mr. Milnes have right now? Go develop such and come back in 2012 and convince us. Mr. Jackson – real nice guy, but the presidential nod isn’t going to happen. Same with Mr. Burns. Go down the list; you can check them off.

Two things:

“I’ve had a few beers with Mr. Nolan over the years and, if I recall correctly, he always put ‘winning elections’ at the bottom of his reasons for starting the Libertarian Party.”

That’s true as far as it goes … but it’s not entirely relevant.

Nolan founded the party—more specifically, he put out the word that he thought the party should be formed, and brought together the group to form it—and I’d be the last one to say that the founder of a party shouldn’t be listened to respectfully when commenting on that party’s purpose, actions, etc. ...

... but organizations take on a life of their own, too. They grow. My recollection (from an article, or perhaps from Doherty’s book) is that the LP had less than 100 members when it nominated John Hospers in 1972, and it was already evolving and changing at that point. It has continued to evolve and change since.

I don’t necessarily like all of those evolutions, changes and dispositions (in particular, I don’t particularly like either of the twin ideas that we should be about nothing but winning elections or that we shouldn’t be about winning elections at all), but thousands of LP members, and some hundreds of thousands (presidential) or millions (voting for at least one LP candidate in a cycle) of LP voters, are going to make up their own damn minds about what the party’s purpose is, what the party’s purpose should be, etc. It may be possible to persuade them to a particular purpose … but I doubt that “David Nolan says” is going to magically united the masses.

“I think it is time for at least 3/4 of the candidates in this race to wave goodbye.”

On the one hand, I think you’ve got the proportion about right: About 3/4 of the candidates not only have no chance of getting nominated, but have no chance of collecting enough support at the convention to get on the stage and have their say. They’re wasting their time.

On the other hand, that doesn’t really mean they need to wave goodbye. It’s not like they’re major distractions. Most of us hardly notice them except to make fun of them anyway. If they feel better about themselves by claiming the title “presidential candidate,” they’re neither picking our pockets nor breaking our legs.

Pat Paulsen ran for president six times and the Republic didn’t fall. Then again, a bunch of voters apparently mistook another candidate of similar name and physical appearance for Paulsen Resurrected this year and sort of upset the LP’s applecart, so maybe you have a point after all.

So, the candidate can’t just be knowledgeable about core libertarian principles without being able to also connect with the hopes and fears of the voters. And the candidate must inspire enthusiasm among the great bulk of Libertarians who will finance the campaign and run the grassroots electioneering. If the convention “settles” after several ballots, then a good amount of the Party may be dispirited and do little or nothing.

I think it is time for at least 3/4 of the candidates in this race to wave goodbye. They don’t have any compelling different vision for the Party that has gained traction(or the means to achieve it, if they do). They aren’t going to win, they are going to split the Party which needs to be united coming out of Denver, and they are distracting a lot of people from
focusing on the objective before us.

1) How does your “personal experience with psychiatry” qualify you to be President?
2) How does your “personal experiences the criminal justice system” qualify you to be President?
3) How does your “personal experience with poverty & homelessness” qualify you to be President.
4) What is the largest budget you have ever been responsible with?
5) What is the largest number of employees that you have directly managed?

I am very concerned about your ability to make rational decisions when you have repeatedly claimed that uniting the Libertarians with the Greens will add up to 40,000,000 votes. I have ran those numbers, and even by including the Constitution Party votes, I still get less than 1 million.

What about Jingozian? Sounds ok, smart, good background, is he a potential dark horse here? Someone everyone can stomach?

He’s definitely one of those who would take a share of the left libertarian vote. In many ways his Reset America group is a Libertarian/Green Party hybrid.

Wait, that’s a qualification for being president? Damnit, I’m gonna have to throw away my Tom Cruise 2012 signs.