Paul Jacob on “the little party that could”

Over at American conservatism’s home on the web, Town hall, Paul Jacob has a look at the Libertarian Party:

[I] prefer to think of the persistence of the Libertarian Party as charming, not pathetic. Everything is stacked against them. The two parties in charge have made sure that it is very hard for “minor parties” to challenge them. Just getting on the ballot is no picnic. The Libertarians have spent millions and millions of dollars and massive quantities of man-hours maintaining ballot status in the forty-odd states they have maintained it, over the years.

And now that persistence has paid off. In a way. The party has become a magnet — a magnet for disgruntled major-party players.

Meaning, of course, Bob Barr and Mike Gravel.

Interestingly, however, Jacob mentions another candidate, too:

The point seems to be: Until American libertarians can get Americans in general to support real individual liberty, what’s the use of worrying about half-measures?

If you find this sort of thinking appalling, then you won’t be voting for Gravel or Barr — or Steve Kubby, the medical marijuana activist and LP insider out front in the race — when you go to the polls this November.

Speaking of which, here’s Kubby’s latest speech, shot on video for play at this weekend’s Alabama LP convention and other upcoming events.

52 Responses to “Paul Jacob on “the little party that could””

  1. Eric Dondero Says:

    Wow. We’ve now reached a point, that if Steve Kubby even gets the slightest of mentions in any media whatsoever, including, it’s a big news story according to Kubby’s Campaign Communications Director.

    Sorry Tom Knapp, but as much as I like, it ain’t CNN or Fox News.

    When your guy starts getting the play on the Cable News Networks like Barr, Root and Gravel have, then we’ll start paying attention.

    Try again.

  2. Thomas L. Knapp Says:


    I don’t know where you read that I said this is “big news.”

    I’m a big fan of Paul Jacob’s, but probably not quite as much as you are. I’ve listened to you describe him in large-looming, glowing terms for years as a past LP national director, prominent draft registration resister, former head of US Term Limits, and organizer of numerous state initiative petition drives. I can’t even count the number of times that you’ve announced one of those drives as BIG NEWS on various lists (especially when you get interviewed by local publications over them), for no other reason than that Paul Jacob and Howie Rich were behind them, even though they seldom get mentioned on CNN or Fox.

    This site is called “Third Party Watch,” and watching third parties is what we do. When a popular site (and Town Hall is one of the top conservative sites on the web) carries an article by a credible commentator (and Jacob is one) about a third party, it’s worth mentioning.

    You may also note that I mentioned Barr and Gravel before Kubby, and noted the mention of Kubby as “out front in the race” afterward, calling it “interesting.”

    Why did I find it “interesting?” Because I certainly don’t regard Kubby as the frontrunner at this point (I specifically stated otherwise on April 2nd), nor do I think Kubby regards himself as the frontrunner at this point, nor can I think of anyone else who regards Kubby as the frontrunner at this point.

    Sounds to me like it’s finally dawning on you that Root is screwed and you’re looking for someone to lash out at.

  3. paulie Says:

    Videos are getting much better.

    And the speech is great. Do we have the text published?

  4. Thomas L. Knapp Says:


    I don’t have a working sound card, but here’s the transcript of what I think is the final draft:

    Good day, fellow Libertarians. I’m Steve Kubby and I’m seeking our party’s 2008 presidential nomination. I’m sorry I couldn’t be with you in person this weekend, but I hope you’re enjoying your convention and look forward to seeing you in Denver next month.

    Since declaring my candidacy in August of 2006, I’ve been asked a number of times—and I’ve often asked myself—why I’m running and whether it’s worth it, especially as new candidates enter and the race gets more and more competitive. My answer to the first question hasn’t
    changed. My answer to the second question has.

    Why am I running? Because I believe that FREEDOM is the essential American value, and that the Libertarian Party is the only party offering that value to the American people. I’ve spent my life fighting for freedom —my own freedom and the freedom of others. I’ve gone to jail for it. I’ve fled to Canada for it. I’ve come close to dying for it more than once.

    Now, back in the country of my birth and still fighting, I find myself constantly inspired by the words of Thomas Paine, printed in 1775 as America prepared to throw off an older and lesser tyranny than the one which now threatens it:

    “Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it.”

    To me, there is no higher calling than the fight for freedom, and our Libertarian candidates for public office are the front-line soldiers in that fight. As with any struggle, it’s of paramount importance that we always keep our ultimate goal in mind and that we choose candidates who carry the banner of that ultimate goal high as they march into battle.

    Is it worth it to keep running as the field fills up with other candidates, some of them with more money than I have, some with a smoother sales routine or a better media mug? Yes, it is—because it all starts with the message.

    Let me speak plainly to you: I am not a conservative fighting for “federalism” or “states rights.” I am not a liberal fighting for “the greatest good for the greatest number.” I am not a used car salesman, peddling a version of freedom with sawdust in its transmission and a radiator full of stop-leak, hoping to keep the engine running long enough to get myself on TV a few times.

    I am a Libertarian, and I’m damn proud of it. I’m running for president because I believe in 80-proof, straight up, gut-burning freedom. If you prefer the wine cooler or lite beer version, I’m not your man.

    I’m not going to shill for the “Fair” Tax or the “Flat” Tax or some other gimmick for rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. I’m fighting to eliminate taxes, and to cut the ones I can’t get eliminated.

    I’m not fighting to ratchet the war on drugs, the war on gays, or the war on guns down to the state level. I’m fighting to end those wars and to restore freedom from sea to shining sea.

    I’m not fighting for a foreign policy that makes “judicious” use of force abroad to crush the latest imaginary bogeyman and impress upon other nations the wisdom of bowing down to whatever edict came out of Washington last week. I’m fighting for the foreign policy that the president that city is named for handed down to us: “Friendship and commerce with all nations, entangling alliances with none.”

    I’m not fighting to “secure” imaginary lines on the ground, drawn by politicians, against peaceful workers seeking freedom and an honest living. I’m fighting for the rights and freedoms of EVERYONE inside those imaginary lines that geographically define America.

    This is where I stand—foursquare on the principles which define our party, our message and our vision. No reservations, no exceptions, no evasions. I am a Libertarian, and I believe that the Libertarian Party should nominate a Libertarian for president. I hope you agree, and I look forward to working with all of you to take our message to the American people this summer and fall.

    Thank you for your time and attention. See you next month in Denver, and LET FREEDOM GROW!

  5. paulie Says:

    Justy he read Paul Jacob’s article. Excellent, accurate analysis, but I wonder why he doesn’t mention Mary Ruwart. Old grudges from LP intra-party battles of the 1980s, maybe?

  6. paulie Says:

    Feh. Screwy keyboard.

    *Just read

  7. Thomas L. Knapp Says:


    I don’t know if Jacob and Ruwart have any past history, hostile or otherwise.

    My best guess would be that since he’s no longer closely involved with the LP (although I did run into him at the 2004 national convention), he’s going on first/former impressions and may not have even noticed that Dr. Ruwart is in the race before writing the article. That would be consistent with his evaluation of Kubby as the frontrunner.

  8. Eric Dondero Says:

    I don’t remember anything specific, but Paul was a diehard “Jim Turney-ite mainstreamer LPer” when he was on the LP NatComm and as LP Exec. Director.

    Ruwart was firmly planted in the other Berglandista camp with Perry Willis, Michael “Cloud” Emerling, Sharon Ayres, Mary Gingell and the like.

    That could have something to do with it?

  9. Thomas L. Knapp Says:


    I guess it could have something to do with it, but Paul has never struck me as a vindictive guy who would feel some urge to play out some old internal party fight from decades ago in a column.

    He’s also a busy guy who’s no longer involved with the LP on a day-to-day basis. It just seems more likely that his information is a few weeks old, from before Mary bumped Steve out of the “likely nominee” slot and into third.

  10. Robert Milnes Says:

    There are two important points here. Not the 60’s/70’s vintage music. One is the Kubby campaign. What is this stalwart libertarian party member & presidential candidate doing running out of support well before the convention such that he cannot attend state conventions, a staple campaign stop? Where is the libertarian support for libertarians? Reminds me of the scene in Slaughterhouse Five. Throw the kid in the pool & either he sinks or swims. Sank like a rock. Kubby campaign sunk by libertarians. Whoda thunk? The other is the BIG PRIZE. The libertarian nomination. The only third party/independent with a mathematical chance to win. What will be done with it? Probably not much. Wasted. Might as well pass out the blunts & slosh the bourbon at the convention. Objectively, libs should consider combining forces with some other worthy voting block such that the best use could be made of this big prize. With the near 100% ballot access & enough votes, an actual victory is possible. All the Perots & Bloombergs & Naders & Buchannans in the world can’t do that. I have suggested the inclusive Greens. But nobody listens to me.

  11. Thomas M. Sipos Says:

    As I’ve told you Robert, the Greens don’t necessarily want anything to do with the LP. They’re not as “inclusive” as you imagine them to be.

    Hell, the Greens don’t even like Teddy Roosevelt.

    Yet you assume that all the LP need do is approach the Greens with Robert Milnes as our candidate, and the Greens would dump Cynthia, dump Ralph, dump all their own candidates (real and potential) and say, “Wow! A Progressive Alliance with the LP —and with Robert Milnes heading the ticket—a dream come true!”

    You see, Robert, your strategy of a Green/LP Milnes alliance has three small hitches:

    1. The LP doesn’t want the Greens.

    2. The Greens don’t want the LP.

    3. Neither party wants Robert Milnes.

    Other than that, it’s a solid plan.

  12. Thomas L. Knapp Says:


    “Kubby campaign sunk by libertarians.”

    Not really. As I’ve stated elsewhere, in my opinion Kubby is one of two or three candidates (the others would be Ruwart and, if he throws in, Barr) who have a real shot at the nomination as of today. Prior to Ruwart’s entry, he was the almost certain nominee, and he’s still very much in the running.

  13. Thomas L. Knapp Says:


    You write, regarding Bob Milnes’s strategy:

    “Other than that, it’s a solid plan.”

    No, not really. Even if the points you mention weren’t valid and there was some chance that the LP and the Greens would co-nominate Milnes for president, there’s still the question of how doing so would result in the two parties magically leaping from a vote total as separate parties of sub-2% to a vote total as combined parties of 34%+. Milnes throws around the Cato numbers quite a bit, but he never explains why he believes that those libertarian and progressive voters eschew the LP/GP in favor of the Rs and Ds when the small parties are separate, but would clamor to jump on the bandwagon of the two parties in combination.

  14. Robert Milnes Says:

    A VIABLE third alternative would be gradually selected by enough voters to win. Like what happened to Obama in South Carolina. SOMEBODY must’ve liked Teddy Roosevelt. In any event since the nomination will get wasted anyway, why not try it?

  15. Robert Milnes Says:

    One other possibility is Ruwart/Milnes. If Ruwart couldn’t bring herself to go to the GP convention, I could. Now a Ruwart or Kubby nomination with another purist vp for a pure lib ticket, going or sending anyone to the GP convention, even me, would be a much harder sell.

  16. Robert Milnes Says:

    Tom, why do you defend the evident lib lack of support for their candidates? I didn’t allude that the libs pushed Kubby under, just that they let him sink.

  17. Robert Milnes Says:

    Barr & Gravel have fallen in with libs & the LP in their own way & time. I do not think either will get the nomination. Next in line is Sweet Mary. If you can’t beat them, love them to death!

  18. Thomas L. Knapp Says:


    I don’t “defend” the evident lack of Libertarian support for LP candidates. I don’t like it a bit. However, I don’t see how pissing and moaning about it will change it.

    Either Libertarians want a presidential campaign or they don’t. If they do, they’ll pay for it. If they don’t pay for it, they don’t want it.

    Kubby started out with no money, and as of the last FEC report had raised about $14k.

    Phillies apparently spent about $80k of his own money on convention travel, direct mail appeals, etc. ... and ended up raising about $2,000 more than Kubby.

    Bob Barr’s “exploratory committee” fundraiser continues to look like an utter fiasco.

    I haven’t seen any numbers out of the Ruwart campaign, but if they’ve broken $100k, or even $50k, they’re stupid if they’re not shouting it from the rooftops.

    Ron Paul’s been effectively out of the race for quite awhile now, so it’s no longer obvious that his campaign was as responsible for the fundraising doldrums as many (including myself) previously believed.

    What hurt Kubby in relation to some other candidates was that he didn’t have a personal financial cushion to subsidize his campaign from. Every indication is that it wasn’t something specific to Kubby’s approach that was the problem, but rather that Libertarians simply aren’t interested in a presidential campaign this year.

    I don’t think that any candidate will be able to show up in Denver and brag about what a fundraising windfall he or she has had. Unless someone can credibly claim several hundred thousand in the bank (Richard Campagna ended the days of saying “I have pledges” and being believed), fundraising prowess is obviously not going to be the big draw.

    At this point, I will be surprised if we run a $500k general election campaign and floored if we manage a million. I don’t have to like that to believe it. Res ipsa loquitur.

  19. Thomas L. Knapp Says:

    Latest FEC numbers:

    Phillies raised $461.84 from contributors other than himself in March, and has raised a total of $16727.75 from contributors other than himself since becoming a candidate.

    Kubby is still filing quarterly rather than monthly as George is. From contributors other than himself, he raised $2951.22 in the first quarter. To date for the campaign, he’s raised $16,219.77 from contributors other than himself.

    Root came within a hair of raising $25k last quarter from contributors other than himself. That’s not big money, but he can use it as at least a small feather in his cap, especially if he doesn’t use those contributions immediately to repay his own $25k loan to his campaign “to make a mailing.”

    Nothing for Ruwart yet—as far as I can tell, not even a declaration of candidacy or committee organization statement (unless she raised/spent more than $5k before April 1, she wouldn’t have filed a quarterly).

  20. Bill Woolsey Says:

    And, if we beleive Barr’s fundraising reports on his website, he has raised over #30,000 in a few weeks.

    As far as we can tell, he is already number one in fundraising.

    I am a bit puzzled by the spin. Barr’s fundraising is a fiasco… because he failed to meet expectations?

    Is this “spin?”

  21. Stefan Says:

    Thomas, I agree with Bill Woolsey on this. Bob Barr has not formally enetered the race (though Dr. Phillies mentioned over 5000 raised already means an antry). If Barr announces formally his entering into the race, I am sure his fundraising numbers will raise dramatically. He can also get funding from non-traditional LP members. Stephen Gordon mentioned the backers of a certain GOP candidate became very interested in Barr once their candidate dropped out at CPAC… In all respect, none of the other LP candidates do have a real-time ticker on their website. it is quite a risk, as if expectations are high and they do not realise, it can have negative consequences. Ron Paul also probably did not raise much the first say 2 months since he entered the race. BTW: He is still in the GOP race, campaiging actively and has more than 5 m cash. I do think it is unfair to blame him from siphening money off LP, as he did not receive money only from LP members. He also got from traditional GOP that voted for Bush, disaffected Republicans that did not really vote or were sceptical of the GOP, from Independents as well as from Democrats and even from Greens
    There is at least one Green party member that hold her nose and registered Republican in order to vote for Paul. Most of his money is from small donors, 50 usd etc. The LP can also organise such money bombs?
    I have noticed that Ross Perot, who’s campaign managers is now with Barr and his family has all contributed 2300 USD to Romney. They may well contribute to Barr as well.

  22. Bill Wood Says:

    Outside of what is reported here or else where in cyber space, Ron Paul, Bob Barr, Wayne Allyn Root and Mary Ruwart are the only Libertarians being talked about by my fellow Libertarians that I am in contact with, or they say nothing at all.

  23. Robert Milnes Says:

    Hummm…. maybe everyone is THINKING about my candidacy!

  24. Thomas L. Knapp Says:


    You write:

    “I do think it is unfair to blame him from siphening money off LP, as he did not receive money only from LP members.”

    You have it backward. I never claimed that Paul received money “only from LP members.” Quite the opposite, in fact—if he had received money only from LP members, he’d probably only have raised single-digit millions at best. Obviously he raised money from outside the LP.

    HOWEVER —the typical total pre-nomination LP presidential fundraising numbers are much smaller than that, and with 70% of LP members allegedly supporting Paul, it was not unreasonable to suspect that Paul’s campaign explained them going down even further.

    I wrote a substantive response to Mr. Woolsey’s “spin” accusation, but it’s apparently trapped in the comment filter. Bottom line: We’re told that Barr sets a higher standard than the other candidates. Fine—if he sets a higher standard, I’ll HOLD him to that higher standard. For someone of Barr’s alleged stature and fundraising ability, $35k in two weeks is a fiasco. For a political amateur and unknown like Wayne Root, $25k in a quarter is pretty damn impressive. You’re damn right I expect Flojo to run faster than my 73-year-old mom.

  25. Catholic Trotskyist Says:

    Sadly, Robert Milnes’s progressive alliance strategy won’t work, but I have developed a much better strategy based on an alliance between the Green, libertarian and constitution parties, the various socialist movements and centrist independents, and other smaller groups such as fascists, feudalists, monarchists and syndicalists, to initiate the following goals.

    1. The electoral college is abolished.
    2. The presidential election uses a national Majority Runoff system. This will change us from a republic to a democracy.
    3. Congress is elected through proportional representation.

    Third parties should spend most of their energies pushing for these constitutional amendments, using graphic protests in public locations. Otherwise, the efforts of all of them are doomed to do nothing more than push the major parties slightly in one direction, and ruin the chances of the parties that their candidates are most closely aligned with, while gaining such small failing numbers for themselves. The people who visit this site are by definitions on the fringes of society. It is important for the fringe to get together. This strategy is gaining the support of many political scientists across the nation, and I will continue to post it several times a week here until it is adopted. Fortunately, we have the Obama Revolution to save our country for now.
    The revolution will be televised.
    Please pray for the pope and please pray for Barack Obama. Amen.

  26. Jeff Wartman Says:

    Hummm…. maybe everyone is THINKING about my candidacy!

    You’ve never explained how you expect to get 40 million votes when you cannot get ONE libertarian to support you.

  27. Michael H. Wilson Says:

    I think Paul is onto something. The LP has put bunches of money and time into ballot access and in the process has made it somewhat easier for others to get on the ballot. It would be wonderful if at some point we could begin to put that same effort into a few other things.

    I guess a guy can hope.


  28. Wes Benedict Says:

    Catholic Trotskyist Says:
    Sadly, Robert Milnes’s progressive alliance strategy won’t work,

    Wes says:
    We used the progressive alliance strategy in Texas in 2006. Six Libertarian Party candidates got 800,000 votes in Texas, plus or minus several thousand on budgets of a few dozen dollars each:

    The trick is to convince Democrats not to run a candidate. If someone can convince Hillary and Barrack to drop out of the race, and convince the Democratic National Convention to vote NOTA to prevent any other Democrats from getting their nomination, a progressive alliance candidate, preferably a Libertarian, for President could probably break the 2 million vote mark.

  29. Peter Orvetti Says:

    ...and McCain would get 120,000,000?

  30. Wes Benedict Says:

    ...and McCain would get 120,000,000?

    I wouldn’t bother myself with that estimation until after the Democrats decided not to run a candidate—which means I don’t expect to ever be bothered making that estimation.

    Oops! It’s Flip-Flop Sunday Night! I estimate McCain would get less than 120,000,000, the Libertarian Progressive Alliance candidate would get far more than 2,000,000, and others who didn’t join the alliance, like Nader and Greens, would get many millions too.

    In many ways this whole strategy depends on Milnes convincing the Dems to drop out of the race. Milnes, can you do it?

  31. Wes Benedict Says:

    Milnes, how do you pronounce your name?

  32. Robert Milnes Says:

    Wes, Milnes pronounced just like Jones. These names ending in nes & les (e.g. Fowles) etc. originate in N. England/Southern Scotland.

  33. Robert Milnes Says:

    Wes, one of the nice things about the Progressive Alliance strategy is that you do not have to do a lot of things. Like convince the dems not to run a candidate. Very funny by the way but I forgot to laugh. & the libs still lost by about 75/25%. Tom K. was saying we had to change party bylaws & election laws etc. I don’t think so. All we would be doing is vote coordination. & a little not running a candidate. A competing candidate from the other party on each ballot would split the vote on that ballot. So we agree to run only ONE Lib. OR Green on EVERY ballot, first come first served. Now if the libs would be so kind as to run a ticket the Greens could stomach, that would help. I have suggested Milnes/Kwiatkowski, Milnes/Ruwart, Ruwart/Milnes, Gravel/Ruwart, Ruwart/Gravel in that order. Then having that ticket, someone has to pursuade the Greens to ENDORSE that ticket as their own. The only way I figured, & anyone with a better idea please speak up, would be for someone, preferably the nominee, to go to the Green convention & ask them to do that. After that it would be a matter of getting MSM publicity & a bump in the polls by this & get into the debates. Then it would be a matter of gradual catch up to a very close 3 party election. The other parties & independents should be negligible.

  34. Robert Milnes Says:

    Wes Benedict, would Milnes/Ruwart & this strategy be acceptable to Trogolodites (purists) like you?

  35. Wes Benedict Says:

    Milnes says:
    Wes, Milnes pronounced just like Jones.

    Wes says:
    So it is Mones, Minns, Mills, Milce, Mince? Or actually Jones?

  36. Daniel Ong Says:

    Tom, thank you for posting the text of Kubby’s speech. That was a pretty good speech and is fairly convincing to this LP NatCon delegate, although I have been favoring another candidate for my first ballot vote (I’m still undecided for my final choice and will be studying the candidates closely, as the nominee will largely be the representative of the party to the general public through November).

    As a rule I don’t watch online video or listen to podcasts (although I realize the increasing importance of them), and am particularly annoyed by blog postings (pay attention, Steve) which are effectively no more than “Watch this!” I would like at least some written description of what the subject matter is, and an indication of length before attempting to download (my parents still use a dial-up connection). Text can more easily be referred to and quickly scanned if time (and bandwidth) is limited.

    I encourage other LP presidential candidates (or their staff and/or supporters) to post text of their stump speeches, not just video or audio. No, I haven’t made a systematic search of candidate websites looking for this (yet).

  37. Robert Milnes Says:

    & I do mean EVERY ballot. I want to see ONE Lib. or ONE Green on EVERY ballot people. Get with it candidates. & candidates need SUPPORT people.

  38. Robert Milnes Says:

    Wes Benedict, do you think you can pursuade Barr to endorse/pursue this strategy? .....I didn’t think so.

  39. Daniel Ong Says:

    Sorry; “Steve” = “Steve Gordon”

  40. Robert Milnes Says:

    Wes, no. Oh yeah, ha, ha. One syllable. es pronounced like a “z”. Kind of like Wes Benedict joke=zzzzzzzzzzzzz.

  41. Robert Milnes Says:

    Daniel Ong, Oh, I’ll get right on that. Thank you for that suggestion. Although I’ve heard the opposite also; don’t bother to print the text-takes up time to download & bandwidth & server space,etc. Any other suggestions? & since you are a delegate, you are probably ok to call Steve G. by his first name. Going to be a real pass the blunts & slosh the bourbon good time in Denver, huh? Wasted.

  42. George Whitfield Says:

    I think we can!

  43. Thomas M. Sipos Says:

    Robert Milnes: “would Milnes/Ruwart & this strategy be acceptable to Trogolodites (purists) like you?”

    Why focus on what the purists want? That’s the least of your worries.

    A ticket with Milnes on it is undesired by purists—and by reformers, pragmatists, anarchists, minarchists, Randians, conservatarians, pro-defense, antiwar, left-libs, right-libs, pro-life, pro-choice, eco-libs—and by Greens, progressives, and liberals—and even by Bull Moosers.

    No one is calling for you.

    And yes, that’s right—the Bull Moose Party is alive and well today. And even they haven’t endorsed you.

    You must do something about that, Robert. Go over to the Bull Moose Party right now and introduce yourself. Tell them you’re the candidate they’ve been seeking.

    (For some reason, this party is not on the TPW sidebar.)

  44. Robert Milnes Says:

    Thomas M. Sipos, the Bull Moose website is interesting. I think it should be on the TPW sidebar. But there seems to be very little viability there. Party structure, ballot access etc. Evidently contemporary polarized politics has devolved the progressive movement down to its least common denominators, the libertarians & greens. The Progressive Party in other words would be a great accomplishment that is difficult to maintain. Evidently it needs a strong leader like Teddy Roosevelt. Therefore the Progressive Alliance is the best contingency to actually coordinate the large numbers of various segments to actually win elections. Which Teddy Roosevelt nearly did. There is no other such viable block of third party or independent voters. So go Progressive Alliance or lose.

  45. Robert Milnes Says:

    Learn from history libs. The latest confirmation of this is the Ron Paul campaign. Insufficient gop support to win. Yet access to significant $. The ballot access is the libertarians’ but they also have insufficient numbers and also insufficient funding/candidate support. The largest voting block is the leftists’-inclusive Greens. But they have insufficient funding & have voter support problems due to fear of revolution. If you want to win, you need the green numbers & the possible voter campaign support from such vast numbers. Right now Obama is the beneficiary of these numbers & support. Only the Progressive Alliance could get access to such support for a third party.

  46. Clark Says:

    It seems many of you apparently deluded Republicrats (self-described “Libertarians,” etc.) think a decent, truly knowledgeable, etc. person ‘winning a (major) political election’ is possible, a worthy, realistic, etc. goal, etc. today, or even in the near-future, using the same stinking tactics you’ve been using..

    I have some ocean-front in Kansas for you apparent munchkins..

    Here’s are some hints for you apparent ninnies: He who controls ‘the money’ controls the media corporation$, Madison Avenue, etc. and controls the perceptions held by the vast, VAST majority..

    ‘They’ can and will STRONGLY TEND to portray “Jesus the Christ” as “the devil” and “the devil” as “Jesus the Christ” if/when any serious challenge/threat is made to the miserable stinking $tatus quo..particularly as to ‘the money thing’..(of which most of you Republicrats are apparently worse than merely ignorant..but i digress)

    ..after all, ‘the $tatus quo’ has been ‘berry berry good to them’..and anyone dicking with ‘it’ will be mushed and smeared as a devil, fool,..etc. (WHICH MIGHT SUGGEST TO ANY THINKING “LIBERTARIANS” THAT PLAYING “IN THE BOXCONTROLLED BY THESE MONIED SCUMBAGS IS WORSE THAN WORTHLESS..)

    ....which leads me to Error Dundero’s hallucinations: “When your guy starts getting the play on the Cable News Networks like Barr, Root and Gravel have, then we’ll start paying attention.”



    (that felt good!) ;o)

  47. George Whitfield Says:

    I still think we can!

  48. Roscoe Says:

    Let’s test Milnes strategy in a test market. Milnes seeks and obtains the Green Party nomination for U.S. Senator in New Jersey. Murray Sabrin fails to get the GOP nomination, leaving it wide open for the NJLP to nominate Milnes for U.S. Senator. Milnes performs credibly in NJ as “the Progressive Alliance” candidate. Then Milnes has standing to talk about his strategy for 2012.

  49. C. Al Currier Says:

    Tom, thank you for posting the text of Kubby’s speech….. Daniel Ong Says

    I agree! Emphatically and with emphasis!

    I do not trust politicians or wannabes. I want to see it in writing. When it comes to politicians or lawyers, you know they’re lying when you see their lips moving. I avoid watching or listenening to them anymore.

    I want the text and I’ll check it out at my convenience.

  50. Derek Says:

    Roscoe has a good idea. Milnes, are you willing to accept the challenge?

  51. Dave Williams Says:

    “This site is called “Third Party Watch,” and watching third parties is what we do. When a popular site (and Town Hall is one of the top conservative sites on the web) carries an article by a credible commentator (and Jacob is one) about a third party, it’s worth mentioning.”

    I’ve the impression that ‘conservative’ is/has been a very dirty word to you. So why would you tout it now? Oh wait, I see, it’s your boy who’s on/in some ‘conservative’ article…so now it’s ok.

    You called Ron Paul the ‘enemy’ after he was on the Glenn Beck show. You harped on Beck’s use of the words ‘conservative porn’ during the Root interview even when you knew he was playing around and having a good time.

    Spin it! Come on…you can do it! We’ll all believe you. You must get the last word. You must be right, you’re from Missouri and are a former Marine…come on buddy you can do it…crush me…hypocrite. lol

  52. Thomas L. Knapp Says:


    You write:

    “I’ve the impression that ‘conservative’ is/has been a very dirty word to you. So why would you tout it now?”

    Not sure why you think I’m “touting” it. And no, I don’t consider “conservative” a dirty word—I just consider it a word that means something very, very different from “libertarian.”

Leave a Reply