Name recognition, favorables and unfavorables of Libertarian Party presidential candidates

If all is going well, I’m currently on a plane en route to Washington, DC. I prefiled this article in order to help keep TPW flowing while I’m away. Hopefully, some of the other writers here will help pick up my slack until I return on Friday.

In addition to the data provided earlier from the latest Libertarian Lists survey, we have now taken a look at the name recognition factors, favorables and unfavorables for each of the announced candidates and those who have been mentioned as possible candidates. These raw data, taken from 98 self-identified Libertarian National Convention delegates, are here.

Name Recognition

100 percent of the surveyed delegates know who Ron Paul is. Only 8.4 percent know who Daniel Williams is. Here’s the list, in ascending order, of potential and declared candidates in order of name recognition: Ron Paul, Steve Kubby, George Phillies, Bob Barr, Mary Ruwart, Wayne Allyn Root, Mike Jingozian, Christine Smith, Daniel Imperato, Mike Gravel, Barry Hess, Dave Hollist, Jim Burns, Bob Jackson, Robert Milnes, Alden Link, John Finan, Daniel Williams.

Negative Perceptions

We asked for survey participants to rate their impressions of the candidates in one of five categories: very positive, positive, neutral, negative, very negative. Of those who actually knew the candidate well enough to rate him/her, Milnes had the highest general negative rating, with 85.4 percent rating him as negative or very negative. Milnes was followed by Imperato with 82.5 percent, Burns with 62.9 percent, Link at 58.1 percent, and Finan at 56.7 percent. The rest of the list followed in this descending order: Dave Hollist, Daniel Williams, George Phillies, Mike Gravel, Christine Smith, Wayne Allyn Root, Bob Jackson, Mike Jingozian, Steve Kubby, Barry Hess, Bob Barr, Ron Paul, and Mary Ruwart.

Positive Perceptions

Of the positive and very positive candidate impressions, Ron Paul scored the highest with 85.7 percent. He was followed by Ruwart at 84.1 percent, Barr at 70.8 percent, Kubby at 58.1 percent and Hess at 50.0 percent. The rest of the candidates followed in this order: Wayne Allyn Root, George Phillies, Christine Smith, Mike Jingozian, Bob Jackson, Mike Gravel, Daniel Williams, Jim Burns, Dave Hollist, Alden Link, John Finan, Robert Milnes and Daniel Imperato.

Again, we only tallied positive and very positive responses from delegates who already knew who the respective candidate is.

Notes:

While name recognition and candidate perception are factors in speculating about who might win the presidential nomination, other factors are considered by delegates as well. Some of these factors include viability, political experience and other background, issues and ideology, fundraising, campaign skills, speaking ability, party support and history, etc. At the time this survey was conducted, Mary Ruwart had not announced her candidacy. Mike Gravel had been recently mentioned in the media as a possible LP candidate.

During the last survey, participants preferred Wayne Allyn Root to the other candidates. Root was followed by Kubby, Phillies and then Smith. When Gravel, Ruwart and Barr were thrown into the mix, participants preferred the candidates in this order: Barr, Ruwart, Root, Kubby and then Phillies.

47 Responses to “Name recognition, favorables and unfavorables of Libertarian Party presidential candidates”

  1. BillTX Says:

    You’re telling me that leading candidate Daniel Impewacko is not well-liked by Libertarians? Who woulda thought? lol! Also, great showing, Mr. Milnes.

  2. johncjackson Says:

    Guess I’m not as Republican as Libertarian delegates.

  3. David F. Nolan Says:

    Not to be too nit-picky, but that list is in DESCENDING order.

  4. Alex Peak Says:

    I’m not a delegate. Of the candidates I actually know a thing or two about, I generally would put them in this order:

    1. Ruwart
    2. Kubby or Barr
    4. Smith or Phillies
    6. Hess or Root
    8. Milnes
    9. NOTA
    10. Gravel (I like him; really, really like him; but he needs to alter a number of stances before even being considered as our standard-bearer)
    11. Imperato

    I wish to add that I mean no offense to those toward the bottom of the list. I’m sure that there are those who disagree with my ordering, and that’s fine, too.

    I reserve the right to alter my ordering at any time.

  5. Jeremy Young Says:

    It’s sad that Imperato is better-known within the LP than Gravel. Sure, Gravel’s not really a libertarian—but neither is Imperato, and Gravel’s actually done something meaningful in his life, even if it was nearly 40 years ago.

  6. Alex Peak Says:

    I would far, far, far, far, far rather have Gravel as our candidate than Mr. Imperato. Mr. Gravel at least has strong libertarian leanings.

  7. Roscoe Says:

    Who would win the “name recognition” game outside the LP? And does it matter? The LP has to decide just what it expects out of its presidential campaign. High vote total? Good impression with voters? Wave the principled banner? Achieve the balance of power? Use candidate to build state and local parties? Win more ballot access for the future? In fact, you might want to run a different candidate to achieve each of these measures. (Really, the voters are casting votes for electors.) Not so tongue in cheek, let me offer that the LP run Barr in Georgia if getting a certain % of the vote means permanent ballot status, and Kubby in California if you want to build a big vote there, and Ruwart in new-agey states, and Milnes wherever a “progressive alliance” makes sense. Letting each state nominate its own candidate would let us determine what messages sell best, and allow our “presidential candidate” to be many places at the same time, multiplying our exposure tremendously.

  8. Robert Milnes Says:

    BillTX, I’d say my negative rating comes from my early, vociferous & deliberately harsh criticism of Ron Paul campaigning in and through the republican party. Not because of other factors e.g. see above comments not unfavorableby Alex Peak & Roscoe.

  9. silver Republican Says:

    High vote total?
    Probably Gravel. . . . maybe Barr and Gravel. Votes, yes, but probably lots of unfavorable coverage. All of the negatives of Nader with an even sillier candidate.

    Good impression with voters?
    Probably Root here. Libertarians may not like him, but I think he’s an appealing personality, especially to Republicans dissatisfied with McCain.

    Wave the principled banner?
    I’m thinking that Ruwart gal.

    Achieve the balance of power?
    Impossible, the only way to do this is to expand ballot acess and pray for the future.

    Use candidate to build state and local parties?
    Phillies seems pretty dedicated towards that.

    Win more ballot access for the future?
    Pick and choose candidates from states with hard acess laws.

  10. Mike Gillis Says:

    “BillTX, I’d say my negative rating comes from my early, vociferous & deliberately harsh criticism of Ron Paul campaigning in and through the republican party.”

    No, I think it’s because you come across like an unbalanced lunatic.

  11. Nigel Watt Says:

    BillTX, I’d say my negative rating comes from my early, vociferous & deliberately harsh criticism of Ron Paul campaigning in and through the republican party.

    I was pinning it on you being a loud, one-track-mind moron.

  12. Robert Milnes Says:

    Mike Gillis, if I get the LP nomination I will specifically & repeatedly ask voters to NOT vote for Nader; vote for the LP ticket instead. & go trash a classroom.

  13. Robert Milnes Says:

    Nigel Watt, your sagacity has great credibility.

  14. Alex Peak Says:

    Mr. Milnes:

    Dr. Phillies was just as opposed to, if not more opposed to, Dr. Paul. My primary criticism of you would be that you do not appear to give much focus to communicating libertarian ideas to the public, and my secondary criticism is that you have been unable to make yourself well-known. Our disagreement on Dr. Paul was simply a disagreement on the tactic of other people, and does not enter into how I view you as a candidate.

    With that said, 4, 5 6, 7, and 8 on my list are all very close to one another, whereas there is an extremely wide gap between numbers 1 and 2.

    I think you have potential for becoming a better candidate.

    Mr. Republican, I believe Dr. Ruwart can best attract votes from both disenfranchised Republicans and disenfranchised Democrats.

    Cheers,
    Alex Peak

  15. Robert Milnes Says:

    Alex Peak, agreed. I’m well aware of Dr Phillies opposition to RP. I sat next to him at LPNJ/PA conference. I told him that if I lost the nomination I’d endorse him. I didn’t tell him that I did not know if that was good or bad for him!

  16. Robert Milnes Says:

    Alex Peak, I’ve proposed Milnes/KK or Milnes/Ruwart as the best ticket. KK remains an unknown as to whether she is available as a candidate. I haven’t heard ANYTHING from/about her in several months.

  17. Stefan Says:

    Ron Paul is and remain the no # 1 choice. There is a regulation in four states, including big TX, that if you run under a party and came in second or worst in a primary (e.g. not win it) as a candidate, you may not run under another party later in the general election. If Paul would have run as the LP nominee from the beginning, he would NEVER had received the exposure he received the past more than a year, and would consequently never have achieved so many people and enthusiasm. He will campaign through the rest of the primaries and continue to not only spread the message but also support people running for congress, among them also Independents, LP and CP party members.

  18. Mike Gillis Says:

    “Mike Gillis, if I get the LP nomination I will specifically & repeatedly ask voters to NOT vote for Nader; vote for the LP ticket instead. & go trash a classroom.”

    And if I learn to levitate objects with my mind, I’ll go into showbiz… Somehow I think my odds are a little better.

  19. Tom Bryant Says:

    Robert, why on earth do you think you’d be a good president?

  20. Bill Crain Says:

    I agree that Ron Paul would be fine, but it looks as though he will not be available to us. Bob Barr may well not be a candidate either.

    Among the others, I like Steve Kubby and voted for him for governor. My own bias, though, is that in a presidential election we ought to be able to find somebody who, unlike Mike Huckabee, has a college degree.

    Dr Phillies has been a party loyalist for a long time and deserves our respect, but no one is ever going to pay any attention to him on the national stage.

    I’m not gonna call Wayne Root a swindler but others have, and he comes from an industry that is mostly full of swindlers. That’s too much baggage.

    Mike Gravel has some name recognition. But the issues of fiscal and monetary policy are paramount for some of us. Especially me. That rules him out.

    Dr Ruwart is the only candidate who meets any reasonable minium standard.

    I hear Clint Eastwood is out of work.
    (http://tinyurl.com/2wychv - SFW)
    Maybe we oughta call him. He’s got an (honorary) degree from USC. He’s a former mayor. And he’s 18 days younger than Gravel.

    Oh, yeah. Robert Milnes was Lieutenant Governor of Lower Canada from 1799 to 1805.

  21. Thomas L. Knapp Says:

    Bill,

    You write:

    “Among the others, I like Steve Kubby and voted for him for governor. My own bias, though, is that in a presidential election we ought to be able to find somebody who, unlike Mike Huckabee, has a college degree.”

    Kubby has a BA from California State University Northridge, and is a former adjunct professor at Shasta College.

  22. Robert Milnes Says:

    Tom Bryant, yes, I would make a good president. There are many reasons. I’ve thought long & hard about the problems of America. Starting with why is it the people with the best ideas Libs & greens are not in power? So I put a lot of thought into that & came up with the progressive alliance strategy. Then what to do upon getting this power? Obviously a slow phase in of the good ideas & policies & phase out of the bad ideas & policies. Again, progressivism. Not too hard & fast, not too little. Jussssssssst right. I’m a good person. I’m NOT a professional politician. A million with an m $ is a LOT to me & I respect the taxpayers Treasury. & I respect the soldiers. My uncle is a WW2 marine. I’m not an America hater. I’m am a critic of America in some areas like treatment of Native Americans in contrast to Teddy Roosevelt. Yet, big numbers like billion with a b or trillion with a t do not scare me. Psychiatry doesn’t scare me. I’ve had personal experiences with psychiatry, criminal justice system, poverty & homelessness etc. I don’t have a degree but I am a (lapsed) member of Mensa. If the delegates take a chance on me, I can get the leftist vote-from the greens at THEIR convention. Then I can get polling, get into the debates & WIN. & my back would be covered by KK or Mary Ruwart. They can get the right libertarian vote. I’m no Teddy Roosevelt, but if given a chance, I can give him a run for it especially if I win third party & he did not. Does that answer your question?

  23. Bill Crain Says:

    Thomas L. Knapp wrote:

    “Kubby has a BA from California State University Northridge”

    Okay, thanks for the correction. Is that information on the website? Someone should tell the campaign communications director to make it more prominent. (just kidding)

    But really, this is the kind of thing we really got to be conscious of, way more than the other guys, if we ever want to be taken seriously. I’d also like to see everybody at the convention wearing suits and ties, but I think I’m gonna give up hope on that one.

  24. David F. Nolan Says:

    Roscoe (whoever he his) makes a very good point. You can’t rationally select a candidate until you have a clear idea of what his/her campaign is supposed to accomplish. Several of the many, many declared Libertarian hopefuls have desirable qualities, but each also has weaknesses.

    Root has some name recognition outside the LP, and a lot of enthusiasm and energy. Drawbacks: still learning what libertarianism really is, and too prone to accepting conservative/neocon worldviews and rhetoric. I’d like to see him run for some lower office before seeking the top spot.

    Kubby is a hard-core libertarian, has run for Governor of CA, and, like Root, has a constituency outside the LP. Drawbacks: has raised very little money, and seems to be low on energy.

    Phillies has demonstrated a long-term commitment to the LP, and appears willing to dump large amounts of his own money into his campaign. Drawback: less-than-zero personal charisma.

    Ruwart is another long-term party activist and is 100% solid on principles. She’s a good speaker and is widely liked within the party. Drawback: very low recognition outside the libertarian movement.

    Barr: Better known than any of the above, and apparently sincere in his evolving conversion to libertarianism. Drawbacks: a lot of Republican baggage - he runs a PAC that contributes money to Republican candidates, and (as far as I know) no Libertarian candidates.

    Gravel: Better known yet, and good on civil liberties issues. Drawback: not even close to being libertarian on most economic issues. Would he be willing and able to completely reverse himself on issues like healthcare, and call for a free-market approach?

    It should be an interesting convention in Denver!

  25. Wesley J. Pinchot Says:

    My wife says she’s seen non-libertarians reading “Healing Our World”, Dr. Ruwart’s book. So she must have some non-libertarian recognition.

  26. Doug Craig Says:

    He guys I reserved my room today in Denver They are running out of cheap rooms. They said the have about 30 rooms marked for the Lp still left.

  27. Maria Folsom Says:

    Hey, does anybody in the Libertarian Party give a darn about principles anymore? How about consistency? Or prior commitment to the party? When did we become the trash receptacle for the misfits and rejects from other parties? How about nominating and supporting REAL Libertarian candidates who have worked for the Party, shown tenacity, and continue to espouse Libertarian principles?

  28. Jeremy Young Says:

    David Nolan, I’d disagree that Gravel has more name rec than Barr. Gravel hasn’t served in public office in nearly 30 years.

  29. Robert Milnes Says:

    Maria Folsom, maybe because that is a recipe for a guaranteed loss.

  30. Andy Says:

    “Root has some name recognition outside the LP, and a lot of enthusiasm and energy. Drawbacks: still learning what libertarianism really is, and too prone to accepting conservative/neocon worldviews and rhetoric. I’d like to see him run for some lower office before seeking the top spot.”

    I agree.

    “Phillies has demonstrated a long-term commitment to the LP, and appears willing to dump large amounts of his own money into his campaign. Drawback: less-than-zero personal charisma.”

    George Phillies has improved a LOT as a speaker. In fact, I’d say that he’s actually decent now.

    The problem with him is some of his views and some other aspects of his personality.

  31. mketcher Says:

    Although Mary Ruwart has a lot of name recognition among libertarians, it is probably Bob Barr who has the greatest name recognition among non-libertarians—and could draw a lot of conservatives and Republicans to the LP this election. Mary Ruwart would probably only draw the long-time LP stalwarts. Also, my guess is that if Ron Paul endorses anyone for the LP nomination, it would be Bob Barr.

    In fact, it’s my hunch that Barr and Paul may have a deal for Barr to be a placeholder candidate for Ron Paul, and after the Republican convention step down as the LP candidate (and move to VP), giving the LP candidacy to Dr. Paul.

    I have no inside knowledge of this; it’s just a hunch. Bob Barr introduced Ron at CPAC, there are rumors swirling that the two met after Super Tuesday. I heard Bob Barr speak at a recent LP event, and at this meeting, the concept of a placeholder candidate was mentioned—so I know that Barr is aware of that strategy.

    I think it would be very dramatic for RP to walk out of the Republican convention, taking a couple hundred delegates (or more!) with him, announce that the Republicans have abandoned their small-government principles, and then say that he’s running for president as a Libertarian.

  32. silver Republican Says:

    I wonder if Gravel, Phillies, Ruwart, and Kubby are gonna split the left libertarian vote, giving a boost to centrist or right libertarians.

    What about Jingozian? Sounds ok, smart, good background, is he a potential dark horse here? Someone everyone can stomach?

  33. silver Republican Says:

    “Psychiatry doesn’t scare me. I’ve had personal experiences with psychiatry”

    Wait, that’s a qualification for being president? Damnit, I’m gonna have to throw away my Tom Cruise 2012 signs.

  34. Jeff Wartman Says:

    What about Jingozian? Sounds ok, smart, good background, is he a potential dark horse here? Someone everyone can stomach?

    He’s definitely one of those who would take a share of the left libertarian vote. In many ways his Reset America group is a Libertarian/Green Party hybrid.

  35. Robert Milnes Says:

    Silver republican, if only GB had to undergo some sort of psychiatric vetting.

  36. silver Republican Says:

    I didn’t realize how far to the left Jingozian was. My mistake. He does sound like a practical business moderate, but I’ve only seen one or two speeches.

  37. Tom Bryant Says:

    Robert,

    1) How does your “personal experience with psychiatry” qualify you to be President?
    2) How does your “personal experiences the criminal justice system” qualify you to be President?
    3) How does your “personal experience with poverty & homelessness” qualify you to be President.
    4) What is the largest budget you have ever been responsible with?
    5) What is the largest number of employees that you have directly managed?

    I am very concerned about your ability to make rational decisions when you have repeatedly claimed that uniting the Libertarians with the Greens will add up to 40,000,000 votes. I have ran those numbers, and even by including the Constitution Party votes, I still get less than 1 million.

  38. Roscoe Says:

    I’ve had a few beers with Mr. Nolan over the years and, if I recall correctly, he always put “winning elections” at the bottom of his reasons for starting the Libertarian Party. And “winning” is no more realistic today, on the presidential level, than it was in 1972
    Should I be able to scrape up the $$ to come to Denver, what would I expect the LP candidate to be able to achieve in 2008?
    Two things: leave a favorable impression about libertarianism with the voters whom one is able to reach with the resources available for the campaign, and get enough votes to be perceived as the balance of power in several states thus affecting the outcome of the presidential election.

    So, the candidate can’t just be knowledgeable about core libertarian principles without being able to also connect with the hopes and fears of the voters. And the candidate must inspire enthusiasm among the great bulk of Libertarians who will finance the campaign and run the grassroots electioneering. If the convention “settles” after several ballots, then a good amount of the Party may be dispirited and do little or nothing.

    I think it is time for at least 3/4 of the candidates in this race to wave goodbye. They don’t have any compelling different vision for the Party that has gained traction(or the means to achieve it, if they do). They aren’t going to win, they are going to split the Party which needs to be united coming out of Denver, and they are distracting a lot of people from
    focusing on the objective before us.

  39. Thomas L. Knapp Says:

    Roscoe,

    Two things:

    “I’ve had a few beers with Mr. Nolan over the years and, if I recall correctly, he always put ‘winning elections’ at the bottom of his reasons for starting the Libertarian Party.”

    That’s true as far as it goes … but it’s not entirely relevant.

    Nolan founded the party—more specifically, he put out the word that he thought the party should be formed, and brought together the group to form it—and I’d be the last one to say that the founder of a party shouldn’t be listened to respectfully when commenting on that party’s purpose, actions, etc. ...

    ... but organizations take on a life of their own, too. They grow. My recollection (from an article, or perhaps from Doherty’s book) is that the LP had less than 100 members when it nominated John Hospers in 1972, and it was already evolving and changing at that point. It has continued to evolve and change since.

    I don’t necessarily like all of those evolutions, changes and dispositions (in particular, I don’t particularly like either of the twin ideas that we should be about nothing but winning elections or that we shouldn’t be about winning elections at all), but thousands of LP members, and some hundreds of thousands (presidential) or millions (voting for at least one LP candidate in a cycle) of LP voters, are going to make up their own damn minds about what the party’s purpose is, what the party’s purpose should be, etc. It may be possible to persuade them to a particular purpose … but I doubt that “David Nolan says” is going to magically united the masses.

    “I think it is time for at least 3/4 of the candidates in this race to wave goodbye.”

    On the one hand, I think you’ve got the proportion about right: About 3/4 of the candidates not only have no chance of getting nominated, but have no chance of collecting enough support at the convention to get on the stage and have their say. They’re wasting their time.

    On the other hand, that doesn’t really mean they need to wave goodbye. It’s not like they’re major distractions. Most of us hardly notice them except to make fun of them anyway. If they feel better about themselves by claiming the title “presidential candidate,” they’re neither picking our pockets nor breaking our legs.

    Pat Paulsen ran for president six times and the Republic didn’t fall. Then again, a bunch of voters apparently mistook another candidate of similar name and physical appearance for Paulsen Resurrected this year and sort of upset the LP’s applecart, so maybe you have a point after all.

  40. Roscoe Says:

    You’re wrong. David Nolan is a god! (He paid for the beers, after all.)
    Seriously, the 3/4 who no longer belong in the race, need to get out and stop taking up debate time, littering the floors with their literature, and putting on a three ring circus for the media (such as it is). There’s nothing wrong with two dozen potential candidates getting in at the beginning, but we know now which have a serious chance and which don’t.

    If you think you have a magic strategy, then go work on it for the next four years and show us. For example, the LP certainly needs to reach out to left-libertarians. If we had Karl Hess here, he would be the ideal person with the clout and contacts to try it out. But what clout and contacts does Mr. Milnes have right now? Go develop such and come back in 2012 and convince us. Mr. Jackson - real nice guy, but the presidential nod isn’t going to happen. Same with Mr. Burns. Go down the list; you can check them off.

  41. Robert Milnes Says:

    Tom Bryant, You know that almost all presidential NOMINEES have very little experience with psychiatry, criminal justice defendant, poverty-I mean real grinding dispair type/ & homelessness. & you KNOW they all should at least be psychiatrically vetted. How can these people, usually selected from the upper classes, be expected to realloy understand such problems? My ability to make rational decisions re: 40mil votes? Well, if you read The Libertarian Vote & conclude that a reliable 13% of the vote is at least possibly reachable to the LP, then you are halfway there. Because from there I’ve estimated the inclusive leftist vote to be 27%. Evidently leftists are not inclined to support $ & vote for leftist candidates. If they were, the GP would routinely get about 27% which it does not. More like .27%. Now, by combining rather than splitting this vote which could collectively be called progressive, we can ADD them=40%. & the total vote should be somewhere around 100 million. Probably somewhat more what with the increased voter registration this year. That is about 40 million to me.

  42. Tom Bryant Says:

    Robert, you wrote: “You know that almost all presidential NOMINEES have very little experience with psychiatry, criminal justice defendant, poverty”

    Yes. All of those things make you NOT Presidential. Why do you think those things are going to be a point in your favor when voters have traditionally not voted for someone with those personal experiences?

    You also wrote: “Well, if you read The Libertarian Vote & conclude that a reliable 13% of the vote is at least possibly reachable to the LP, then you are halfway there”

    Halfway where, to the Moon? 13% of the vote is not reliably Libertarian. Go and do some real research on past Presidential races. The Libertarian candidate can reliable get about 400,000 votes.

    It’s March already. You don’t have 40 supporters yet. How are you going to get 40 million supporters by November?

  43. Tannim Says:

    I’d be happy with a candidate who has paid a mortgage, changed their own oil, walked their own dog, has had a job with their name on their shirt, and still understands where he came from. Most importantly, not an Ivy-league dry drunk and not a perpetual DC insider.

    How about Cosby-Foxworthy ‘08???

  44. Brad Says:

    Although I’m not a delegate, my preference is strongly for Gravel. I know he has some stances that aren’t libertarian, but so do most of the other candidates (Root’s support for the Troop Surge; Barr’s past support for those Jim Crow “Defense of Marriage” laws and bigoted statements toward Wiccans as well as his votes for the War on Iraq and the “Patriot” Act), but Gravel is right on the important issues (peace, civil liberties, protecting the Wall of Separation between Church and State) and would bring in many Democrats who are unhappy with whichever of the media darlings that party nominates. After him, my 2nd choice would probably be Ruwart because I think she can lay out a convincing case for radicalism.

    I have my doubts about many of the other candidates. If the LP nominates a warmonger or a Christian Nationalist (somebody who denies the Theory of Evolution, the existence of the Wall of Separation between Church and State, or the fact that America wasn’t founded as a Christian Nation), I’d probably vote for Ralph Nader as socialism is the lesser evil.

  45. Dave Williams Says:

    “I wonder if Gravel, Phillies, Ruwart, and Kubby are gonna split the left libertarian vote, giving a boost to centrist or right libertarians.”

    S.R.,
    Good call…may help Root…or Barr (if he runs)...or better yet… ROOT/BARR ‘08

  46. Shane Savoie Says:

    I’ve concluded after 20 years in the LP that who is “most pure” is a moot argument. I’ll support anyone that is trying to shine a spotlight on the freedom movement in general, as long as they aren’t blue…Being regarded as a kook is more frustrating than being ignored, just ask Dr. Paul!

  47. Kenneth Varley Says:

    I truly belive that this country requires a new FIRST party. The Libertarian Party can become a first party if they stop complaining and start developing a concrete election platform. The democrats under whoever or the republicans under McLame will continue this country down the road to perdition. Our only hope. Get Dr. Ron Paul to run on the Lbertarian ticket with Bob Barr as VP. We must run to WIN. Bob Barr is defeated already when he says he knows he can’t win the Presidential election. Let’s mobilize all our resources to encourage Dr. Paul to continue to lead us to victory in November.

Leave a Reply