IPR progress report: over 40,000 reader comments; new writers wanted

Yesterday, IPR passed 40,000 comments on nearly 3,000 posts since May 2008.

IPR still averages over a thousand unique visitors a day, and was up around three thousand back in November. The average visitor generates about three page views. We’ve had over 500,000 visitors and over 1.5 million page views.

I (paulie) posted most of the articles in the last few months. However, I am going to be headed out on the road for work and will not have reliable internet access. I would like to see the coverage I was providing at IPR continue.

Write contact.ipr@gmail.com if you are interested in writing here. IPR editor Trent Hill will have to approve you. You can also send news tips and story suggestions to the same address.

I am also looking for people to write at my other group blog, Next Free Voice. More about that in the comments.

If anyone would like to keep up with me while I am on the road, feel free to call me at 415.690.6352. I have unlimited minutes, and I make my own work schedule.

64 thoughts on “IPR progress report: over 40,000 reader comments; new writers wanted

  1. Stewart Flood

    We need to find Paul an inexpensive and lightweight laptop for when he’s on the road.

    I wonder if one of those OLPCs would be fast enough.

  2. paulie cannoli Post author

    Thanks, Stewart.

    Several problems with this.

    One, I am obsessive compulsive. If I have a computer while I am out on the road and supposed to be working, it is very easy for me to get wrapped up in the computer and not get any work done.

    It’s not like I have to punch a clock.

    Also, I already tend to bring way more stuff than I can carry comfortably. This happens invariably, and I’m not sure how. I start off being fairly compact. Then, without even noticing how it happens, I somehow accumulate more crap that I have to carry every time I switch motels.

    And, I leave stuff everywhere. My glasses, my phone, my backpack, my wallet…I lose stuff constantly. Usually, I find it, but not always. A computer would be a problem in this regard.

    Anyway, enough about my problems.

    Here, watch a video…

  3. Jim Davidson

    “Take a number, wait your fucking turn. We’re nationalised Citibank.” lol

    Consider financial giant and global multinational banking gangster outfit Citigroup. Their peak stock price was 28 December 2006 at $57 per share. The stock traded earlier this past week at $0.99 and closed at $1.02 per share on Thursday. Here’s a stock the taxpayers own in a big way, down 98.2% from its peak. The government sure knows how to pick ’em.

  4. George Phillies

    At the New Hampshire Liberty Forum, I am told — I missed the speech — David Nolan went on at great length in a speech about the bad positions the LNC has taken. He then announced the formation of a new political organization. The December 11 Group is an organization of political activists, not a debate club, that exists to proclaim liberty as possible, and to work with sympathetic people and groups. Politically, it will — Nolan personally indicated to me — be someplace between the radical caucus and the libertarian centrist Liberty for America. It “may” endorse political candidates.

    Some aspiration of restoring the Libertarian Party’s proper role was noted, but it sounded to me to be except in name a new political party founded by David Nolan.

    It apepared to me taht i

  5. Leymann Feldenstein

    George Phillies wrote: “The December 11 Group is an organization of political activists, not a debate club, that exists to proclaim liberty as possible, and to work with sympathetic people and groups. ”

    Sounds like a good idea. Political parties like the LP are useless. Better to have a pro-liberty anti-war advocacy group supporting independent candidates and others with a similar agenda than to subsidize a top-heavy over-bloated bureaucracy which does nothing more than argue over deck chair arrangements on the Titanic.

  6. Leymann Feldenstein

    “Take a number, wait your fucking turn. We’re nationalised Citibank.”

    That’s pretty much what the receptionist said to me some years ago when I tried to open an account at Citibank (it took me three hours).

    I got better service at the post office.

  7. Jim Davidson

    “Political parties like the LP are useless.”

    Then one would want a political party that was unlike the LP. There seem to be many from which to choose.

    George, sounds interesting. Sad that I couldn’t get up to NH this month. I’ll drop David a line.

  8. Jim Davidson

    By the way, did he say what December 11 represents? It was a little after the December LNC meeting when bigot Stewie Flood (who denies being a bigot) organised a pogrom against anti-war activist Angela Keaton for being anti-war, bisexual, and diligent.

  9. paulie cannoli Post author

    contact.ipr@gmail.com

    Specify if you are just submitting it for someone else to post or if you want to become an IPR blogger yourself. Right now we need new IPR bloggers, since I am about to go on the road and other people who already write here have other existing time commitments.

    Right now we are getting way more articles submitted than there are people available to post them here, so IPR new bloggers are really what we need most.

  10. Kimberly Wilder

    Sometimes I feel born to play the devil’s advocate. Though, sorry I just must say some points about this video:

    1. It is not kind, compassionate, nor pc to say “retard.” For people who are mentally handicapped, and also for their families, that word stings.

    And, truly, using phrases like that in this context is a way to make everyone ashamed that they might be stupid in a stigmatizing way. It is not funny. And, people who publish things – even videos – should start understanding this point.

    2. When they said the “FDIC” thing, it was so ironic. It underscores that banks always were propped up by a federal government program – FDIC insurance. So, if it is so horrible, why have the banks and citizens accepted the fact of federal deposit insurance all these years? Because, there is a balance in this world, and government regulation and oversight helps in some areas when done well.

    3. This video exudes the conservative paradigm, which is truly a myth, that everything the government does is bad and business/capitalism does everything better. B.S. For years, the US Post Office provided a service to millions of people that no company could have ever dreamed of providing. Public Schools, while they have their problems which I know very well, undertake a job that the market would never, ever do on its own. The market would never educate every single child that a parent brought to their doors. And, in fact, you can see that in the many other countries in the world where school is a gift you get if you are rich, (a boy), and/or living next to a very good charity organization.

    There are a million reasons that our government should not have bailed out the banks.

    But, if we do bail out the banks with money that belongs to “the commons” and the taxpayers, then there has to be a way that the banks (and their CEO’s and board of directors) give back and are accountable to “the commons” and the taxpayers.

    Sorry if some people with a sense of humor and good editing skills don’t like that simple fact. Though, they are not scaring me with the idea of nationalization.

  11. Trent Hill

    “For years, the US Post Office provided a service to millions of people that no company could have ever dreamed of providing. ”

    Tell Lysander Spooner that.

  12. Fred Church Ortiz

    I think the market could do just as good a job producing functional illiterates as the government.

  13. Thomas M. Sipos

    Using all those “fuck” words weakened the video’s satire. Effective satires attempt to appear serious on the surface, and no serious commercial promoting X would simultaneously insult X.

    All those “fucks” indicated that the videomaker was insecure; worried that the audience wouldn’t “get it” unless it was spelled out that the govt is bad.

    Imagine Orwell’s 1984 if the party members were always saying, “Thank you, bloody Big Brother. You fucking ruined everything.” It’d weaken the novel’s satire.

  14. Steven R Linnabary

    Kim, you are absolutely correct in your first point. Sort of like the contemporary “that’s so gay”. There is no reason for intelligent people to use such demeaning phraseology.

    Your second point “So, if it is so horrible, why have the banks and citizens accepted the fact of federal deposit insurance all these years? “ is incongruous. Are you suggesting that because somebody uses a banking service, they automatically support the monopoly of a government bureaucracy, along with it’s bureaucratic strictures such as the “know your customer” rule where banks are forced to spy on their customers?

    Likewise, your third point is equally incongruous in that the USPS is a monopoly. Until twenty years ago and the advent of Al Gores internet, a person was forced to use the government monopoly in order to stay in touch with friends and relatives. Nobody uses the USPS today, except to pay bills or to send bulk mailings. Even package delivery is far better handled by FedEx or UPS.

    Finally, when was the last time you saw ANY bureaucrat (always a patronage crony) held accountable for their nonfeasance, let alone any misfeasance or malfeasance?

    PEACE

  15. paulie cannoli Post author

    That was Perkins, not Newton. Newton’s doing a great job with Delaware Libertarian.

    Perkins has been busy offline, I gather. He might be the mystery “Steve” at LFV. Gordon and LaBianca have both said it’s not them.

  16. Donald Raymond Lake

    And make sure the vast majority are Libertarian, Lib Lite, neo con, theo con, and or classic con. And keep on calling it INDEPENDENT Political Reports…………….

  17. paulie cannoli Post author

    Don, instead of bitching, please get whoever you would like to be writing here to send a request to do so to contact.ipr@gmail.com.

    I honestly don’t see what you are complaining about.

    The fifteen most recent articles, greens, socialists and progressives account for seven, and one is this article, which is non-ideological.

    Three of us (me, Gregg, and Ross) also frequent Green Party Watch, Ross also writes at DailyKos, Knapp (who is still listed as being signed up here) voted for Cynthia McKinney for President, and Fred Church mostly covers Socialist parties. I’ve done a whole bunch of articles about Greens, Socialists, etc., myself.

    We’ve asked several other Greens to come on board.

    Socialists, communists, etc., are welcome to apply.

    Just have them write to contact.ipr@gmail.com

  18. Trent Hill

    Don,

    You are downright crazy. Iv told you time and time again, when any credible (or non-credible) party sends me a press release, or makes news, we cover it. Of the fifteen front page article, seven are about leftist parties, five are about the Libertarians, one is a housekeeping item, one is about the Constitution Party, and one is about an Independent. So 9 out of 15 are about non-Conservative/Libertarian parties.

  19. George Phillies

    With more writers, you could find more news articles. For example, today I received an email from the LNC announcing that they had found a new pre-eminent principle. It replaces all those old fashioned libertarian principles.

    The email goes on for a considerable piece, so I will not repeat it here, but you can read about it at http://www.thedailyliberty.com/story/2009/3/9/222837/7805

    As an interesting aside, I note that the dictator of North Korea today won his election to parliament by a totally unanimous vote. Learn the new LP principle and see why my aside is now significant.

  20. paulie cannoli Post author

    With more writers, you could find more news articles.

    Well, yes. The point of this post is to try to find some. Actually, the issue isn’t so much finding articles as finding enough people with time to post them.

    I have plenty of articles I could post here, but I need to concentrate on making a living ASAP, since I’ve run out of excuses for staying where I have been.

    The email goes on for a considerable piece, so I will not repeat it here

    It’s actually not all that long.

    Here it is:


    Dear Paul,

    A lot of people ask, “What is the purpose of the Libertarian Party?”

    Their first clue should be the last word of that sentence. While all successful political movements have educational arms, it’s the political party that actually creates policy. The libertarian movement has many wonderful educational organizations that teach what change is needed. But there is only one Libertarian Party that can enact change.

    In short, the purpose of the “Party of Principle” is to move this country back to its libertarian roots by winning elections, because that’s the only way to change policy.

    Libertarians are principled people. We believe in the principles of individual rights, non-initiation of force and limited government.

    But in a nation where Democrats and Republicans work together to deprive you of civil liberties, of the fruits of your labor, and your right to create jobs and earn wealth in a free market — the most important principle is winning.

    And we must begin winning now.

    Some argue that more “education” needs to be done. While you can never educate people enough and organizations like the Cato Institute are just as needed in the libertarian movement as the Heritage Foundation and Brookings Institution are needed in the conservative and liberal movements – voters already agree with libertarians on what creates jobs, lowers taxes and improves schools. The educational groups, like Cato, are doing their job.

    Voters now want action. They want practical Libertarians they can vote for. Now it’s time for the Libertarian Party to do its job and win even more elections.

    The only way to take back our rights is to take those libertarian ideas voters agree with us on, such as tax relief, school choice, property rights, and run winning political campaigns that identify, organize and mobilize voters.

    And here’s the beautiful thing about having political power. It’s a zero-sum game. If you’re in office, even if you don’t have the votes to repeal anything, the high-tax Democrat or the deficit-spending Republican aren’t there to vote for more government. There is nothing more noble and principled than winning an election.

    The good news is the Libertarian Party, now more than ever, is working every day to create a political machine that can identify, organize and mobilize the millions of voters who already agree with us. The days of self-fulfilling defeatism and pompous criticisms of electoral politics are further and further behind us.

    Our liberties and our economy are in grave danger at every level of government, all the way down to town councils. The only way to protect our rights and create jobs is to begin taking power from Republicans and Democrats, starting at the local level.

    We’re already seeing it work. Bob Barr won us newfound credibility and increased the Libertarian Party’s vote total over that of 2004, despite the fact the “Obama phenomenon” was supposed to drain third party votes. Indianapolis City-County Councilor Ed Coleman has joined the Libertarian Party, meaning nearly one million people in the nation’s 12th-largest city are now represented by a Libertarian. Libertarian Party membership is growing, and our new focus on practical politics is winning converts and credibility for the core tenets of libertarianism.

    Conceding power to Republicans and Democrats so you can spend your time debating arcane issues may feed the ego, but it starves liberty. In this present crisis, winning elections is the most important libertarian principle there is.

    Can I count on you to help make that happen?

    With optimism,

    Donny Ferguson
    Director of Communications
    Libertarian National Committee
    Donny.Ferguson@lp.org

  21. Jim Davidson

    As with George, I find phrases like, “the most important principle is winning,” to be rather evidently confused. The author here (Donny Ferguson) has confused ethics with expedience.

    What he is saying is that principles be damned, let’s win elections. “There is nothing more noble and principled than winning an election.”

    Of course, that’s not founding your house upon a solid rock of principle. That’s building your house on the shifting sands of expedience.

    Many political houses have been built on those sands. Steering your course by sailing with whichever wind happens to be blowing the strongest is often an effective means of winning an election, or several.

    However, as David Nolan has been at some pains to point out, that isn’t principled. And, as anyone can see, it isn’t inventive.

    Any American can get an expedient political party that wins elections and has lots of people in public office. The way you get one of those is by becoming a Republican or a Democrat. Lately, if you want power at the national level, you become a Democrat.

    There’s no question that people like Donny Ferguson want power. They want the money that comes from appealing to people who want power, and the power that comes from winning elections. But these ideas have nothing to do with ethics or principle. They are just tired, and rather soiled, slogans for victory.

    “Send us your money so we can win elections so we can have more power so you can send us more money so we can corruptly allocate contracts so you can have some money in return for the power we get.”

    That is a very political sentiment, and politics has a very broad appeal. Why, nearly a fifth of the population voted for the winning presidential ticket last year.

    But I don’t understand why it is a principled position. Indeed, it is not principled, but expedient.

    And if what I wanted to do was support some group of highly expedient persons willing to sell their souls for power, who were effective at gaining power, I wouldn’t be looking at the Libertarian Party. So, if that’s their only appeal, I don’t know who they think they’ll fool out of money.

  22. Trent Hill

    In my opinion, it is useless to win without principle–and also useless to simply be principled and ineffective.

  23. Jim Davidson

    Let me expand a bit about this matter of principles and effectiveness. It seems to me that there are a huge number of unprincipled politicians filling the market space for political corruption. Apparently, that part of the market has a fairly broad appeal. After all, a very crooked reputation for corrupt politics in Chicago which has tainted all kinds of others in his milieu did not prevent a fifth of the population of the USA from voting for Barack Obama.

    So, does being principled mean you cannot get elected? No, it does not. Look at Ron Paul, for example, who seems to be able to stick to his principles time and again. Many people disagree with his views, as I do on reproductive freedom and the border. But he does have principles, they can be seen in his actions, and he gets elected. And raises boat loads of money.

    What Americans cannot stand is hypocrisy masquerading as sincerity. And that’s why the LP has been failing. Bob Barr isn’t a libertarian, he’s a Dixiecrat. He is evidently bigoted, racist, sexist, homophobic, and enthusiastic about various wars, especially the war on drugs. Posing him as a principled candidate is a failing proposition, and it did fail.

    In spite of our differences on some issues, I have supported Ron Paul for many years, since the late 1990s. I’ve sent his campaigns money. I’ve supported the Campaign for Liberty. Why? Because he stands on principle. And I’m clearly not alone in admiring him.

    It seems to me that what would be especially helpful, just now, is a set of candidates who are both principled and effective.

  24. Robert Capozzi

    Change, including political change, happens on the margin, that is, incrementally. Education, too, happens incrementally.

    It’s very, very rare that step-function change happens. When it does, it’s almost always radical shifts away from liberty.

    If true, I’d submit that has large implications for a POLITICAL PARTY. If it’s something else, call it that.

  25. paulie cannoli Post author

    Change, including political change, happens on the margin, that is, incrementally.

    A lot of it happens quickly, in the form of punctuated equilibria and (catchphrase alert in 1…2…) paradigm shifts.

    It’s very, very rare that step-function change happens. When it does, it’s almost always radical shifts away from liberty.

    No reason that it always needs to be, however. There could certainly be a radical shift toward liberty. On many social issues, we’ve had radical shifts towards liberty already. For that matter, looking further back in time, the same could be said of economic issues.

  26. robert capozzi

    pc, I can’t think of any radical economic shifts, except for in 1865, when millions were unshackled.

    agreed that single social issues can shift quickly. while swinging for the fences – across the board liberty – COULD happen, it does seem highly unlikely to me.

    loaves are generally eaten a slice at a time.

  27. paulie cannoli Post author

    I can’t think of any radical economic shifts, except for in 1865, when millions were unshackled.

    Off the top of my head:

    Chattel slavery also ended in quite a few other countries.

    The collapse of Soviet and Eastern European communism, and the de facto desocialization of Chinese industry.

    In recent decades, many industries have been at least somewhat deregulated in the US.

    Large protectionist tariffs used to be more or less universal all over the world. Going back a few centuries, they were charged by numerous waylay points located not too far apart, including on goods merely crossing their territories on roads.

    Up until the last few centuries, Christians were forbidden to charge interest on loans (“usury”).
    I’d say that’s a big change.

    Serfs and villeins were freed in many of the nations of the world.

    Women’s right to own property…I suppose you could look at that as either a social or economic issue.

    swinging for the fences – across the board liberty – COULD happen, it does seem highly unlikely to me.

    It doesn’t seem too unlikely to me.

    The existing order could collapse, a new technology could change society in radical ways, or perhaps gradual education efforts will reach some critical pivot point and a charismatic individual may start a movement that becomes overwhelming.

  28. paulie cannoli Post author

    Getting back to the original subject, the following have signed up as IPR bloggers:

    Kimberly Wilder
    Morgan Brykein
    Bruce Cohen

    Bill Lussenheide // Mar 6, 2009 at 10:37 pm

    I wanna right an Kan dew a Guud job 4 yew.

    I’m not sure if that is an offer? If it is, we can sign you up.

    Anyone else interested?

  29. paulie cannoli Post author

    I am also looking for people to write at my other group blog, Next Free Voice. More about that in the comments.

    OK, here goes:

    NFV right now is designed to be a group blog covering current and historical events and philosophical issues from a broadly libertarian perspective; it can include partisan political issues and news, but is not limited to them.
    Sort of like what Hammer of Truth used to do, and what LFV was like when I was writing there.

    I’m also thinking of expanding the mission to make it a general altpolitics site – sort of like IPR plus editorials and the sorts of discussions we get into here in the comment sections also allowed to be made as posts.

  30. G.E.

    Let me correct you, Robert:

    pc, I can’t think of any radical economic shifts, except for in 1865, when millions were unshackled.

    You’re welcome.

  31. G.E.

    I read the guest essay at your site, paul. Not sure I have anything I could possibly contribute to that. Certainly not anything nice. I’m just glad to be no longer associated with the LP when I hear of “activists” spouting such evil idiocy.

  32. Robert Capozzi

    pc, yes, single-issue things like trade can free up rather quickly.

    i’d agree that the USSR is a pretty good illustration of fairly across-the-board liberalization. However, my impression was that it was mostly a call for “democracy,” less a call for “capitalism.” perhaps, as a Russion emigree, you’ve a different, more informed take.

    my impression is that the CP in China spearheaded the liberalization, so I wouldn’t take that as a good illustration of Leninist, hold-high-the-banner strategy.

  33. paulie cannoli Post author

    perhaps, as a Russion emigree, you’ve a different, more informed take.

    I don’t know that being born in the USSR adds anything to my perspective that a well-read native born American would miss in regards to this question. We left Russia in 1979, when I was seven years old, and well before soviet communism fell. I haven’t been back since. See

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gorbachev

    My take is that the necessity for economic liberalization was the chief impetus for change, and social liberalization happened hand in hand with it.

    my impression is that the CP in China spearheaded the liberalization, so I wouldn’t take that as a good illustration of Leninist, hold-high-the-banner strategy.

    Why not? An existing major political party in the US, the Democrats, switched gears and imposed the New Deal. I see no reason why, faced with the current or some future crisis, one or the other of the major parties might not again head off a long-standing ideological party at the pass by borrowing its ideas (at least to some extent), as the New Deal did to the socialist party.

    So, maybe this time liberalization will be the answer. Maybe the opposite. We’ll see. I’m in no way ruling out incremental change.

    BTW, any interest in writing for IPR and/or NFV?

  34. paulie

    Don,

    You are downright crazy. Iv told you time and time again, when any credible (or non-credible) party sends me a press release, or makes news, we cover it. Of the fifteen front page article, seven are about leftist parties, five are about the Libertarians, one is a housekeeping item, one is about the Constitution Party, and one is about an Independent. So 9 out of 15 are about non-Conservative/Libertarian parties.

    Current score: 9 of 15 front page articles are about Greens, Nader, Socialists and Progressives. Including the last seven in a row.

    Actually, if anyone isn’t getting enough coverage, at this point it may be the Constition Party and other right wing parties.

    If Don Lake was to get gender reassignment surgery, it could be Milnes-Lake 2012 FTW!

  35. Robert Capozzi

    pc, yes, the New Deal — bigger government — tends to be the “radical” default in the US. Perhaps if the US gets to USSR or Chinese levels of government, the time would be ripe for a radical smaller government swing. The center tends to hold.

    re writing, I’m the editor of The Free Liberal, so I’m pretty booked. But if I ever have an idea that is more appropriate for here, I’ll let ya know.

  36. Christopher D. Osborn

    Hey, I just want to say that this looks like a really great site. I personally wish I had the time to write for you.

    Some day I will get my priorities straight and be able to focus more. Then I would be able to trust myself writing more.

    Anyway, I hope you get all the new writers you need.

  37. Robert Capozzi

    pc, came across this data point this am:

    Five years ago, in the 2004 presidential race, Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg did some research on behalf of candidate John Kerry. Greenberg wanted Kerry to be more bold in advocating wholesale change, so he convened a series of focus groups to test the public’s reaction to a number of aggressive policy proposals.

    Greenberg found that voters would accept boldness on an issue or two, provided they were really important. But when a candidate promised bold action across the board, the people balked. “While voters are clearly open to bold initiatives to major problems, they may be less attracted to the candidate who wants to act boldly in every area, without exception,” Greenberg concluded. “All together, that may have suggested an expanding scope for government beyond what people felt they could trust.”

    This validates my intuitive sense. “Boldness” can only be taken in small doses, at least with most people most of the time.

  38. Robert Capozzi

    pc, oh yes, re: the concept of the LP being the new SP, I’m familiar with that view. My take is the Rs and Ds are just too “far gone. Neither party seems prone to L ideas, especially not across the board. That COULD change, but I’m not holding my breath.

    I prefer the 1850s RP model. Just as the Whigs got tired and corrupt, imploding, I see the GOP itself as being too beholdened to the social cons, neo cons, and corporates.

    In this sense, I AM admittedly quite bold.

  39. Robert Capozzi

    pc, one more thing: The SP started ELECTING people, as did the Progressives.

    The Communists did not elect any that I’m aware of. The LP has elected AS LIBERTARIANS a few, but I’d say we’re still more like the Communists than the Socialists.

    It’s a strategy, but not mine.

  40. paulie cannoli Post author

    BTW, any interest in writing for IPR and/or NFV?

    If you can’t do it yourself, I’d appreciate help in finding other people as well.

  41. paulie cannoli Post author

    Greenberg found that voters would accept boldness on an issue or two, provided they were really important. But when a candidate promised bold action across the board, the people balked. “While voters are clearly open to bold initiatives to major problems, they may be less attracted to the candidate who wants to act boldly in every area, without exception,” Greenberg concluded. “All together, that may have suggested an expanding scope for government beyond what people felt they could trust.”

    This validates my intuitive sense. “Boldness” can only be taken in small doses, at least with most people most of the time.

    I find “most of the time” to be the most operative part of that.

  42. paulie cannoli Post author

    concept of the LP being the new SP, I’m familiar with that view. My take is the Rs and Ds are just too far gone. Neither party seems prone to L ideas, especially not across the board. That COULD change, but I’m not holding my breath.

    Certainly, it could change, but while I’m not holding my breath, I certainly wouldn’t rule it out.


    I prefer the 1850s RP model. Just as the Whigs got tired and corrupt, imploding, I see the GOP itself as being too beholdened to the social cons, neo cons, and corporates.

    Yeah…and where will they go? If a bunch of ex-Republicans flooding into the LP can ditch those other guys, they could also ditch them out of the Republican party and bring in other people just as easily; if they can’t, they may well bring them to the LP dragging behind them, and it will just be the Republican party under a different name.

    Any of those could happen, I suppose.


    In this sense, I AM admittedly quite bold.

    I’m even a lot bolder than that. I think we may well transcend the entire electoral politics game altogether.

    But, in the meantime, we still have it to deal with.

  43. paulie cannoli Post author

    The SP started ELECTING people, as did the Progressives.

    I’m all for the LP electing some people.

    I even have some specific ideas about how.


    The Communists did not elect any that I’m aware of. The LP has elected AS LIBERTARIANS a few, but I’d say we’re still more like the Communists than the Socialists.

    We aren’t like either. Both were much better organized, although in different ways.

  44. paulie cannoli Post author

    Anyway, I hope you get all the new writers you need.

    Thanks! We’ve made some progress with IPR, but more could be made.

    NFV needs folks too.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *