Fast Company: High-Profile CEOs could revitalize Libertarian Party

In the November issue of Fast Company magazine, Carlos Watson considers the prospects of a third party based on a fiscal conservative / social liberal alliance:

Sarah Palin is rumored to be mulling the idea of starting a third party, pulling together social and fiscal conservatives alienated from the GOP. The Blue Dog Democrats, turned off by President Barack Obama’s spending, could reach across the aisle to moderate Republicans and try to attract independents. But the best third-party contender already exists. The Libertarians, like so many independents and disaffected Democrats and Republicans, are fiscal conservatives and social liberals — and no one has yet built a lasting coalition out of this growing force.

Read the whole thing here.

48 thoughts on “Fast Company: High-Profile CEOs could revitalize Libertarian Party

  1. Gene Berkman

    Ed Rollins “says that if 20 to 30 compelling Libertarian candidates ran serious races in the midterm Congressional elections and won just five or six, that would kick-start the larger Libertarian movement.”

    Optimistic indeed, but focusing on races for Congress (and state legislature) is far more likely to be successful than wasting effort on a losing campaign for President.

  2. Thomas L. Knapp Post author

    “wasting effort on a losing campaign for President.”

    This implies that a losing campaign is necessarily a wasted effort. By that logic, the Ds & Rs should consult the polls each fall and whichever one of them is behind should just not bother nominating.

    The LP is a long way from winning a presidential race, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t/can’t benefit in many ways from running a presidential candidate.

  3. Gene Berkman

    The strategy of running a Libertarian candidate for President has been tried numerous times since 1972 – and I voted for almost all of them – but it has not created a successful Libertarian Party capable of challenging the bipartisan statism.

    The cost of a Presidential campaign is not just the money and work involved. The low vote totals of LP candidates for President cause people to believe the Libertarian Party is a losing proposition.

    Additionally, when the Libertarian Party nominates a clearly unqualified candidate – unqualified by reason of education, talent & experience – the cost to the party is credibilit

  4. Michael H. Wilson

    Gene I agree with some of your comments but the presidential candidate is a spokesperson for the party and the campaign is a marketing tool. We are not going to win at that level for years to come unless we happen upon a miracle.

    I do agree that we need to focus on Congressional races. U.S. House race and everything undernearth there should be aggressively fought for.

    I also think we need to get rid of the socially tolerant and fiscally conservative phrasing. Its damn tough to be tolerant of what you don’t know and fiscally conservative says nothing about licensing laws or even economic freedom.

  5. Morgan Brykein

    All the most successful third party movements – the Progressives, the Populists, the Know Nothings – started at the local level and accomplished electoral victory before nominating a presidential candidate. A presidential candidate the people are going to vote for needs past political experience.

    The Libertarian Party’s first presidential ticket only got three thousand votes, and ballot access in only two (?) states. If they wanted to succeed, they should have started at the local level, running Libertarians for the state legislatures, city councils, and so on. And from there, they would have developed a wide party base.

    Twenty percent of Americans can be described as socially liberal, and fiscally conservative. Yet these people are largely convinced that the LP is insignificant, because they make it easy for the media to label them as such.

  6. Thomas L. Knapp Post author

    Gene,

    I didn’t claim that running a presidential campaign has created — or can create — “a successful Libertarian Party capable of challenging the bipartisan statism.”

    However, it’s almost certainly part of doing so.

    The fact that something hasn’t proven itself to be a silver bullet does not mean that thing is not useful and necessary.

  7. Robert Capozzi

    mb, I’m not sure those historical 3rd parties WERE successful. How were they “successful”?

    Also, to the extent they WERE successful, have circumstances changed appreciably since then? For ex., did they have ballot access challenges like todays? Was the media national like it is today?

    Your case sounds like apples and oranges, but tell us more….

  8. Aroundtheblockafewtimes

    Can anyone name one congressional race the LP could win even if every dime raised and spent on national ballot access and the presidential campaign could be targeted to that one race?

    About all the presidential race is good for is to publicize libertarian ideas. So, to maximize publicity, maybe the LP should let all the nominees run, on the ballots in whatever states want a particular candidate as their nominee. If, say, California wanted Kubby, then he could spend all his time visiting media outlets in California and get a ton more publicity for libertartian ideas than if he was spread thin all over the country.

  9. robert capozzi

    around, are you saying that we should not have one national candidate? Help us understand how having multiple candidates maximizes publicity. Media for national office is national. Are you suggesting there’s no economies of scale in politics?

  10. Scott Lieberman

    “Gene Berkman // Nov 19, 2009 at 10:13 pm

    The strategy of running a Libertarian candidate for President has been tried numerous times since 1972 – and I voted for almost all of them – but it has not created a successful Libertarian Party capable of challenging the bipartisan statism.

    The cost of a Presidential campaign is not just the money and work involved. The low vote totals of LP candidates for President cause people to believe the Libertarian Party is a losing proposition.

    Additionally, when the Libertarian Party nominates a clearly unqualified candidate – unqualified by reason of education, talent & experience – the cost to the party is credibility”

    **************************************

    I agree with Mr. Berkman 1000%.

    If I was the Czar of the National Libertarian Party, I would run no-one for President in 2012. INSTEAD, I would strongly encourage state LP’s to run one really, really strong candidate for ballot access purposes with the sole intention of retaining ballot access. And then I would have them run some more very strong ballot access campaigns in 2014. Most states have achievable vote tests for ballot retention, and if we did that, we could go into the 2016 Presidential election with say, 40 state ballot access. In terms of cost that strategy is not necessarily cheaper than getting ballot access via petition, but it would develop teams of people in many states who know how to run for office and acheive a measureable goal (ie: retaining ballot access).

    The problem with unwinnable campaigns is that very few candidates have increasing the number of dues paying LP members as their primary goal. So, the Libertarian Party can not recruit the hundreds or thousands of voters who voted for an LP Congressional or State Senate candidate.

    Coupled with the above, yes, we should be running massive numbers of Libertarians for local, winnable offices. If we got to the point that we had just 100 County Supervisors, then at least a few of those would be strong enough to win a State Legislature seat as a Libertarian.

  11. Aroundtheblockafewtimes

    Yep, that’s what I’m saying. This idea has been run up the pole before.

    There’s no way the LP has the resources for one person to run a national campaign in the sense they can be running around fifty states supporting the local candidates at rallies and raising money at banquets. There’s little chance to get in-depth interviews with all the local media. I find all of this more important at this stage of the Party’s development than a few two paragraph mentions in Time or USA Today
    and a couple of interviews on syndicated radio shows. {In fact, the novelty of having, say, seven regional candidates being supported by presidential electors, may attract the national publicity anyway.} Could the LP’s vote in 2008 been any lower if instead of Bob Barr, each state could have chosen its favorite from the ten possible nominees and allowed them to run a concentrated race for president in only the states that chose them?

  12. robert capozzi

    around, ok. It’s impossible to prove, but I’d say that most people don’t take a candidate seriously if they haven’t appeared on national media.

    Of course, one’s interpretation/diagnosis of why the LP’s electoral performance is as low as it is can differ. Mine is that the party’s early leadership defined L in a very narrow, highly theoretical and dogmatic manner. IMO, that self-imposed constraint holds us back more than any other obstacle.

  13. Aroundtheblockafewtimes

    I had a few colleagues think Barr was reasonable when they saw libertarian issues in print, and immediately dismissed him as looking like a “little weasely pimp” (actual, and unfair criticism) when they caught him on some tv show.

    Another “pro” reason to try this idea is that states who are heavily for, say, Kubby or Ruwart, might get a lot more campaigning done than if they are dissatisfied with the national ticket.

  14. robert capozzi

    around, the idea that one region leans away from 1 candidate over another…that seems to be the nature of collective action. What if one state in a region leans yet another way?

  15. Aroundtheblockafewtimes

    Any state could contract with any presidential candidate who agreed to run in their state.

  16. Aroundtheblockafewtimes

    I don’t recall the details. Did some state have dueling LP candidates or something?

  17. Thomas L. Knapp Post author

    Bob,

    L. Neil Smith’s candidacy wasn’t an “experiment,” it was an “exigency.”

    The Arizona LP needed a presidential candidate.

    The Arizona LP didn’t want to reward the LNC for disaffiliating it without cause and stuffing its spot at the national convention with false delegates.

    So, the presidential candidate needed to be someone other than the candidate nominated at the LNC’s national convention.

    Enter Smith/Suprynowicz, who on a high three or low four digit budget performed about as well in Arizona as the LNC’s slate did nationwide.

  18. Thomas L. Knapp Post author

    Around the Block,

    In late 1999, the Libertarian National Committee disaffiliated the Arizona LP.

    Although the bylaws require cause for disaffiliation, none was offered in the disaffiliation resolution.

    Post-resolution, some LNC members claimed that the “cause” was that the LNC “couldn’t tell” whether the existing AZLP, or a new organization which had stolen the AZLP’s bank account and filed papers of incorporation, was the “real” affiliate.

    Pursuant to a mail-in poll of national dues-payers in Arizona, the LNC then recognized the fake AZLP and gave it representation at the national convention.

    Exactly as predicted at the time of the LNC’s deliberations — the Arizona courts recognized the real AZLP as the “owners” of the LP ballot line in that state, and therefore entitled to name its nominees for public office.

    Since the real Arizona LP wasn’t represented at the LNC’s national convention, it obviously didn’t consider itself bound by that convention’s nomination process, so it conducted its own nomination process and chose L. Neil Smith and Vin Suprynowicz as its presidential slate.

    My recollection is that their campaign consisted of one visit each to the state and some signage that was pretty much free (Ernie Hancock runs “sign-making parties” in which shipping pallets are turned into signs that are nicely visible from highways, etc.).

  19. Thomas L. Knapp Post author

    Robert,

    You write:

    “why did the LPAZ ‘need’ to run a presidential candidate?”

    Because political parties run candidates for office, and serious political parties run candidates for every ballot line they can find an even nominally acceptable candidate to fill.

  20. robert capozzi

    tk, yes, although FOR ME “serious” would involve running a national campaign for a national office. I personally don’t see the point of running for prez in one or a few states. Sounds bush.

  21. Thomas L. Knapp Post author

    Aroundtheblock,

    Call me a compromiser, but I prefer a middle way between running only one national presidential candidate and having as many as possibly 50 presidential candidates (one for each state).

    That middle way is to let each state choose its own VICE-presidential candidate (and have a “national nominee” to appear in national debates, etc.).

    One presidential candidate would make it easier to run national advertising campaigns.

    51 VP candidates, a “national” nominee and 50 nominees campaigning in their own states, would give the presidential campaign more “on the ground presence,” perhaps some name recognition boost if the VP candidate in a given state was reasonably well-known, etc.

    Additionally, since under FEC rules the presidential campaign committee receives, handles and disposes of the funds raised by veep candidates, that would make for 50 fundraisers, each working in one defined territory.

    Also, if we could recruit some financially well-off VP candidates — guys who don’t want to take time off whatever it is they do to run a full-time presidential campaign, but who are willing to put their names on the ballot and make a speech or three in their own home areas — they could make nearly unlimited personal contributions to the campaign if they so chose, a la Koch 1980.

    This isn’t a new idea. I first heard of it from George Phillies, but it’s older than that.

    In 1976, Eugene McCarthy was on the ballot in 29 states and had 30 VP candidates. His initial “national” running mate, William Clay Ford (heir to that family’s auto-making fortune and owner of the Detroit Lions), made a substantial financial contribution to the campaign, then resigned in favor of 29 “favorite sons and daughters.” [Source: Darcy Richardson]

    In 2008, the Boston Tea Party nominated Charles Jay for president and myself for vice-president, but I appeared on the ballot only in Tennessee. Dan Kilo was the VP candidate in Colorado, John Wayne Smith was the VP candidate in Florida, and in states where we registered a write-in slate, most of them had a “favorite son or daughter” for VP as well.

    That campaign, of course, came together at the last possible minute, and the “favorite sons and daughters” were the people we could find who were willing to step up to the plate (for which I thank them!).

    In a larger party with more lead time to prepare, I suspect that state affiliates could spend a year or more actively recruiting VP candidates who could put significant money of their own into campaigning, and/or fundraise effectively in their own states, etc.

  22. Thomas L. Knapp Post author

    Robert,

    As we’re already discussing, there are any number of reasons to run candidates, and it’s not always obvious which reason is most important or how that will affect candidate selection.

    There was no likelihood that a situation would arise in which Harry Browne was just short of victory in the electoral college and that Arizona’s votes would make the difference.

    There was very little likelihood that any substantial number of people outside the LP membership itself would even notice that the Arizona slate wasn’t the same slate as in the other 49 states.

    On the other hand, given distinct disagreements between the way the Arizona Libertarians felt that LP campaigns should be run and the way the national campaign was run in 1996 and 2000, there existed an opportunity to do it their way and see if they could do any better.

    In honesty, although Smith/Suprynowicz did about as well in Arizona as Browne did nationwide, they didn’t do as well as Browne had done in Arizona four years before. That’s yet another data point from which lessons might be drawn.

    Also pertinent to the party’s internal situation, my take on the AZLP’s attitude was that they (probably correctly) felt that if they gave the LNC what it wanted after the way the LNC had abused them, the LNC wouldn’t learn anything. It’s very possible that the AZLP’s reaction to the LNC’s 1999 abuses prevented similar abuses from occurring later (with New Hampshire or Massachusetts, for example).

  23. robert capozzi

    tk, hope I didn’t give the impression that I think Browne could’ve won. I find petty intra-party squabbling over hyper-technical rules dysfunctional drains of time and resources, as well as small minded, even bush.

    I’d like to see our candidates appear as professional and credible as possible.

  24. Steven R Linnabary

    Iā€™d like to see our candidates appear as professional and credible as possible.

    Well, THAT isn’t possible.

    We will have to continue to use gimmicks and smoke & mirrors, just like the majors do.

    Sometimes (usually) gimmicks do not work, but you never know when something you throw against the wall is going to stick.

    Carter carried his own suitcase, a gimmick that worked. It made him look authentic. When Mondale did it, it just made him look pathetic. Like a loser.

    When Dole went on a 96 hour nonstop tour of the country in the last 96 hours of his campaign, it looked like a third party gimmick, and I wished I had thought of it. It might have worked for Browne, but with Dole it made him a joke.

    Politics is full of smoke & mirrors and gimmicks. You never know what is going to stick.

    Keep in mind here that I can criticize Mondale and Dole because I couldn’t have the stomach to support either one. But I do get defensive when somebody criticizes Badnarik’s & Cobb’s decision to get arrested. Likewise the decision (for whatever reason) of the AZLP to not support Browne.

    PEACE

  25. Tom Blanton

    “Iā€™d like to see our candidates appear as professional and credible as possible.”

    LP candidates will appear professional and credible when they start dropping the same amount of dough as their opposition in ad buys. This is what “earned media” is really all about. If you want positive coverage, spend large amounts of money on media ads.

    My congressman, Bobby Scott, spent $500K in 2008 and essentially ran unopposed. The other half of my city is represented by Eric Cantor. He has an extremely safe seat, yet he spent $3.8 million.

    It’s time for libertarians to get real. Even if a candidate for congress manages to raise $500K, the GOP and the Dems will make it as hard as possible anyway. It’s all about the money. It always has been and always will be.

    All the sophomoronic strategizing, platform tweaking, tactical rhetoric, flag waving, and ear-hair trimming don’t mean shit without the cash. Lots of cash.

    This is why a LP campaign should be about selling libertarianism, not “true conservatism” or neolibertarianism or social liberalism/fiscal conservatism. It shouldn’t be about anything else. Because, without the cash, no LP candidate is going to win and even with the cash, the odds aren’t good.

    So, wake up goofballs. Go raise some money if you really want to play this fucked up little game and win. Would you take a roll of dimes to Vegas and expect to go home in a Brink’s truck?

  26. Robert Capozzi

    srl, yes, the majors use marketing tactics to differentiate and position their candidate. Sometimes they seem gimmicky, agreed.

    My comment was referring to the notion of split and multiple-candidate tickets, and the general calibre of candidates.

  27. Robert Capozzi

    tb, please note that I suggesting being as professional and credible AS POSSIBLE.

    Think of it this way: There’s a continuum of professionalism–from a soapbox lunatic on the street corner reading FOR A NEW LIBERTY, HUMAN ACTION, and selected Long and Hoppe essays, to the Obama campaign.

    All LP campaigns that I’m aware of fall somewhere in the middle of those polar extremes. The soapbox lunatic is all steak; Obama was almost all sizzle.

    The lunatic may attract a few to his/her campaign, but methinks most will never hear his/her words, and those that do won’t stop to listen. Is that really “selling Lism”? I’d say no.

  28. Michael H. Wilson

    Professional or otherwise there has to be a commitment to getting out and going door to door. We just had a candidate here in Washington state who did just that and in his first time in a campaign managed to get 48.7% of the vote out of some 20,000 votes cast. Did he do enough? Obviously not but he did make the effort of door to door campaigning.

    Finding those small campaigns that have a specific district where the candidate can walk it is best suited for what we need at the moment. Add a well designed door hanger, dress decently, answer all the inquires without being a smartass and start early. Don’t wait till Labor Day.

    Btw it was a school board seat he was running for.

  29. Tom Blanton

    Capozzi, why do you equate selling libertarianism with a lunatic standing on a soapbox on the street reading a Rothbard book?

    My only point is that without huge amounts of cash, LP candidates will never win an election to a national office. Therefore, LP candidates without huge amounts of cash should concentrate on delivering a libertarian message as opposed to trying to bullshit their way into office with nonlibertarian rhetoric they mistakingly think will catapult them into certain victory. The notion that winning elections without megabucks is so naive that it is the epitome of unprofessionalism. There is nothing professional, credible or pragmatic about going on a fool’s errand (like thinking you can win a congressional seat with a $5,000 warchest).

    The LP is becoming more and more like a high school band that thinks they will become rock stars after playing one gig at the local skating rink on a Saturday afternoon. That shit is only in the movies. B-movies.

  30. Don Lake, A Modest Proposal ...........

    Tom Blanton // Nov 21, 2009:

    …” like a high school band that thinks they will become rock stars after playing one gig at the local skating rink on a Saturday afternoon….”

    As a non LP with some Lib stripes may I offer the additional observations…..

    [a] Libs need to get out of the Debating Society mode …..

    [b] Libs need to embrace the real world, real people and their real problems ……

    [c] Libs need to reach out to non Lib allies ……..

  31. robert capozzi

    tb, sure, I agree. Winning is unlikely, esp. with little funding. I don’t know any L candidates who think they will win offices other than local ones, so I’m not sure what you’re spun up about.

  32. Michael H. Wilson

    Well guys we need to try harder.

    For years I have suggested that we need to work on building the local parties. I haven’t had much success at getting thru to others but I persist. If that would happen we then would have a larger group to recruit candidates from.

    Some states with large populations have a couple of small congressional districts where walking just might be possible and being in saturated media markets, TV and radio advertising is not an effective use of campaign dollars. Yards signs, and well developed door hangers might work much better.

    ‘Course you need a campaign that is not a clone of the R&D faction but that is specifically Libertarian in nature and positive as well based around Civil Liberties, the benefits of “Open Markets” and a non interventionist foreign policy and putting money back in people’s pockets.

    Unfortunately I think I have a better chance of pushing a peanut up hill.

  33. Michael Seebeck

    I think Tom B. mistakes “earned media” with “bought media”.

    Considering the perpetual problem of all non-D/R parties is bodies and cash, buying media isn’t much of an option, and we tend to focus on the earned media instead, and it can happen if done right and done consistently. Done it myself in the past, but it is a hard and ongoing process.

    (Say what you want about Root, BUT…he has been working hard to get earned media. His problem was message and presentation technique.)

    Also, because we always have the bodies and cash problem, we are forced to spend (no pun intended) a lot of time trying to obtain/recruit/get both. The D/R parties have the luxury of such of the bodies to get the cash.

  34. Solomon Drek

    “The Libertarians, like so many independents and disaffected Democrats and Republicans, are fiscal conservatives and social liberals ā€” and no one has yet built a lasting coalition out of this growing force.”

    Arlen Spector pulled that stunt when he ran for president in 1996 as a self-described “fiscal conservative and social libertarian”. It didn’t work then and it certainly won’t work now.

    Anybody can call themselves a fiscal conservative if they support a balanced budget amendment which would raise taxes to cover spending. You may get some spending cuts, but lots of fiscal conservatives will support higher spending if the revenue is there to pay for it. The only practical difference between “fiscal conservatives” (does anybody know any politician who wouldn’t describe themselves as a “fiscal conservative”?) and everybody else is they wouldn’t increase spending by as much as others. So instead of a 3.3 trillion dollar budget financed by deficits you get a 3.1 trillion dollar budget financed by raising taxes.

    The “social liberal” stuff doesn’t fly either. Alot of libertarians, like Ron Paul, are closet dixiecrats who wrap themselves up in the cloak of “state’s rights” and we all know what that means. And if libertarians stuck to their principles they would probably find themselves on the opposite side of the fence from those social liberals who support gun control and expansive civil rights legislation, including laws prohibiting discrimination against gays and other minorities.

    This whole idea is a nonstarter. Of course, lots of independent candidates, like Jesse Ventura, have gotten themselves elected as fiscal conservatives and social liberals without the baggage of being labeled or identified with any particular third party ideology.

  35. Tom Blanton

    I’m not confusing earned media with bought media (paid media). Earned media is somewhat of a myth when it comes to politics.

    Now, if a LP candidate held a rally and thousands of people showed up, it would be newsworthy and positive coverage might be an example of earned media. Root regurgitating RNC talking points is hardly earned media. There is no groundswell of support for Root bubbling up from the masses that media is taking notice of. There is no unusual or newsworthy message being delivered by Root. Root is merely a fresh face delivering a message that right-wing media wants to hear. The only thing different about Root is that he is not a registered, partisan Republican. He is a “libertarian” with a “conservative” message. This is man bites dog media at best.

    In the real world, “earned media” is the type of positive coverage a candidate receives for merely existing, but after having shelled out big bucks for paid media. The press suddenly notices those who spend money on advertising and they don’t like to offend clients by marginalizing them. Every press conference, press release and public appearance suddenly becomes “earned media” when the advertising department is depositing fat checks.

    Welcome to America.

  36. Tom Blanton

    In a move certain to please all moderate extremists, baby-steppers, maximalist minarchists, and apologists for the state, “libertarian” Glenn Beck is developing a 100-year plan. After all, Rome wasn’t built in a day.

    Of course, if I know Beck, we will still be fighting “Islamofascism”and the only people that will have any privacy left will be those in solitary confinement, if it is up to him.

    Freedom in our great great grandchildren’s time! Hoorah!

    http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/33398/

  37. Robert Capozzi

    drek, what do you mean, it didn’t work? That Specter didn’t get the nomination? If that’s your standard — winning every time out? — then you might consider getting into a different business, since politics isn’t just about winning. L politics CERTAINLY isn’t!

  38. Robert Capozzi

    tb, 100 years to asymptotically arrive at no-state Nirvana? Seems a bit fast to me šŸ˜‰ They’ll still be sorting out IP and baby-selling at that point šŸ˜‰

  39. Michael Seebeck

    Sorry, Tom B, but earned media in politics is no myth–unless you never earned any. Root didn’t buy his way onto his media appearances, did he? Have yet to see any evidence of that, in the absence of it, he gets the benefit of the doubt. Besides, do you really think he’d give a left-libertarian message on FoxNews? That’s not only bad political strategy, but a quick way to throw the earned media out the window and not get invited back. It’s called tailoring the message for the audience. Sure, what he says sounds GOP *in the topics he’s talking about* because there is overlap between the libertarian and conservative points there. Same is true on the left–there is overlap. But the trick is to diverge at the point of more government into less government. That is something any libertarian worth their salt does in those situations. Root to his credit has gotten better than he was at that.

    (BTW, it may seem that I’m defending Root, but I am being fair to the man. That doesn’t make me a Rootbot, though.)

    Me, been there and done that in earning media–TV and radio interviews from tax protests and war protests, and even a fill-in gig as a drive-time talk radio host –not to mention a Xmas parade float that promoted the LP to 300,000 people–which had never been done in that town until then or since.

    So, yeah, Tom B. there is a clear difference between earned and bought media.

  40. Robert Capozzi

    ms, I’d agree with tb to THIS extent: campaigns that have the guap to buy media are more likely to earn media, too. Shoestring campaigns look weaker esp. as the scope of the position increases.

    Having amassed some political capital helps, too. Barr had some, for ex., with virtually no bought media other than a web presence. Howard Stern had notoriety. We’ve had a few others over the years, but mostly not.

    A credible candidate with some credentials and real, plausible L solutions could both buy and earn media, but it requires some stars to align.

  41. Aroundtheblockafewtimes

    #37 Mr. Wilson: Yes the LP needs to work on the local level. But it misses so many opportunities that I wonder if LP members think of themselves as serious.

    Case in point: I understand that a dozen pro-liberty groups were invited to a county “summit” meeting in Chester County, PA.
    Things on the agenda included sponsoring debates with all candidates included. The county LP was invited and never even responded to the invitation. So how hard is it going to be to convince the other groups to include the LP candidates in the coming debates?
    If we don’t give a sh*t then why should the public give a sh*t about us????

  42. Spence

    The LP is a completely failed brand. They had several chances early on in their history (before this intra-party bullsh*t became a permanent fixture) to establish a foothold. Even if they reformed their ways all the sudden, people would still look at how long the LP’s been around and how long it’s taken them to do anything credible and scoff.

    I know I sure as hell would. Hell, I am right now!

Leave a Reply

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