Barr, the LP, and the New Yorker: Checking the Numbers

I was less impressed with the New Yorker piece on LP candidate Bob Barr than was David Weigel the other day. Sure, the very fact that a serious profile of an LP candidate is in such an augustly mainstream publication is a good sign for serious attention for the LP, I suppose.

The profile itself, though, managed to be so dull, and so unilluminating about libertarianism or the LP per se though barely successful in giving a pointillist picture-dabbed-through-small-details about Barr himself (it has one of those flat feature-writery finishes that the writer apparently wants the reader to find portentous in some manner but to me just screams "I don't really know what the point of this article is either, just let me sneak quietly out the back") that I don't think it will help even those who manage to finish it understand much they will care about about libertarianism or the LP.

For a more specific critique, the piece makes a huge leap, though, when it implicitly attributes a rise in paid membership to a change in the LP platform, the sort of thing that isn't really fact-checkable per se and something that almost no New Yorker reader will have any independent base of knowledge on which to judge. (It is also written in such a way that the author could deny even having meant to make that implication, though it's hard for me to imagine that most readers wouldn't read it that way):

In 2006, [LP founder David] Nolan told me, the Party had a “civil war” over its platform, most of which was subsequently dropped. The following year, the Party’s dues-paying membership grew by twenty-eight per cent.

My equally un-fact-checkable opinion is that the platform and what it says or doesn't say is only of importance to a very small number of party activists whose self-identity is tied up with it, and for the occasional candidate whose opponents try to call him out on some outre element of it, though I don't think there's even a lot of evidence that happens often, mostly because major party candidates can generally completely ignore their LP opponents.

Still, to be sure, a post-platform reform, post-Barr LP has been on the grow in terms of dues-paying national members, according to the LP's official figures. From December 2007 to now, the party membership has grown by 1,656 members; that's nearly 11 percent.

But how impressive is this? In 2004, the year of unknown Michael Badnarik as their candidate, with a Party burdened with that crazy-radical old platform, the party grew from December 2003 to December 2004 by 2,814 in whole numbers, and by 14 percent, from a much higher base.

For whatever reason, the Party's biggest membership plunge of the past few years happened over the course of 2006, the year which, in July, the Party's platform was shaved in the manner that the New Yorker implicitly credits with the 2007 membership rise. The LP gained 3,313 members in 2007--again, in judging how well the "nominating the successful politician" strategy has done for the LP's prominence so far, note that that is more than twice the number of new members that nominating Barr has earned the LP so far. Yes, the year isn't over yet, and the election hasn't happened yet. But, non-disdainful mainstream media attention or not, I'm not impressed with what Barr has done for the LP so far.

UPDATE: In private correspondence, Shane Cory from the Barr campaign says I'm being misleading about Barr's effect on membership growth by using net numbers rather than gross. With a month-by-month breakdown more specific than the ones the LP national HQ provided me with, he shows that since May (when Barr got the nomination) that new members joining the LP have amounted to at least 3,403.

True. But for every month since May, lapsed members have outnumbered both new members and renewed members--but not the two put together, of course, or there would have been no total growth at all.

I noted in the original post that from December 07 to now, LP membership grew 1,656. With more specific growth figures from May on supplied by Cory, I see that membership since Barr got the nomination in fact grew by a little more than that--1,884. (There was a dip between December 07 and May 08.) While reasonable people can argue about this, I suppose, it seems to me net growth in membership is a far more important measure of Barr's effect on growing the party than merely new members joining. If Barr drew in 10,000 new and lost 13,000 old members, that would not be a positive sign for the LP's future.

Comments

Warren | October 22, 2008, 3:37pm | #

Brian,
You are truly the Sage of Wisdom on all things libertarian. I salute you sir.

Anthony Gregory | October 22, 2008, 3:49pm | #

I thought the piece was a bad thing. It sets us back. It points out that not all libertarians are for legalizing prostitution, now that Barr's in the party. That's terrible. Anyone who thinks people should go to jail for voluntary sexual/capitalistic acts is not a libertarian, pure and simple. Damn it! What a no-brainer issue. And it's not even that much of a turnoff for moderates.

I remember when I was like seven and first heard what a libertarian was, part of the explanation was "they want to legalize prostitution and drugs." I thought, "Wow, a group of people who are not total craven barbarians on these issues."

This whole campaign has been a disaster.

Gabe | October 22, 2008, 3:50pm | #

It's obvious what Barr has done. He has managed to ge libertarianism associated with a very unpopular nationally recognized lifelong dc politician insider,warmongering,ex-CIA,neo-con congressman from georgia. It is not surprising that in a era when neo-cons are not polling to well Barr has managed to get fewer new libertarians involved in the LP than even Badnarick.

The fact that this has happend only a few months after a virtual 35 million dollar grassroots avalanche of pro-libertarian sentiment was pouring out of the countryside in favor of Ron Paul indicates that maybe the LP should have picked a guy with a better track record of fighting AGAINST big government.

phalkor | October 22, 2008, 3:59pm | #

Libertarians are the prostitutes and drugs party that really, really hates poor people.

You all make me sick.

Cowbullen | October 22, 2008, 4:04pm | #

I'm tired of the LP being portrayed as "Republicans who smoke pot." And I'm tired of it picking candidates that bolster that image. I wish that article explained how they ended up with Barr. I'm still confused. All of his "experience" is as a stick-up-the-ass "culture warrior," and he doesn't seem to have any political savvy at all. Root doesn't help.

Thomas L. Knapp | October 22, 2008, 4:10pm | #

Interesting observations, in article and comments both.

It's hard to decide whether the differences in recruitment between the Badnarik and Barr campaigns are especially significant, given the small numbers involved, but I can say this:

I've received multiple mailings from the Barr campaign. Few of them mention the Libertarian Party at all, and none of them do so prominently.

Ditto for the Barr brochures I've seen.

Ditto for his media appearances.

The Barr campaign isn't about building the LP. It's about lionizing Bob Barr.

I'm not saying that to be mean -- there are reasonable arguments for emphasizing candidate rather than party. It's just a fact.

In 2004, it seemed like every other sentence out of Michael Badnarik's mouth included the word "libertarian" or the phrase "Libertarian Party" ... and the guy talked a lot, whether it was to small groups at restaurants or shaking hands at big community events (he worked a crowd of several thousand at a Rural Electric Cooperative wing-ding here in Missouri; it was quite a sight).

In 2008, Barr seldom uses the "L-word" in his television appearances, even less frequently adds "Party" to it if he does ... and frankly I'm grateful.

Eric | October 22, 2008, 4:11pm | #

Democrats are the party of thieves who really really hate poor people.

Brandybuck | October 22, 2008, 4:12pm | #

Gee Anthony, you really are a cosmotarian! When I was seven I barely knew what a prostitute was. :-)

phalkor | October 22, 2008, 4:22pm | #

I thought democrats were the party whose heart bleeds for the poor. They are theives because you don't really need that money anyway, obviously government knows best.

Republicans, well, they are a clusterfuck of godknowswhat right now.

Still, I think of all the political philosophies libertarianism has by far the most antipathy for the poor disenfranchised welfare state. Show me a poor libertarian, or a libertarian with food stamps. They don't exist.

Andy Craig | October 22, 2008, 4:22pm | #

"The Barr campaign isn't about building the LP. It's about lionizing Bob Barr."

*Exactly*

The idea on which Barr was nominated- the LP "maturing" into a broad libertarian coalition rather than a radical niche- is a great idea, and fundamentally sound. I say this as a radical Rothbardian myself, but the LP will never win anything if we aren't willing to accept anyone who falls within a much broader definition of "libertarian".

The problem with Barr isn't his positions as they stand today- I think he certainly qualifies as a moderate right-libertarian- but rather the way he's run his campaign into the ground. I'm afraid the backlash against Barr/Root's buffoonery will end up as another 1983, where the radicals chase all the moderate, coalition-minded people out of the party. Heck, at least Clark/Koch got *results* with their less-than-strictly-purist strategy. Barr can't even say that.

Troll Bane | October 22, 2008, 4:26pm | #

Show me a poor libertarian, or a libertarian with food stamps. They don't exist.

I thought liberals hated it when people pointed out the stark and obvious correlation between stupidity and poverty.

kinnath | October 22, 2008, 4:32pm | #

Show me a poor libertarian, or a libertarian with food stamps. They don't exist.

I was a libertarian when I was married with kids and unemployeed.

So at least one poor libertarian existed at one point. By formal methods, I have now proven your hypothesis to be false.

Jesse Walker | October 22, 2008, 4:36pm | #

at least Clark/Koch got *results* with their less-than-strictly-purist strategy

It may look that way in retrospect, with the party's much lower vote totals in subsequent presidential races, but compared to the high totals expected at the time the Clark campaign was widely perceived within the movement as a failure. People were expecting him to get the kind of total that John Anderson wound up attracting.

Show me a poor libertarian, or a libertarian with food stamps. They don't exist.

Are you kidding? One of the most striking thing about the libertarian movement is the mixture of extremely poor and extremely wealthy people who wind up in it.

Warren | October 22, 2008, 4:39pm | #

Barr is a two-bit low-down sleazy carpetbagger. I've always said so.

The question is, now that the LP reformers have had their way for the past four years, and gotten everything they asked Santa for, with no good results and some detrimental consequenses, can us radicals have our party back? Please. We may be ineffective, but at least we practice according to our principals. That has always been a bright line distinguishing the LP from everyone else. Until Barr/Root that is.

Geotpf | October 22, 2008, 4:40pm | #

It's clear to me that the LP is not, and probably will never be, a functioning political party, with the goal of winning elections. Too bad, because as a Democrat with libertarian leanings, I would much rather lose to a Libertarian than to a Republican. The current implosion of the not-so-Grand-but-quite-Old-Party leaves a lot of room for some other party to take it's place as one of the two dominate parties in the country. (Due to the design of America's democratic system, a two party system is basically inevitable-but the two parties certainly don't have to be the Democrats and the Republicans.) But the LP has shown absolutely no indication that it's ready, willing, or able to do this. This is more than just moderating it's positions. It's about growing up. It's about winning elections. It's about showing the world they aren't a bunch of crazy buffoons.

SugarFree | October 22, 2008, 4:45pm | #

Since the distinction between Big-L and Little-l libertarianism is always lost on detractors intent on conflation and the Libertarian Party seems hell-bent to be a laughingstock, I propose we change our name to: Awesomtarians! (Yes, the exclamation point is part of the name.)

phalkor | October 22, 2008, 4:47pm | #

Are you kidding? One of the most striking thing about the libertarian movement is the mixture of extremely poor and extremely wealthy people who wind up in it.

Actually, yeah, I was kidding. I'm getting better at this trolling thing. But about the mix of extremely poor and wealthy, can't that be said about any political party?

Another question. If you qualify for welfare programs, isn't it against your self-interest to hold libertarian views?

Are people really high-minded enough to be offered free ice cream and say no? Even on a hot summer day when all the other kids have ice cream and it looks, like, really good?

Bingo | October 22, 2008, 4:50pm | #

I'm a poor libertarian. Oh how I wish that libertarianism automatically granted untold riches, but unfortunately its not necessarily the case.

kinnath | October 22, 2008, 4:50pm | #

Another question. If you qualify for welfare programs, isn't it against your self-interest to hold libertarian views?

First hand experience with state-run welfare programs will enlighten one as to how destructive these programs are.

Old Bull Lee | October 22, 2008, 4:51pm | #

I was raised in a household that qualified for free school lunch - and my parents explained to me why we paid full price anyway. They were Republicans.

And I was a capital and lower-case libertarian throughout high school and the minimum wage jobs I held as an adult.

Urkobold™ | October 22, 2008, 4:51pm | #

THE URKOBOLD SUGGESTS STARTING A POLITICAL PARTY CALLED THE MAMMATARIANS. THIS PARTY WILL CONSIST SOLELY OF FEMALE CANDIDATES WITH LARGE, GRAVITY-DEFYING BREASTS. WHILE THE PARTY WILL HAVE A LIBERTARIAN PLATFORM AND AGENDA, THIS FACT WILL NOT, IN FACT, EVER BE PUBLICLY COMMUNICATED. WHAT'S THE POINT?

THE URKOBOLD PREDICTS THAT THE MAMMATARIAN PARTY WILL BECOME THE DOMINANT PARTY IN THE UNITED STATES BY 2010.

Andy Craig | October 22, 2008, 4:53pm | #

phalkor-

I suppose the argument would go that a person on welfare would be better off under the prosperity of a truly free market than under the status quo. As a concrete example, minimum wage laws increase unemployment.

As for whether or not a principled libertarian could accept welfare, I think so. There's nothing contradictory in trying to get as much as you can from your tax money.

robert capozzi | October 22, 2008, 4:55pm | #

Yes, Jesse, expectations were higher for Clark...before Reagan was nominated and before Anderson went independent. Of course, that year was unprecedented, so any expectations were dart-throws to begin with. The LP swelled in numbers after that, until Darth Rothbard struck back in '83.

Assessing the Barr campaign's effectiveness should be tabled until after the election. Yes, his fundraising has been disappointing thus far, but understandable, given the economic downturn and uncertainties.

The late start in the wake of the Paul campaign, NewsletterGate, the delay in announcing whether Paul would come back...all of it...made Barr's entry challenging, I suspect most would agree.

Knapp's statement about mentioning "libertarian" or the LP seems false to me. I've watched most of the major media appearances, and Barr generally mentions the LP, and his vision for a viable 3rd party and a real choice.

I suspect all would stipulate that Barr has gotten many orders of magnitude more major media than all previous standardbearers, possibly more "impressions" than all previous candidates combined. Sure, the man's more sober than electrifying, but I find him profoundly articulate. (And, yes, I sometimes disagree with some of his positions.)

But, like I said, the best assessment is done in December. Perhaps we can learn from the missteps.

George Phillies | October 22, 2008, 4:58pm | #

But the Barr campaign set new Libertarian records.

Barr Campaign spent $18,691 on Limo Services

That was in September alone. For more details:
http://www.thedailyliberty.com/story/2008/10/22/1599/6676

He even spent $1000 on main stream media advertising, out of a quarter-million raised.

I have in the past been critical of Harry Browne's 2000 campaign, but Barr 2008 is on track to make Browne 2000 look like a shining model of thrift and fiscal efficiency.

Jim Davidson | October 22, 2008, 5:05pm | #

There are membership figures going back to 1975 including a graph that one of my associates produced. You can see the graph here:
http://pauliecannoli.wordpress.com/2008/10/06/libertarian-party-membership-numbers/

The last figures run through the end of December 2007. The overall trend is downward.

I do not regard the membership growth by changing the platform to be a "trend reversal" or new trend setting event. It is just a small upward blip in an overall downward spiral.

kinnath | October 22, 2008, 5:05pm | #

The LP will be nothing until a libertarian Ronald Reagan appears and can sell middle america on the notion that the government is the problem (ronnie got that part right) and then actually dismantle the government when elected.

Ken Hagler | October 22, 2008, 5:09pm | #

Barr's nomination did get me to switch the party affiliation on my voter registration from Libertarian to none. The conservative Republicans who have taken over the Libertarian Party might consider that a good thing (or more likely, not care).

Political Professional | October 22, 2008, 5:12pm | #

Any third party is a waste of time. The two-party system is what has made America the finest country on earth. I supposed some here would like to go back to driving horsees and buggies as well? and you probably want slaves and Jim Crow laws as well.

It is time for you people to grow out of your juvenielle mindset and pay your fair share of taxes to support a advanced civilization just like the rest of the adults in this country!

ChrisO | October 22, 2008, 5:12pm | #

The Barr nomination was obviously designed to pick up disaffected Republican voters, but I think a couple of factors made that impossible:

--the Palin nomination (whether you like her or not) got much the conservative base interested in voting for the GOP ticket;

--Dislike for Obama by the GOP base increased dramatically over the summer and fall, so that many Republicans who dislike McCain intensely are still going to vote for him just to keep Obama out of the WH.

If Obama wins, my gut feeling is that conditions for 2012 will greatly resemble those of 1980. Higher taxes, economic problems, liberal looniness run amok and GOP infighting will make it a little more likely that the LP and libertarian ideas get more attention from the electorate. If Ron Paul decides to run again as a Republican, however, that would throw a wrench into things.

Kreel Sarloo | October 22, 2008, 5:16pm | #

"Another question. If you qualify for welfare programs, isn't it against your self-interest to hold libertarian views?"

And if you can hold a gun, isn't it against your self-interest to not rob banks?

Holy Jesus H Christ on a skate board.

Urkobold™ | October 22, 2008, 5:18pm | #

AH, SUCCESS! THE URKOBOLD JUST GOT OFF THE PHONE WITH A WOMAN WILLING TO BE THE FIRST CANDIDATE FOR THE MAMMATARIAN PARTY. BEHOLD THE NEXT GOVERNOR OF ILLINOIS! WITH THE SAME KIND OF EXPERIENCE THAT HILLARY CLINTON HAD--EXPERIENCE BY OSMOSIS!

Anthony Gregory | October 22, 2008, 5:19pm | #

"Gee Anthony, you really are a cosmotarian! When I was seven I barely knew what a prostitute was. :-)"

Nah, I'm just a plumbliner.

Anthony Gregory | October 22, 2008, 5:20pm | #

"Show me a poor libertarian, or a libertarian with food stamps. They don't exist."

Wow. I would bet money that libertarians are no richer than the average person.

Lincoln | October 22, 2008, 5:26pm | #

Libertarians are the prostitutes and drugs party that really, really hates poor people.

You all make me sick.

Woah there Phalkor. You've got us all wrong. Libertarians love poor people. If it weren't for poor people where would we get our prostitutes and drugs from? Not to mention stem cells, spare organs, slaves, boat anchors, bum fight videos - the list is truly endless.

robert capozzi | October 22, 2008, 5:36pm | #

I'm wondering what "limo services" would have been if only taxis were used? $19,000 vs $15,000, maybe? Limos sound extravagant, but they are not much more expensive, and when timing is critical, they are a great solution.

Shelby | October 22, 2008, 5:46pm | #

While I firmly support the public platform of Urkobold's Mammatarian Party, I fear he about 120 years too late; its prospects were better before women had the vote. As it is I fear the Mammatarians will be locked in an eternal grapple with their natural counterparts, the Tightbuns.

Naga Sadow | October 22, 2008, 5:50pm | #

Lincoln,

Wait. Is it Libertarian to have slaves?

The Angry Optimist | October 22, 2008, 5:54pm | #

1. Lambaste anyone who fails a "purity" test
2. Form "splitter" political parties that whine and bitch
3. ?????
4. ACHIEVE POLITICAL RELEVANCE!

That's the fucking ticket right theyah.

Urkobold™ | October 22, 2008, 5:57pm | #

SHELBY,

CLEARLY, YOU ARE NOT A READER OF COSMOPOLITAN. MANY WOMEN LIKE THE RACK AS MUCH AS MEN. NOTHING--NOTHING!--IS MORE AMERICAN THAN LARGE, AMERICAN BREASTS.

The Angry Optimist | October 22, 2008, 5:59pm | #

Urkobold - I don't even have to click on that link to know that's Jeri Ryan.

But I did anyway. Because mmmmmm Jeri Ryan.

The Angry Optimist | October 22, 2008, 6:21pm | #

Barr Campaign spent $18,691 on Limo Services

limos are actually pretty cheap, efficient ways to herd groups of 10 or less around.

oh, and George? Loved your "the enemies are OUT THERE" speech at the LP convention. It's a freakin' shame you showed you didn't really mean it.

Thomas L. Knapp | October 22, 2008, 6:21pm | #

"Show me a poor libertarian, or a libertarian with food stamps. They don't exist."

I'm a libertarian, and I make a damn sight less now than I did when I was a union factory worker. Matter of fact, I suspect that if I totaled up my hours, I'd learn that I make less than minimum wage.

Jesse | October 22, 2008, 6:32pm | #

Paul/Gravel '12

They're both well known.

They both support the Fair Tax, the 2nd amendment, and are against the war, for civil liberties.

The only issues are Paul is sort of a theocrat-libertarian and wants to close borders and Gravel supports health care vouchers and was once more liberal...

Health care vouchers paid for by a fair tax are a big step toward libertarianism.

in 2012, these two grumpy old men could make the major parties talk about their ideas. They're old, but they won't win, so it doesn't matter. Paul/Gravel '12.

AnthonyD | October 22, 2008, 6:51pm | #

Warren says,

"The question is, now that the LP reformers have had their way for the past four years, and gotten everything they asked Santa for, with no good results and some detrimental consequenses, can us radicals have our party back?"


Dear Warren (or any other batsh*t crazy purist),

Since when is Batsh*t Crazy Purism the default position of the party? Nominate, support, and try to get elected one of your Batsh*t Crazy Purists. Or change the party bylaws to indicate that Batsh*t Crazy Purism is the official default position of the LP. Otherwise, stop your whining and allow reasonable, well-showered people to nominate the LP candidate.

The Angry Optimist | October 22, 2008, 7:16pm | #

Serious question for the Barr detractors: what will it take for you to no longer be Barr detractors?

What is the standard? If he does better than any other LP candidate, does that count? If membership spikes like crazy after the election, is that good enough?

What does it take?

Tulpa | October 22, 2008, 7:24pm | #

The Barr campaign also wasn't helped by the fact that many of the ballot-access volunteers who worked for the LP in the past are radicals, who decided to sit home and pout this year because Barr wasn't friendly to neopagans or trisexuals or whatever.

Ironically, the same people who refused to help the Barr campaign at all this year are the ones wondering aloud why he's on fewer ballots than Badnarik.

hater | October 22, 2008, 7:25pm | #

what will it take for you to no longer be Barr detractors?

Whatever he doesn't do.

Eric Sundwall | October 22, 2008, 8:07pm | #

Palin's wardrobe expenditures constitute about half the per annum needs of LPHQ at the Watergate . . .

Been re-reading Dr. Thompson's classic from '72 . . . love the bit about him almost wiping out Nixon with a lit cig near jet fuel on the tarmac in '68. Hardly Teddy White stuff, but we have David Brooks now.

Angela Keaton | October 22, 2008, 8:27pm | #

Eric--point taken but just think how much better the LNC would be if spend half the per annum buying Jeri Ryan's wardrobe for Michelle Shinghal. Knapp would have gotten an actual libertarian. You would have gotten a normal American. Phillies would have gotten someone who knows how to budget. Capozzi would be hard pressed to criticize Miche's buff ass and Davidson would have gotten a better pair to wear the BTP shirt.

Keaton/Shinghal '12. Trust.

Mostly reading the Jolie/Aniston forum at Female First.

John C Jackson | October 22, 2008, 10:00pm | #

Bob Barr is bad enough, but now that even people like Casey Serin are calling themselves libertarian, the brand has suffered irreparable harm.

Libertarian now means far-right crackpot, bigots, and assorted nutjobs.

I guess I will just go by the far more respectable sounding "Anarchist."

miche | October 22, 2008, 10:18pm | #

Funny Keaton. Do you think our stripping across Texas tour will hurt or help our chances in the nominating process?

David F. Nolan | October 22, 2008, 11:18pm | #

Good analysis, Brian. I don't think that membership growth (or shrinkage) has much to do with the contents of the platform. It is influenced more by other factors, such as the terrorist attacks on 9/11/2001, which caused a lot of people to suddenly decide that we needed a massive Security State.

Membership usually goes up in Presidential Election years, and 2008 is pretty typical in that regard. It would have gone up if we'd nominated Mary Ruwart or Steve Kubby -- perhaps by a larger percentage, perhaps by less. The Barr campaign has not been about building the LP; it's all about Bob Barr. At this point, my best guess is that he covets a "talking head" spot on Fox News or CNN, which is why his campaign is heavily oriented toward appearances on second-tier cable TV shows. Barr has done almost nothing to promote down-ticket LP candidates.

How well will Barr do on November 4th? Right now, I'd guess a half-million to a million votes - a far cry from the 5% his boosters were talking about in May. The number of new members brought in by the Barr campaign will not be enough to seriously change the makeup of the overall party membership, and I suspect there will be a "backlash" against the people who ran Barr's campaign, mostly because they are incompetent.

Expect plenty of heated discussion at the December LNC meeting in San Diego.

Isaac Freeman | October 22, 2008, 11:35pm | #

(sorry if this is a double post, but its acting funny)

Serious question for the Barr detractors: what will it take for you to no longer be Barr detractors?

What is the standard? If he does better than any other LP candidate, does that count? If membership spikes like crazy after the election, is that good enough?

The problem is that for many of us the LP is more of a litmus test than an actual candidate-electing party. For me, watering down the principles of the party is like adjusting the litmus paper instead of the pH of what you're testing.

I don't ever really expect a Libertarian to make it to federal office, but getting one there by dropping the things which set us apart from the major parties isn't really much an accomplishment, is it?

However, imagine if Mary Ruward managed to get 10% in the polls? How profound would what be? That would send a serious message throughout the country! Whereas Barr could get 20% and we would all know that its just the disenfranchised republican's. The real problem is that the GOP can compete with Barr handily, so sending a 20%-for-Barr signal will just send the GOP a little bit back towards the right. However, the GOP definitely cannot compete with Ruwart in any substantial way, so a 10%-for-Ruwart signal has a lot more meaning!

The Angry Optimist | October 22, 2008, 11:43pm | #

The problem is that for many of us the LP is more of a litmus test

You're right, that is the EXACT problem!

Isaac, somewhere, somehow, I can claim that you're not a "real" libertarian. And of course this is going to devolve into a bunch of argumentation and wailing and gnashing of teeth and whatnot, but at the end of the day, we have to do a balancing act between "Church" and "Relevant Political Entity".

AnthonyD | October 22, 2008, 11:54pm | #

Isaac says,

"The problem is that for many of us the LP is more of a litmus test than an actual candidate-electing party."

Oh. My. God. The. Irony.

Isaac says, part II:

"However, imagine if Mary Ruward managed to get 10% in the polls?"

My good sir, there arent enough psychotropic drugs in Hollywood that I could take that would allow me to imagine that scenario.

Isaac Freeman | October 23, 2008, 12:14am | #

I can claim that you're not a "real" libertarian.

Claim all you want. I'm just a libertarian which realizes the futility of affecting change through voting. Even if we could get an LP candidate in office, what would really change? I could just as easily argue that you aren't a "real" libertarian. I am principled non-voter. I am not trying to say the LP should have nominated Ruwart, nor would I have voted for her if they did. I am merely pointing out that the weight of the message voters intend to send by voting libertarian is diluted because of Barr's nomination. The real message becomes one to the GOP of "stop being so liberal" instead of one directed to the gov't as a whole of "get out of my life!"

Angela Keaton | October 23, 2008, 12:32am | #

"Funny Keaton. Do you think our stripping across Texas tour will hurt or help our chances in the nominating process?"

It will hurt only if I keep eating the piles of crap at the No on 8 office.

Isaac Freeman | October 23, 2008, 12:34am | #

My good sir, there arent enough psychotropic drugs in Hollywood that I could take that would allow me to imagine that scenario.

Precisely my point! (kind of :P)

Note how you respond so strongly to the notion of Ruwart getting 10% but not nearly so with Barr getting 20%.

Michael Seebeck | October 23, 2008, 1:26am | #

Miche-Angela '12? I'd support that in a second!

Besides, the No on 8 junk food does little to negatively impact Angela, despite her claims to the contrary:

http://muddythoughts.blogspot.com/2008/10/support-boston-tea-party.html

LP Logic | October 23, 2008, 1:53am | #

Ruwart getting 10% wouldn't send nearly as big a message as Osama bin Laden getting 5% of the vote.

We should have nominated him!

John C. Randolph | October 23, 2008, 1:59am | #

I thought democrats were the party whose heart bleeds for the poor.

Not lately. There's only one real Democrat left in the congress, and he gets ignored by his party leadership the same way the Republicans ignore Ron Paul.

-jcr

John C. Randolph | October 23, 2008, 2:01am | #

Even if we could get an LP candidate in office, what would really change?

When Dick Randolph was in the Alaska legislature, he shamed them into abolishing their state income tax.

-jcr

Xtian | October 23, 2008, 2:13am | #

"what will it take for you to no longer be Barr detractors?"

He could emphasize his civil libertarianism as much as his fiscal conservatism. He could establish a record as a libertarian activist, instead of running as an ex-conservative who suffered a nervous breakdown. He could take some pride in the LP brand, boost the other candidates, unify the party, and run a competent campaign.

I don't particularly dislike Barr. I'm just not sure why he's the nominee, unless it's all about courting angry Republicans. I don't want to vote for the right's Ralph Nader.

JMR | October 23, 2008, 6:11am | #

Wow. Poor libertarians "don't exist." I wonder at the things people pull out of their asses more than ever these days...

Thomas L. Knapp | October 23, 2008, 7:34am | #

"Assessing the Barr campaign's effectiveness should be tabled until after the election. Yes, his fundraising has been disappointing thus far, but understandable, given the economic downturn and uncertainties."

Obama raised $150 million in September. I guess that the economy didn't turn down or become uncertain for Democrats.

"what will it take for you to no longer be Barr detractors?"

I'd keep my yap zipped about him if he'd start running an even nominally libertarian campaign instead of using the LP's nomination to make himself into a stalking horse (my offhand guess is that he's hoping to do well enough to secure a judicial appointment to keep him from running in 2012).

phalkor | October 23, 2008, 8:55am | #

thanks, I'm enlightened and all that junk

Still don't understand why you all hate poor people so much, but in time maybe I can have hate too.

kidding

Nick Wilson | October 23, 2008, 9:26am | #

As a co-founder of the Libertarian Reform Caucus that led the platform change, even I'm not sure that Barr was the best idea for promoting the libertarian cause, in the same way I'm not sure Paul was. I'm probably going to vote for him as the least of all evils, but I dislike libertarianism getting any more closely tied with the Right than it already is. As I've mentioned on other threads, I want a new and more moderate/left classical liberal party to replace the LP, which is long past its expiration date.

Barr has also demonstrated some fundamental misunderstandings of libertarianism over the course of his campaign (suing Rick Warren for not letting him into a privately organized debate) and also has little record to back up his current message. If Barack Obama came out tomorrow and said, "I changed my mind, now I'm a libertarian!" and makes a few small policy changes to cater to this, we'd all have trouble taking him seriously, too.

We do need to still support candidates like Barr, who don't toe the line 100% because unless we are a big tent, we will never succeed or grow. The LP has acted for too long (since the Rothbardian takeover in '83) like a radical evangelist church where you either accept the faith 100% or you are an apostate. Our reform effort was an attempt to change that. To a degree, we've succeeded. Here's where we should agree: Barr is, of the candidates with a statistical chance to win the presidency, still on the side of liberty when most of the other candidates are on the side of authoritarianism. That's why I probably will vote for him. We have to pick people who will start us in the right direction, because the public are not and will never be ready to accept anarchocapitalism.

We need candidates who gradually start pushing the public in the right direction by promoting first the most popular policies instead of the Great Libertarian Flash, where we intentionally shock non-libertarians with our most radical ideas. Radicals should go form a think-tank if that's their goal. There's little point in making education on radical ideas the primary purpose of a political party, because a political party's goal should be to win elections.

I also think the LP should stop wasting its resources running presidential candidates (and even senatorial and gubernatorial candidates) and instead focus all resources and campaigning on winnable races, like U.S. House of Represenatives, state Senates and mayorships, with qualified and acceptable candidates who aren't ballot stuffers. The presidential campaign is one big joke which the party pours lots of money into and gets poor return on investment. The idea of using the presidential race to promote your party brand is flawed if the candidate hardly gathers 1% of the vote most of the time, which permanently ties the party to electoral failure. Having elected officials who work in legislatures as well as in local offices to influence the system is far more effective promotion and far more attainable.

But I'm still of the notion that the LP will never succeed. Perhaps Barr is de-emphasizing the LP because it's a burden on his chances of getting elected and because independent campaigns have historically done far better than LP campaigns?

Mad Max | October 23, 2008, 10:28am | #

"we have to do a balancing act between 'Church' and 'Relevant Political Entity'."

Join the Catholic Church and get both!

R C Dean | October 23, 2008, 10:30am | #

I also think the LP should stop wasting its resources running presidential candidates (and even senatorial and gubernatorial candidates) and instead focus all resources and campaigning on winnable races, like U.S. House of Represenatives, state Senates and mayorships, with qualified and acceptable candidates who aren't ballot stuffers.

Given the proven failure of the strategy to raise the Libertarian profile with unwinnable top-of-the-ballot races, its hard to argue with this.

Pro Libertate | October 23, 2008, 11:07am | #

I think David is dead on. The big issue here is 9/11. Still. It corrupted the GOP--which, of course, was corrupted already--and it drowned out the libertarian message that was seeming to make inroads in the 90s. The GOP happened to be in power in 2001, but I think we would've seen a very similar government expansion under Gore, though it would've manifested itself in different ways, I'm sure.

We're about to be victims of a much larger government role in our economy, and we may even see some major shifts towards socialism--universal healthcare, etc. I don't think the country as a whole has an appetite for that; otherwise, why isn't Obama playing that card more explicitly in the general election? Still, both sides of the aisle seem to think that more government is good government, so either way, we're in for a storm of regulatory nonsense for several more years. Whether this may prove to awaken the American distrust of government and put the libertarian message back in play is another issue. One reason to hope is that Ron Paul, as unpolished as he may be, really made a splash during the primaries. What was that about? Can the LP, RLC, or other libertarian group or groups tap into that? I sure hope so.

PicassoIII | October 23, 2008, 1:05pm | #

URKOBOLD!!

I like how your mind works. If you do live in chi-town we need to hang, preferably at a place that plays fast and loose with both smoking and public decency ordinances.
Reason got this one right, sux to live here these days.

Appearances DO matter. Stuff Ron Paul’s rhetoric into an attractive package (bonus points for above average) and you could have polled 30%+.
Tell me Romney hasn’t benefited from his good looks over the years (and political schitzoids).
Tell me Obama doesn’t benefit from being a ‘lighter’ shade. D.A.G. NAILED that in this week’s ‘Chocolate News’ (look it up).
Such a shame that Wesley Snipes will probably not be able to run for office.
I’m not being sarcastic at all. Deadly serious...

Xtian | October 23, 2008, 1:37pm | #

"If Barack Obama came out tomorrow and said, "I changed my mind, now I'm a libertarian!" and makes a few small policy changes to cater to this, we'd all have trouble taking him seriously, too."

Thanks. The LP needs to court mainstream acceptance, but becoming Republicans hasn't worked.

PicassoIII | October 23, 2008, 1:51pm | #

TAO wrote:
Serious question for the Barr detractors: what will it take for you to no longer be Barr detractors?
What is the standard?

Isaac wrote:
The problem is that for many of us the LP is more of a litmus test

TAO wrote:
You're right, that is the EXACT problem!

BINGO!!!!!
Can i remind most everyone missing the f-in elephant in the room.
50% of the electorate has no idea who is running besides TweedleDee/Dumb and maybe Nader. By all means tweak our platform in the ‘off season’ but for goodness sake CAPITALIZE on whatever boost we get from ANY press...
The Barr/Paul split is a good thing in that regard, it’s NEWS where the MSM would give more silence, Baldwin’s endorsement is meaningless as big cities/sprawls will probably benefit in the next gerryman......uh, redistricting.
Hell 30% of the population is sitting there (IN the big cities no less) pissed off about smoking bans, and trust me the Greens offer them no solace!

F the litmus test on Barr. He is a political horse, ride his limo shuttled a$$.
If HE isn’t associating himself with the LP enough, that doesn’t stop YOU from claiming him. No one is betting on a POTUS win, but i’ll take even money on one by a congressional candidate in the next 2 cycles. In some state we’ll get a favorable scenario.
His long term effect is unknown, he has one clear advantage, namely name recognition and take or leave porn star mustache, he’s camera friendly at 60 and will remain so for a cycle or two.
Not a litmus BUT a logical analysis:
He DID sunset clause ATA 95 and Patriot 03. Has worked with MPP, ACLU.
"There remains time to turn back the constitutional clock and roll back excessive post-9/11 powers before we turn the corner into another Japanese internment or, closer to our own experiences, before we witness a legally sanctioned Ruby Ridge or Waco scenario."
That’s not yesterday, that’s 5 years old. A year later, this same former GOP Congressman from a very populous state openly endorsed Badnarik the LP candidate for POTUS.
Or would you prefer a ‘purist’ like McKinney.
Whatever is in the water down there IL needs some.
Finally Barr is both great political theater and possibly a genuine conversion. Take his changing positions over a decade as a logical progression of thought. For the moment i could care LESS. I am marking my paper ballot and pushing others to do the same.

Shem | October 23, 2008, 1:53pm | #

"what will it take for you to no longer be Barr detractors?"

A time machine. But then we've already had this discussion.

and it drowned out the libertarian message that was seeming to make inroads in the 90s.

Would that be why Barr, Gingrich and their pals in the GOP completely dropped the whole "fiscal conservative" thing after they got whipped by Clinton during the government shutdown and became full-time smut-peddlers? 9-11 didn't change the GOP; it just made people wake up to just how batshit crazy they had become once they got power and realized that they weren't capable of living up to the heroic story that they made up for themselves.

PicassoIII | October 23, 2008, 2:28pm | #

Shem wrote:
"Would that be why Barr, Gingrich and their pals in the GOP completely dropped the whole "fiscal conservative" thing after they got whipped by Clinton"

Hey i'm playing 'what have you done for me lately'.....
Check his flyer, fiscal conservative.
Check his website, slams the bailout, touts the free market.
FOUR years ago IN CONGRESS he testified gay marriage is a states rights issue and apologized for DOMA at the convention.

The Milk is spilt.
He's the candidate.
We don't have a 'natural' but i'll take the 'nurtured'. At this point 'surgically enhanced' would do.
Can we save the purity test for mid-late 2009, or at least Nov 5th?
Please...

Bill Wood | October 23, 2008, 2:38pm | #

I question the writers LP Membership numbers. According to the last two LP Newspapers that I have received there is a section listing all new dues paying Members. Before the LP Convention new members per month was about 400, since the Convention new memberships have averaged about 700 a month. I counted a little over 1400 new members in a two month period, with a little under 1400 new members for the following two months. I don't have the numbers for those who have left the LP and the numbers above are only fom the LP News and using this resource the LP has gained about 2800 new Members in about 4 months.

There appears to be a small but vocal group of people whose main goal is to destroy the Libertarian Party.

PicassoIII | October 23, 2008, 3:06pm | #

wrote:
I also think the LP should stop wasting its resources running presidential candidates (and even senatorial and gubernatorial candidates) and instead focus all resources and campaigning on winnable races, like U.S. House of Represenatives, state Senates and mayorships, with qualified and acceptable candidates who aren't ballot stuffers. The presidential campaign is one big joke which the party pours lots of money into and gets poor return on investment. The idea of using the presidential race to promote your party brand is flawed if the candidate hardly gathers 1% of the vote most of the time,

Classic 50 state thinking. But it’s NOT an either/or question. It’s true that ‘national’ focus needs to be more ‘local’, BUT we can’t abandon a national presence for this office, ever. Even as only a token, simply an entry in the record that there was an LP candidate.
But Barr WILL poll much better in some places than 1%.
And take a look at this....
AZ election
25 freaking percent in 06!
What if we split a bigger difference with a D somewhere, anywhere and send an LP congressman to DC? Honestly I don’t mind national funds sending Barr as a Senator.
If he continues voting like Paul/Flake on most stuff and Kucinich/Feingold as well one some specifics....i’m a VERY happy camper.
He may not be Goldwater reincarnated but if he acts like it, wtf, let's get over it.
I’d love to see LP representation in/from IL. But anywhere is worth some coin let alone a vote.

Fascist Nation | October 23, 2008, 4:41pm | #

The Libertarian National Committee/ National Libertarian Party has the candidate for president and vice president for whom they have always clamored and manipulated conventions. Barr/ Root. They have everything they want to finally prove their claims of broad coalition, consensus big tent political party here it comes big time big shot relevant wannabes. Republican-Lite.

Well as much as a homophobic GOP CONgressman who was a notorious anti-drug warrior in both the legislature and as a federal prosecutor who prior to that was career CIA assigned to the Americas (and I ain't talking North America) can be Republican-Lite. But hey, he has been a Libertarian for two years now so he has reformed. Gosh, thanks a lot Bob!

So, the money and the membership sign ups will start coming in with this appeal to a broad sector of Amerikana.

Um-huh. How is that working out for you?

Not that it matters to me. To paraphrase Reagan, 'I didn't leave the National Libertarian Party, it left me.'

So now national is bankrupt, ignored and seriously committed to promoting anything establishment that gets it a pat on the head regardless of whether it involves coercive action on unwilling subjects. "We like less taxes, more freedom and smaller government."

Well isn't that just jolly. And I like less testicle crushing, more impeachment and smaller deficits too. How about no coercive government, freedoms without fraud, without force and the absolute respect for people's life, liberty and property? I know it is too much to expect or ask for, but can we just attempt to shoot for it please, rather than conceding force, fraud and theft upfront and then trying to preserve some sliver of liberty?

Unrealistic?!

No problem. It isn't about national. It never was. Power lies in the local and state parties. National has no power and no authority. It just acts as if it does. Bankrupt in money. Bankrupt in principles. Bankrupt in ideas. See ya!

And like Knapp said, I appreciate more and more Mr. Barr leaving all references to libertarian out of his missives. Keep up the good work. Looking forward to your landslide against McCain and Obama in the next few days. Heck, Charlie Manson ought to be able to pull 5% against those two butchers. And whatever your reasons for running will pass unnoticed along with yet the latest opportunity to present libertarianism to the public as an alternative to the Washington Party kleptocracy.

The Democratic Republican | October 23, 2008, 5:01pm | #

So let me recap this thread...

1) The radicals who sat on the sidelines and didn't support Barr now accuse him of "running his campaign into the ground"? Even after he was polling in double digits before Labor Day with having raised no money?

2) Some of these same radicals continue to support Ron Paul, a double-faced politician who criticizes spending and then takes earmarks, and someone who has allowed horribly racist things to be published under his name and continues to hide the perpetrator?

3) Doherty wants me to believe that getting rid of 13,000 radicals with 10,000 people who actually understand politics would be a bad thing?

4) The LP has never accomplished anything of any value in 30 years and I'm supposed to see it as a bad thing to nominate an actual politician who hasn't raised money from white supremacists?

So, just to be sure I'm clear, after all of that, I'm supposed to think Barr was a net loss for the LP?

All anyone has done is show why the LP will always be a dysfunctional, useless blob. I should have known this fact from this line in Doherty's post: "David Nolan, founder of the LP...."

I defy any of you so-called radicals to go out and actually accomplish ANYTHING. You don't even have to get elected to an office, although you would think that would be a decent standard for a political party. Just go out and convert someone from a mainstream political belief to anarcho-capitalism. Let me know how it goes.

The Democratic Republican | October 23, 2008, 5:04pm | #

Oh, and to those who want to use Election Day as a chance to rail on Barr, just get back with me on how the Boston Tea Party does.

Oh? What's that? You don't think a party of principle can actually get elected? Well, isn't that an easy way to get to bitch and moan and then not even have to produce any results. Kind of like government, if you ask me.

But here's the real question. Elections are about winning, not educating people, so why do you "radicals" even bother with the political system? Wouldn't you be better served opting out of society? Living in the woods? Engaging in civil disobedience?

As far as I'm concerned, LP radicals are just a bunch of losers who want to bitch and moan to cover up the fact that THEY DO NOT LIVE BY THEIR PRINCIPLES.

PicassoIII | October 23, 2008, 8:03pm | #

The Democratic Republican wrote:
Some of these same radicals continue to support Ron Paul, a double-faced politician who criticizes spending and then takes earmarks, and someone who has allowed horribly racist things to be published under his name and continues to hide the perpetrator?

Ugh, enough..
Yes he should have known about and stopped. But protecting a close associate shows character towards individuals though. Whatever he may feel in his heart of hearts, collectivism is overwhelmed by respect for the individual.
And what did get published pales in comparison to say Jesse Helms singin' Dixie to Carol Mosley-Braun. Paul ain’t perfect. Honestly Barr is objectively a better ‘candidate’ for potus even in comparison to the whole field with party affiliation stripped and only 'candidate' platforms.
By NOT running as an independent i bet more C4L and average Paulistas vote Barr before Baldwin.
He will also be IN Congress, voting 95% like either of us would want our representative to. I would be overjoyed if i could send something like that to DC.
He’s changed his position on capitol punishment publicly. Between that and drug wars he is VOTING to protect the rights of minorities in a big way. Advocating since 1988!
TWENTY freakin years.
Cut a (seriously) senior libertarian statesman a freaking break.
His principles may not jibe with ours perfectly, but he actually hs them in spades as a politician.

Angela Keaton | October 23, 2008, 9:25pm | #

Is the Barr campaign the LP's Ishtar or that season of Dallas where Bobby was dead? You know the one they couldn't syndicate and wrote out the rest of the series.

Not sure what this does to the LP but can't believe the Dallas producers really screwed up Knots Landing that way.

Anyone ever find out what happen to Wayne Root? It's like he walked upstars to wax his skis and never came back. As with many great shows,too many continunity problems and sloppy writing killed the LP.

Bill Wood | October 23, 2008, 10:18pm | #

Angela, here is a partial listing of what Wayne has been doing.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here are the most recent media appearances, articles, or interviews featuring Wayne Allyn Root:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WHFS Radio Baltimore, MD
WPXI-TV Pittsburg Cable News Network
Happy Housewives Club Talk Radio Network National
KCLU (NPR) Ventura County, CA
Slate.com
Reno Gazette Journal
WSJS/WSML Radio Greensboro, NC
TheCalifornian.com
"John Oakley Morning Show" CFMJ Toronto, Canada
"The Jerry Doyle Show" National Radio
"Your World with Neil Cavuto" FOX News Channel
"The Jim Bohannon Show" Westwood One National Radio
"The Voicebox" 1700 AM Reno, Nevada
"The Todd Klein Show" KRFE AM Lubbock, Texas
"The Fabian Calvo Show" 1340am Tampa Bay, FL
"The Al Rantel Show" KABC Radio, Los Angeles, CA
KTFA Public Radio Berkeley, CA
FOX NEWS Channel (TV) Neil Cavuto
Pacifica Radio Network National Radio
"The Ian Collins Show" National UK Radio
"The Charles Adler Show" National Canadian Radio
"The Gary Nolan Show" Columbia, Missouri
WNRP Radio Pensacola, FL
"The Lee Elci Show" New London, CT
KURV-AM Radio Rio Grande Valley, Texas
KUIK-AM Hillsboro, Oregon
CFRB Radio "The Richard Syrett Show" Toronto, Canada
WJFN 970 AM Jackson, Mississippi
Fox Business Network National TV
"The Jerry Doyle Show" Talk Radio Network National
U.S. News & World Report National
Wall Street Journal National
American Spectator magazine National
Reason.com
New Republic magazine National
Gambling911.com
"Mancow in the Morning" Nationally Syndicated
"Abdul in the Morning" WXNT Indianapolis, IN
"Barroom Politics" KEPL Estes Park, Colorado
American Free Press
"Your World with Neil Cavuto" Fox News Channel (TV)
WDUN-AM "Morning show w/Bill & Joel" Gainsville, GA
"The John Gambling Show with Rita Cosby" WOR NYNY
"Adler On-Line" Corus Radio Network Canada- Nationally Syndicated
KSLR AM .The Adam McManus Show. San Antonio, TX
WNRP Pensacola, FL
WCCO "The Al Malmberg Show" Minneapolis, MN
WCMA "The Troy eff Show" Toledo, OH
WDUN "The Morning Show with Bill & Joel" Gainsville, GA
WLEA "The Kevin Doran Show" Hornell, NY
talkSPORT Radio "The George Galloway Show" London, England
WPSC 88.7 FM New Jersey
1600 AM Yuba City, CA
The Jerry Doyle Show Talk Radio Network
KTRH Morning News Houston, TX
KAJO-AM Grants Pass, Oregon
The Washington Post
KGAB Radio Cheyenne, Wyoming
WVNJ Radio Teanexck, New Jersey
The Jerry Doyle Show Talk Radio Network National
"Phil the News Junkie" KIRO Seattle, Washington
KGAB Radio Cheyenne, Wyoming
KLFD Radio Minneapolis, Minnesota
The Fred Honsberger Show NBC TV Pittsburg (WPXI TV)
The Pittsburg Cable News Chanel
BBC World News London, England
ABC TV News Salt Lake City, Utah
Park City TV Park City, Utah
Poker Talk America Radio National
WGNS Radio Murfreesboro, TN
The Jewish News Las Vegas, NV
JT Foxx Show Chicago, ILL
The Jewish Exponent Philadelphia, PA
KOMP 92 Morning Show Las Vegas, NV
KDDS AM Radio UC Davis, California
KSOO AM Sioux Falls, South Dakota
"Elisea Frishberg Show" BizRadio Networks
"Shared Sacrifice" Blog Talk Radio
"Bill Sebastion Show" Appleton, WI
"Breakfast Bunch" Ripon, WI
"Liberty Talk" Blog Talk Radio
Fox Sports KDKJ Bismark, North Dakota
WHBY Green Bay, WI
CasinoDirect.com Blog Talk Radio
"Shad Olsen Show" KOTA Rapid City, South Dakota
"The MoneyMan Report" BizRadio Network KTEK Houston, TX
"The Lee Elci Show" WXLM New London, CT
WisPolitics.com
My Success Gateway Podcast
LiveCasinoDirect.com
The Danny Fontana Show" WDYT Charlotte, NC
The Jay Morris Show KZO Kalamazoo, MI
"The Frank Show" KFMA Radio Tucson, AZ & Reno, NV
The Jeff Kropf Show KUIK Radio Portland, Oregon
KBYR Anchorage, Alaska
Woody Woodland Show Nashua, N.H.
KIML AM Gilllette, Wyoming
KWNA Winnemucca, Nevada
WNRP Pensacola, FL
New Republic magazine
The J.T. Foxx Show Chicago, ILL
"The Bob Clark Show" KKOB-AM Albuquerque, New Mexico
"Dialogue with Scott Leffler" 1230 AM Buffalo, NY
"Above Politics" at AboveTopSecret.com
"The Lee Elci Show" WXLM New London, CT.
KGO Morning News KGO 810 AM San Francisco, CA
KUGR AM Green River, Wyoming
Wyoming Public Radio Newcastle, Wyoming
WKBK Keene, New Hampshire
The Weekly Filibuster Show
KXLY Spokane, Washington
Las Vegas Review Journal
The Park Record Park City, Utah
Reason.com (Reason magazine online)
Money Matters Financial Network New York
Ringside Radio Show Louisiana
CNN/Money
Newsweek.com
Fox Business Network
The Charles Goyette Show Phoenix, Arizona
The Brian Wilson Show WHFS Baltimore, MD
Radio America National
KABC The Kevin Wall Show Los Angeles
The Bill Press Show Jones Radio Network National
Additional Media Appearances

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

RNN-TV Real Politics Show New York
TIME magazine National
PoliticalGrind.com
Voice of America.com
Fox Business Network
The Bob Grant Show WABC Radio- NY
Voice of America Radio Network Worldwide
The Rick Amato Show 1170 AM KCBQ San Diego
The Mancow Show National
The WGN Morning TV Show Chicago
The Jerry Agar Show WLS Chicago
The Roy Green Show 940 Talk Radio National (Canada)
The Brett Conway Show WHIM Orlando, FL
Fox Business Network
Election Unspun Pacifica Radio National
The Real Estate Expert 630 AM Denver
The Glenn Beck Program Premiere Radio Network
The Mancow Show National
The Ric Federighi Show WIMS Radio Michigan City, Indiana
KXLY, Spokane, Washington- Mike Fitzsimmons Show
NBC TV Las Vegas Morning Show
Follow the Money with Pat Kiley Salem Radio- National
The Brian Wilson Show in Afternoon Drive
1370 AM WSTD, Toledo, Ohio
Liberty Talk Radio
Betting Business (U.K.)
Fox Business Channel (multiple appearances)
Sports Overnight America- National
Park Record Newspaper, Park City, UT
Las Vegas Review Journal, Las Vegas, NV
WikiNews.com
The Gold 101- Salem Radio Network- National
KSGF-AM/FM, Springfield, Missouri
The Drive with Gary Nolan, Columbia, Missouri
Mark Carbonaro, KION, Salinas, CA
Bloomberg TV (Europe)
CNBC Europe
The James Whale Show (London)
Setanta TV (Europe)
The Racing Post (UK)
WTKF/WJNC Morehead City, NC
KNST-Tucson AZ
ESPN 1000 AM Chicago
Outside the Wire Intel Radio Network
Michael Medved Show, Nationwide
Brad Davis Show- WDRC/WSGN Hartford, CT.
J.T. Foxx Show- WLS 890 AM Chicago
J.T. Foxx Show- 97.1 FREE FM Los Angeles
Adam Corrolla Show- 97.1 FREE FM Los Angeles
Sports Overnight America- Sports Byline Network
Sports Overnight America- American Forces Radio
KION Radio-Salinas, CA
Sportsbiz on Business Talk Radio Network
Poker Player Newspaper
TheOnlineWire.com
NBC's "Poker After Dark"
Las Vegas Sun
KNPR-Nevada Public Radio
FreedomWorks Radio, Tampa Florida
LizardMaster.com
ConservativeBlog Talk Radio
The Financial Times May 2007
TheOnlineWire.com May 2007
Fox5News in Las Vegas
Fox News Channel nationally
Las Vegas Review Journal
Worth magazine
Poker News
CardPlayer magazine
ACTION magazine
BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation)
KABC Radio- Los Angeles
KNST Radio- Tucson, Arizona
WPTF Radio- Raleigh, North Carolina
WATR Radio- Waterbury, Connecticut
KOGO Radio- San Diego, CA
Talk Radio Network
Gambling911.com
RawVegas.com
"Face to Face with Jon Ralston" on Las Vegas ONE Cable Network
Time Out Chicago magazine- August 2007
The JT Foxx Show on WIND-AM Chicago
MOLI.com

James Maynard | October 24, 2008, 12:00am | #

If we are ever to undo the 1 1/2 party duopoly, we need to start NOW for 2012.

Ventura/RFK jr. '12!

JM

PicassoIII | October 24, 2008, 4:38am | #

RFK Jr?!?
#1 Enough political dynasties. Bush, Daley and a slew more have sucked. Jackson Jr is hardly a breath of fresh air.
Landrieu is one of the very few tolerable results. And seriously, enough w/ the Kennedys.
#2 Uh, pro minimum wage. Calls John Stossel a "flat-earther" and "traitor" but opposed 'Cape Wind'.
And he's is pro-life.
Jesse can claim (and be claimed) as a libertarian).
RFK 2 ... no way.

PicassoIII | October 24, 2008, 4:51am | #

Depending on what Barr does over the next couple years, he might be a stronger candidate both in terms of 'purity' and 'practicality'.
If not we do Ventura/Ruwart.

Straw Man | October 24, 2008, 7:28am | #

You know, every time Harry Browne appeared on a radio show, there were many fresh inquiries because Harry always made it a point to drop the website and phone number (800-Elect-Us) at every opportunity.

So if Mr. Root is getting all of that free media, where are all the inquiries?