The most interesting thing to me was this: "Doug Anderson joins other elected Libertarians in Colorado, including San Miguel County Sheriff Bill Masters, San Miguel County Coroner Robert Dempsey, City of Frederick Trustee Joe Johnson, and City of Hudson Trustee John Honnold." A Libertarian Sheriff? I'm there! -=Steve=-
So Jimmy, I see you're hawking the Libertarian Reform Caucus? What are your thoughts on that? Back in the early '90s there was a grou with similar objectives called "Committee for a Libertarian Majority". There was also a purist group in opposition called PLEDGE. -=Steve=-
I am not sure I understand your question. I will just say pragmatic politics makes sense as most Americans are pragmatists.
I am not sure I understand your question. It was deliberately open ended. I guess I was hoping that you, as someone involved with the party much more recently than I, could shed some light on how the organization has progressed in the last ten years. I will just say pragmatic politics makes sense as most Americans are pragmatists. That seems reasonable. I've always thought that the LP would do better if it made more use of endorsements of agreeable major party candidates. I also think that minor parties shouldn't run from their role as spoilers, but embrace and utilize it. In other words, after a few elections where a squishy Republican loses to the Democrat by less than the number of votes the Libertarian gets, perhaps the LP can start getting the GOP's attention when they announce who they intend to oppose. In proposing spending cuts, whether pragmatically small or otherwise, the LP definitely needs to explain how their solutions aren't just kicking the little guy when he's down. The GOP version of this was "compassionate conservatism" which ended up meaning "we're full of crap and are going to increase spending more than the Democrats ever would". I think there's a way to explain libertarian ideas in ways progressives would find appealing, but no one except Mary Ruwart is very good at it. The ability to do this is important. -=Steve=-
I haven't officially rejoined yet. There is a growing element within the Party that realizes they will fade into oblivion unless they become more practical and speak to the issues most Americans care about--over regulation, over taxation, the politics of manipulation, etc.,--rather than being a one-issue Party--legalizing drugs. Mary Ruwart is an excellent spokesperson for the Party. Ed Clark was perhaps the last LP member who was so articulate and thought-provoking. If the LP wants to be taken seriously in 2008, they will need to find an attractive, articulate person who can intelligently discuss the important issues and concerns of the day with thoughtful, analytic, stimulating, and insightful ideas for real change, growth, and progress.
Being a former "Consevative Republicain" now Libertariain I have to agree that we need more issues. Most people think that Libertarians are all about legalizing drugs, but the truth is that legalized drugs is a product of a properly run govt. Its funny to me to talk to "Constitutional Conservative" republicains who are against gay marriage or drug reform based on morals, but when you point out that the constitution makes these clearly state issue they get bent. I think the best bet for a solid future of libertarians is campaign started online, and as state by a previous poster, endorse other candidates. I really hate the two party system, but keep in mind if we ran a solid guy for pres and he won a couple of states the electrol college would give the election to whoever controls the senate. You have to have 271 electoral votes to win automaticly. Would be interesting to see the jockying for Libertarians electors though...
