How choosing a candidate who people outside the LP will see in order to build the party? Unless the presidential candidate has shown that he or she can get on TV (more than once every few weeks), it doesn’t matter who it is. That person will be invisible.

Ross Perot is clearly supporting Barr behind the scenes, with Russ Verney managing Barr’s campaign.

Putting Bob Barr and Mike Gravel together gives two well known, and even widely respected personalities to the ticket.

It means more media coverage, and awareness that there is actually someone other than just brand X & Y out there.

The other advantage: with Gravel on the ticket there is the potential of fusion with the Green Party at that convention in July.

Look every race of a Green, Libertarian, or Constitution Party candidate needs a celebrity. And there are enough of them unemployed to have running and promoting positive political alternatives.

One time candidates are fine. The real way to build a local celebrity is for a serious Green, or third party candidate to run every year for several years.

We all know how the media largely ignores third party candidates. But even that disadvantage can be turned into a positive, if the candidate remains focus and runs year after year.

The Green Party’s Howie Hawkins has done this in New York. The Independent Greens of Virginia have Gail”for Rail”Parker www.GailParker.us.
Gail “for Rail” ran for House of Delegates in 2005
U.S. Senate in 2006, Chair County Board of Supervisors 2007, and now 2008 U.S. Senate.

This going over the heads of the media directly to the people, and building a friendship, a relationship, and trust over years. That is how third parties must build their own “celebrities”.

Then again, people managed to elect GWB- TWICE.

I am not entirely certain that he actually won either time…

Then again, people managed to elect GWB- TWICE. So the hell if I know.

I am not a fan of Obama, but I must admit I probably prefer him (slightly) to McCain ( in a lesser of 2 evils gun to the head type scenario). Nothing surprises me, but the number of racist idiots is a little eye-opening at times. I don’t understand how ( supposedly) such a high % of Dems would vote for McCain based almost entirely on race. But I could see it happening, especially as “bi-partisan” as McCain is.

Not to be too much of an “elitist” but the #1 reason I don’t think Libertarians will ever have electoral success is intelligence/reasoning of the typical “voter.” When such a large % of people vote on things like flag pins, names, and fear-mongering..well, you know.

1-“Ralph Nader’s impact on the Florida vote in 2000 is still hotly discussed—but I haven’t heard anyone claim that it boosted the Green Party into enduring prominence.”

Ralph Nader got 2.8 million votes in total. His acceptance speech to the Green Party (2+ hours I believe) spent a of of time trying to reconcile his positions with the Greens. Yes he has some similarities, but the Green PArty saw “stars” with Nader, just as some Libertarians are seeing “stars” with Barr. The long term effect of Nader’s 2.8 million votes (remember that he has been a household name for 40 years!) is . . . what . . . virtually nothing. He doesn’t even run as a Green anymore. IS this a somewhat similar precursor if the LP nominates Barr (without the 2.8 million votes)?

2-Mr. Nolan points out, in finishing the point above, “Thus, IMHO, choosing a candidate in the hope that he (or she) will temporarily boost a party’s vote totals is chasing a chimera. Party-building begins at the grass roots, and involves convincing people that your party’s principles and policies are sound. A “celebrity” candidate may produce a short-term “sugar rush,” but little in the way of long-term nutrition.”

Exactly. Barr, W.A.R. and any other supposed “celebrity”, without a principled, believable, fully libertarian platform will NOT give the LP any long-term notoriety, regardless of how many votes is received (and it ain’t going to be anywhere 2.8 million!)

I am an LP county chair. . . at the grass roots level. I am in the process of rebuilding it, in the hopes of affecting local politics. THIS is where the party building starts, and must be supported by “Libertarian” candidates on up the ticket, to the presidential nominee. If I was running for a state house seat, I could NOT run a Libertarian campaign, in contrast to Barr’s “medical marijuana” stance. Why, because the War on Drugs is waged on the street of every locality in America, not the Capitol or the White House. The War on Drugs with all the violence and repercussions is very real across the cities and towns of America. I want to end this violence. Barr, as the LP nominee would be a counterproductive impact on such a campaign.

From the local party and candidate perspective, Barr would be very bad for the LP.

I’m willing to stake my reputation on it (not that I have much of one since I’m fairly new to this site). McCain will lose unless there is another 9/11 or some outrageous Democrat nominee scandal breaks loose.

Even with all of those surveys the Republicans are sending out, most of the grassroots are not donating.

While campaigning for Ron Paul, the one thing that got my attention more than any other was the large number of voters who said that they vowed they would never vote Republican again. There was no convincing them otherwise.

You are correct in saying that McCain is in the running (especially with Republican controlled diebold machines), but I get the feeling you and Mr. Nolan don’t comprehend the depth of animosity towards McCain.

You write:

“First of all, if the Republicans have unlimited money, why are they sending me surveys every week asking for money?”

Well, they don’t have “unlimited” money … but how do you think they got the money they have? By sending you, and millions of others, surveys every week asking for money, of course.

“Does anyone know how much money John McCain has raised compared with Obama?”

As of the latest FEC reports (April monthlies), McCain’s principal committee had raised about $82 million, $15.5 million of it in March, and had about $11.5 million cash on hand. Obama’s principal committee had raised $240 million, $48 million of it in March, and had about $51 million cash on hand.

That’s a big disparity, but it leaves out soft money and party coordinated expenditures, and it may not be indicative of how much either one WILL raise or dispose of in the coming months. These gaps can close fast under the right circumstances.

Because McCain became the GOP nominee-apparent early, he has more time to put HIS party back together than Obama or Hillary will have to heal their own party. The Dem contest may very well come down to a floor fight at their national convention over seating the Florida and Michigan delegations and to last-minute strongarming of superdelegates. To put it a different way, Obama may end up spending $50-$100 million more dollars winning the Dem nomination with legal maneuvering, ad campaigns to get the grassroots to lean on their superdelegates and on the DNC credentials committee, etc.

While McCain has less money at the moment, he’s free to spend that money courting the general electorate rather than his party’s primary voters. And once the Dems have their nominee, the RNC will make more big money pushes to use on demonizing that nominee.

I’m not saying that McCain WILL win. I don’t know that he will any more than you know that he won’t. But he’s not a longshot. He’s definitely in the running.

First of all, if the Republicans have unlimited money, why are they sending me surveys every week asking for money? Does anyone know how much money John McCain has raised compared with Obama?

Also, the Republicans are demoralized about McCain. It’s going to be much easier to stay home than to go to the polls to vote for him. The pundits may have closed ranks but the grassroots have not.

Some rank-and-file Republicans say it will be better if the Democratic nominee wins so that the Republican Party can unify to fight against socialized medicine, amnesty for illegals, etc. If McCain wins the Republicans in Congress will go along with all of his bad ideas since he will be the “leader of their party.”

Lastly, the Democrat candidates have received more votes in the primaries than the Republican candidates have. “Republican” has become a dirty word in the mind of the average voter.

Point taken on Bob, but we’re friends and I prefer to engage, rather than ignore, him.

But, to another of your comments:

I think Mr. Nolan’s analysis is spot on. I would only suggest that a “celebrity” nominee may do more than just produce inflated vote totals. If new supporters are attracted to the LP then it is up to the LP to convert them to libertarians. I believe a number of current party stalwarts were attracted to the party as a result of Ron Paul’s 1988 race. I understand what Mr. Nolan is saying but I think he may be seriously discounting the party’s ability to open some minds once they are in the tent.

This is perceptive in more than one way, but also raises a question worth discussion.

Yes, a “celebrity” nominee may do more than attract votes; he or she may attract new party members; and hopefully those new members, if they are “less libertarian” when they come in the door, will grow “more libertarian” over time.

However: Would you agree that it might not be the best idea to intentionally court a pool of members whom you expect to NOT become “more libertarian” once in the party no matter how persuasive you are, and whom you have good reason to fear might actually swamp the party numbers-wise and remake it in their own image?

That’s a risk that deserves to be weighed.

In point of fact, you use the example of Ron Paul, and I think it’s reasonable to believe that his 1988 campaign may have been the turning point at which the LP moved deeply enough into the GOP’s shadow to halt any momentum it might have, precisely BECAUSE any (I don’t think there were many—membership was still only at 11,000 as of 1994 and I don’t recally a huge “Paul spike” before that) new members attracted by Paul came to the LP regarding it as a “conservative” party and pulled it to the “right.”

Now, let’s talk about Bob Barr. Here’s what he said on the radio the other day:

Republicans ought to embrace my effort, because we’re going to be pulling people out to vote who otherwise wouldn’t be voting and some of them might vote for Republican candidates on the down-ballot.

That’s not exactly a “come on over to the LP” approach in the first place, and to the extent that it might attract new members, it seems to me that those new members are likely to be “true conservatives” who dislike McCain and are looking for … another Republican Party.

I have big problems with that.

One of them is that it would be dishonest of us to affirm the notion that we are “another Republican Party,” or a “conservative” party, in welcoming those members. We claim to be exactly the opposite: “a libertarian political entity separate and distinct from all other political parties or movements.” So if Barr sends a pile of new members our way on the line he’s taking right now, we either have to lie to those new members … or tell them at the door “we don’t agree with our presidential candidate on this.”

Another is that if we get a pile of “true conservatives” looking for “another Republican Party,” then, well, we’re small enough that if we aren’t quick and persuasive in “converting” them, they might easily just simply swamp the party and remake it TO BE a “true conservative new Republican Party,” persuasion and “internal education” (geez, that phrase creeps me out) notwithstanding.

That risk always exists, regardless of who our presidential candidate is and what he or she says … but any increase in that risk should be carefully weighed against the alleged benefits.