Do you want someone talking about liberty on the upcoming presidential debates or you prefer that the debate is only about McCain and Obama’s big goverment policies? The Liberty message is more important than Barr’s questionable past and voting record.

In 2005, Republicans participated with Democrats and radical feminists to pass a new law called the International Marriage Broker Regulation Act of 2005. Under this law, it is a criminal offense for an American man to communicate with a woman, who happens to live outside of the United States, through a personals ad column without first submitting to a criminal background check, disclosing a list of personal background information and having the report sent to her, in her language, for her signed consent before he is allowed to send her an email. In other words, you have to be “frisked and finger printed” before you can say hi to someone through a personals ad column! Failure to do this will result in the out-of-box rejection of your fiance visa or marriage visa application should you ever consider marriage.

This is an outrage and a violation of my Constitutional Right of free speech, free association, due process and privacy rights. What business is it of government to monitor and police the personals ads? Government in a free society has no right to interfere with how people live their social lives.

REPUBLICANS and DEMOCRATS together worked to sneak this law into the Violence Against Women’s Act (VAWA), at the midnight hour before Christmas break without any witness testimony or statistical evidence.

This is why I feel betrayed and abandoned by my party. We need a leader who believes in freedom and civil liberties. We need someone who will STAND UP for someone’s right to freely communicate, associate and be left alone to seek their own dreams and happiness. When I find this person, I will once again feel inspired to press the lever under their name at the ballot box.

Yes, I can. That has always been the libertarian position. There is no such thing as a libertarian who believes in consensual “crimes” (an absurd concept).

“What are you suggesting, that a voter who says he is for the legalization of all drugs except heroin should be turned away from the LP?”

A voter? No. A presidential candidate? Yes.

“Second, what Hillary said is something I am pretty sure Bob Barr would have zero problem with.”

Then why the hell won’t he say anything like it? Even if he wants to keep the hard drugs illegal (emowering every street gang and criminal thug enterprise in the country), he could at least talk about drastically reducing the penalties to something like a small fine.

It is barbaric, cruel, inhumane, and downright sick to lock up non-violent drug offendors in cages, like animals, for their lives. Does Barr have any idea just how sick and depraved that is? I will never vote for anyone who supports that (I am a former conservative, btw).

“And, we have the evidence of the LP’s abysmal record at winning elections and desultory performances in Presidential elections to prove this fact beyond a reasonable doubt.”

I disagree with you that that’s the only reason the LP doesn’t do well in elections.

No third party wins any elections because
1) The system has been rigged by the two major parties
2) Most people think they’re throwing their vote away, and that third parties are just conservative/liberal alter egos of the two major parties.
3) They have way less money (because they’re less corrupt)

“However, the Party’s job is to win elections, and if that means compromising principle, then you do it, and you do without hesitation.”

Hahaha, you seriously think Barr is going to come anywhere close to win the election? He will definitely do a little better than previous LP candidates (because of name recognition and a bunch of disgruntled conservatives who won’t care about libertarianism after the election), but that’s it.

I am not sure if I’ve ever once seen Barr use the word “libertarianism” in a single one of his media appearances (although he seems to use “conservative” a lot). I could be wrong, but he seems to care less about the philosophy or explaining it to voters.

“However, the Party’s job is to win elections, and if that means compromising principle, then you do it, and you do without hesitation. If this sort of compromise makes you nauseated, the politics is not for you.”

I actually agree to some extent, and that’s why I supported Ron Paul, even though he took some unlibertarian positions. I had disagreements with him, but no deal breakers. Barr is another story..

First of all, you cannot say that ALL libertarians support the total legalization of all drugs. That sort of all-or-nothing statement is precisely the problem with the Purists. What are you suggesting, that a voter who says he is for the legalization of all drugs except heroin should be turned away from the LP?

Second, what Hillary said is something I am pretty sure Bob Barr would have zero problem with. I know I agree with it wholeheartedly. On the other hand, you can be sure that Hillary, as a brilliant politician, would never advocate something so drastic as the immediate release of all non-violent drug offenders.

Unfortunately, you are way off on your analysis that, FROM THE AVERAGE VOTER’S PERSPECTIVE , advocating for the immediate release of all non-violent drug offenders, or even advocating their transfer out of prison and into diversion programs is just “slightly” beyond that of Hillary Clinton. Either of those positions would be political suicide, and far too drastic a change for the average voter to accept. The only thing the typical voter would take out of that is that Libertarians want to release drug-dealing criminals, or put them up in “nice” treatment facilities. Look at what the republicans did with Willie Horton! The state says they are criminals. To the typical American, that means they are.

Thus, it is most assuredly NOT the reformers who are spineless wimps (for lack of a better phrase), it is the American voter who is. The difference between the Reformers and the Purists is the Reformers understand this. They understand the American people are NEVER going to be ready for the sort of radical changes we would all love to implement. And, we have the evidence of the LP’s abysmal record at winning elections and desultory performances in Presidential elections to prove this fact beyond a reasonable doubt. The Reformers simply suggest we look at the evidence and deal with the American voter as they are, not as we would like them to be.

And finally, the entire point of a libertarian campaign is NOT to persuade the American electorate. Lobbying firms, think tanks, professors, artists; they are the persuaders. The Libertarian Party exists to move pubic policy in a libertarian direction by winning elections, PERIOD. To do what is necessary (within the bounds of the law), to compromise when necessary, to WIN elections. That’s all that matters. There is no other reason for the party’s existence. If all that matter was to persuade the American electorate of the virtues of libertarianism, the party would be unnecessary. We could do it with said think tanks and lobbying firms. However, the Party’s job is to win elections, and if that means compromising principle, then you do it, and you do without hesitation. If this sort of compromise makes you nauseated, the politics is not for you.

The entire point of a libertarian campaign is to persuade the American electorate that these are good ideas, not to match current public opinion.

All libertarians support total legalization of all drugs, not “many.”

“HOWEVER, the American electorate is not ready to accept anything close to that position.”

They’re about as ready as they’re ever going to be. But lets set that aside for a second. Would it be too “radical” to at least end incarceration for drug offendors, making drug use a slap-on-the-wrist offense?

If that’s “radical,” then that makes Hillary Clinton a “radical.”

We need diversion, like drug courts. Non-violent offenders should not be serving hard time in our prisons. They need to be diverted from our prison system.
-Hillary at the 2007 Democratic Primary Debate

You’re telling me that it’s would be crazy, loony, radical, and extreme for Barr to take a stance that would only go slightly beyond that of Hillary Clinton, a moderate-as-hell Dem?

The reformers are such spineless wimps it’s just unbelievable.

Perhaps you are right that pot-smoker Kubby would not be a problem at the V.P. spot, especially with Barr at the top. Then again, I must say that I was pleasantly surprised by Root’s delivery of the liberty message. I don’t know if Kubby could have done any better.

And you are absolutely right about wondering if Barr’s nomination will sacrifice too much of the Libertarian base. That is a question that can only be answered this November. We are taking a risk, there is no doubt about that. And I am down with any “Purist” who acknowledges that and says, “lets give moderation a try and see what happens.”

What is infuriating is the purist who fails to see that purity has not worked in the past, refuses to allow the moderate strategy a chance, and says they will not support a moderate nominee. We’ve already tried it their way, and it hasn’t worked.

The thing to watch is the final returns. Will it actually be worth it to sacrifice the support of a sizable portion of the libertarian party? Some in the libertarian caucus will vote for Barr because it is good for the party to maintain ballot access in the event that our next candidate is a libertarian. I’m going to do that. I’ll hold my nose and vote for Barr so that our 2012 candidate will have ballot access.

On the other hand, some in the libertarian caucus will only vote for libertarians, and therefore won’t vote for Barr at all. He’s only polling at 43% among libertarians in the latest Zogby poll. He will need to actualize the potential to draw in new people, a sufficiently large crowd of new candidates to make it worth it to alienate the base.

You know, I was initially put off by the huckster persona of Root, but, I suggest you listen to a couple of his radio interviews. I think I listened to them over at the Liberty Maven website. Not only was I surprised, I was downright shocked at how well he delivered the message of liberty.

Secondly, Kubby, while a nice guy and someone who came across well on t.v. at the convention, would have been a horrible choice for VP. The LP already has the image of a party of pot-smokers. You don’t want to go and confirm that image by nominating a pot-smoker for VP. This is not to say that I am anything but in awe of the fight Mr. Kubby has engaged in pursuant to the rights of medical marijuana patients. It is just to say that this is politics, and image and first impressions are important. Were we to nominate Kubby, it would have been likely that the only thing the average voter would have taken from the Libertarian Party this election cycle is, “there go those pot smokers again.”

Unfair? Surely? The way the game of politics is played? Absolutely? If there are party members who would, or are going to leave the party because of a Barr/Root ticket, then a triage decision must be made that we will gain more voters than we lose, and we must tell those that leave that they are welcome to come back home at any time, but we as a party are now dedicated to winning elections.

That Dondro thinks Barr/WAR is the best ticket ever should be a caution to everyone, since Dondero’s stated mission is to destroy the LP.

And no, Dondero, pro-war is not the correct position unless you despise libertarian principles. But then, you are Dondero, so of course you do.

While disinter is lost in world where the only objective reality is his own opinions, I believe I can get straight answers out of you. Of course, when I was referring to what Barr would raise relative to Ruwart, I threw out a number like “twenty times” the amount in an off-the-cuff manner. My point was that Barr, during this election cycle, is going to raise significantly more than Ruwart ever would, and gain significantly more media appearances. Can you deny this? I don’t think any right-thinking Libertarian ever could. If you want to argue that holding to a pure libertarian position is more important, that what the candidate raises is irrelevant, that is one thing, but don’t argue that Ruwart is in the same political “league” as Barr. Barr has won elections, Ruwart has not.

Secondly, you say that getting media appearances to espouse the racist Jim Crow states’ rights doctrine is not positive for the Libertarian Party. Well, I would argue to you that that all depends on how the states’ rights doctrine is used. If it is used to argue that separate public schools are okay, then I would agree with you. If, however, it is used to argue that states should be allowed to legalize medical marijuana or gay marriage, then it is clearly A STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION, even if it is not where we as Libertarians would like society to be.

And that is the problem with the Purist wing of this party: they are either unable, or unwilling, to make the sort of difficult, sometime gut-wrenching decisions that are necessary on the political playing field. Like many Libertarians, I would prefer that drugs were totally legalized. HOWEVER, the American electorate is not ready to accept anything close to that position. So, we have to take what we can get (legalized medical marijuana, to be decided at the state level), and hope that it is a step in the right direction. This is true even if every fiber of your being tells you that the right of self-ownership dictates you should be able to ingest any drug without government interference.

If a Libertarian finds that sort of compromise nauseating, then that is probably a sign that politics is not the proper arena for that person. They can organize a think tank advocating total drug legalization, set up a lobbying firm, or write a book or letters to the editor. BUT, in politics, you MUST be able to compromise. It is an absolute job requirement, and the one thing the Libertarian Party has failed miserably at. The only thing that matters is that we are compromising in the right direction: towards Liberty.

1) Which Libertarian nominee for President was going to win? Child Porn Queen Mary Ruwart? Pot smoker Steve Kubby? Which one?

2) You want to make a bet Barr will end up raising more than Badnarik? You pick the stakes, I don’t care. It will be the easiest money I ever make. The only idiot who would take Badnarik in that bet is someone like yourself, a small-minded individual who is far more considered with staying in control of a pointless debating club rather than actually winning elections. Which is actually the point of having a political party now, isn’t it?