Dr. Mary Ruwart: Tough Enough

47 Responses to “Dr. Mary Ruwart: Tough Enough”

  1. DrGonzo Says:

    I like Ruwart, and there is no doubt she is a Libertarian, but her message would not be accepted by the majority of regular voters. Saying you want to legalize heroin and crack probably isn’t going to go over so well with many Americans. She will immediately be labeled a fringe lunatic with that message. How about we start small with marijuana and work our way up.

    Other than that, her ideas on many issues are very good. I just think that one will be to big to overcome.

  2. Peter Orvetti Says:

    I am a Ruwart supporter, but I am puzzled by her campaign’s assertions that she has been “misquoted” regarding the pornography kerfuffle. It seems to me that at least some of the critics have taken care to quote the entirety of the written statement in question. Can the Ruwart campaign or some of her supporters here expand on this a bit?

  3. Jeff Wartman Says:

    like Ruwart, and there is no doubt she is a Libertarian, but her message would not be accepted by the majority of regular voters. Saying you want to legalize heroin and crack probably isn’t going to go over so well with many Americans. She will immediately be labeled a fringe lunatic with that message. How about we start small with marijuana and work our way up.

    This is probably one of the best comments I’ve seen on TPW in a long time.

  4. Michael Seebeck Says:

    Peter, the only one who has quoted the issue in full is me, and I’m no critic. Please go read what I wrote on this over on the Hubbaloo thread in the archives.

    She wasn’t misquioted, just taken in incomplete context and then that was used to misquote her by her rabid critics.

  5. Michael Seebeck Says:

    Gonzo, how about we just state it this way: The Controlled Substances Act (a.k.a 21 USC 800 et. seq.) is unconstitutional because it infringes on our personal constitutional right under the Fourth and Ninth Amendments to ingest and inject what we choose (or not) into our own bodies.

    Same thing, but it won’t freak out the drug nazis because it uses thoses taboo words “cocaine” and “heroin”.

    Nevermind that the worse drug intakes are government-mandated and called “vaccines”...or commerically legal and hidden like “MSG”.

  6. DrGonzo Says:

    Michael,

    It sounds good stating it that way, but people will then ask if you are for legalizing hard drugs. A candidate will not be allowed to remain that vague on her views.

    Like I said, I don’t think the majority of Americans are ready for that. It makes more sense to start with marijuana, and see how that works. The main problem in my view is that you are going for an all or nothing. Change happens slowly, and you cannot make such sweeping changes right from the start.

  7. Michael Seebeck Says:

    Of course, if we stated it that way, most people would have no idea what we’re talking about, even while being entirely correct.

    Frankly, I’d love to see that CSA comment in the Platform because it indicates what’s wrong and why, and a simple addition of a call for repeal would indicate what to do about it.

    BTW, an apology. I meant to say DrGonzo, but for some reason the Dr got chopped. No disrespect intended.

    And a correction: “because it uses thoses” should have been “because it doesn’t use those”. Damn fingers!

  8. Michael Seebeck Says:

    DrGonzo, your position on incrementalism is valid, undoubtedly. But there’s nothing wrong with stating the ultimate goal as well.

    We can call for sweeping changes (some might even say over-sweeping) if we can accept an incrementalist compromise in that direction and then repeat the cycle for the next increment.

    OK, I’m officially channelling James Vance here. :)

  9. DrGonzo Says:

    No disrespect taken. As you can tell by who I stole this nickname from, I’m not a real doctor anyways.

    We can call for sweeping changes (some might even say over-sweeping) if we can accept an incrementalist compromise in that direction and then repeat the cycle for the next increment.

    That is what I fear might turn regular voters off. I think even publically stating that as an ultimate goal could turn a lot of voters off.

    You are 100% right about the compromise though. We definitely need a candidate who is willing to do that.

  10. Andy Says:

    Good video by Mary Ruwart!

  11. Live Free or Choke Says:

    When Dr. Ruwart announced her campaign, she moved to the top of most LP members list of POTUS nominees, however she is now SADLY damanged goods. LPers need to find another champion in Denver.

    75-to-100 of you delegates need to give your debate token to the BALDHEADED, FAT#&&, WHITEGUY. Anyone who will change his name to LIBERTARIAN to promote and help the LP and will keep it for over 25 years deserves to be heard in the LP POTUS debate in Denver. Are you this dedicated ? Give him your debate token ! Thanks.

    Jim LIBERTARIAN Burns/Steve KUBBY ‘08
    I’ve become a FAN of the “fat”MAN and the “head”MAN

    www .infowars,com
    the TRUTH will set you free

    STOP Barr the drugWARRIOR
    http://www.lewrockwell.com/katz-j/katz-j28.html

  12. Stefan Says:

    Very good video by Dr. Ruwart. Wish she with her campaign team will make more such youtube video’s on specific themes like health care, the economy etc. ,e,g. all the burning, bread and butter issue during this election and explain how the Libertarian approach is different (and superior) than Democrats and Republicans in word and deed. She can also demonstrate he unique skills to gather a lot of voters and state some examples. It is of course easier said than done in the course of only a few minutes, but worth it. This would enhance her appeal even more. She has also use it in a campaign and demonstrate to LP voters how she will persuade people. and make best use of her existing contacts. Perhaps she can tell more about her history, achievements and personal opinions on some issues….

    While a substantial number of women are not attracted to Hillary Clinton, with her way, her shallowness, false smile etc. I am sure they and many men would be just elated to have a candidate like her to vote for. her smile is genuine and I can believe she is tough from the inside. Her style reminds me a lot of that of a female version of Dr. Paul: strong conviction and principles/ideas combined with a kind, open and loving personality.

    Dr.Gonzo: I totally agree with you. I think the best way, also to reconcile the “reformers” and “radicals” in the LP, is to stick to the principles, but promote/concentrate on the most basic ones affecting most people, and the war on drugs issue can take a secondary role. There would in any case not be time to go into details of all the policy aspects, and people will be confused and overwhelmed with too much information and may be scared at too much changes at once, whereas an incremental change (medical mariuajna for now) could be advocated with regard to the war on drugs.

    This would be an honest and effective strategy.

  13. Joe Buchman Says:

    I like Dr. Ruwart, am especially impressed by her book, may even vote for her—but this video is terrible, IMO. Bad camera angle, bad audio, seemingly un or under rehearsed, bottomline: unprofessional.

    I respect the purity of her Libertarian ideas and message, especially as an author and philosopher—but to be electible (or even to have a commercial on youtube that gets people to buy your product of any kind) the presentation is part of the message as well (or the “medium is the message” if you prefer), and in almost every case speaks louder than the content itself.

    At least that’s what I used to teach in my marketing courses.

    Joe

    www.Buchmanforcongress.com

  14. Michael Seebeck Says:

    Joe Buchman, if you teach marketing, why aren’t you on the LNC??? We need talent like that!

  15. Stefan Says:

    Article in a blog on Ruwart:
    http://spirituallibertarian.blogspot.com/2008/05/will-libertarian-party-ever-be.html

    If I were he/her campaign, I would also promote the “Healing” book and have several copies available where she can sign. It would promote her idea better and also provide her with a “fundraising” for her campaign etc.

    Her book is also prominent among this list:
    http://www.laissez-fairerepublic.com/BOOKS.HTM

    She has experience with campaign running for Senate in Texas in 2000.
    Bob Barr also run for senate in Georgia (also unsuccessfully) before becoming congressman. Dr. Phillies also run for office and has debate and campaign experience and Steve Kubby run for governor in California. Root, Smith etc. do not have any experience running for a political office IMHO. Personally I think the LP should also consider this campaign experience vs no experience. Running for president is a very demanding experience and has to be conducted all over the country, and a candidate who has at least some experience running for a political office would mean a lot. Root and Smith can say they have various media appearances, but it has not translated into raising lots of money yet. To be fair, many contributors could wait till the nominee is chosen and then contribute to the campaign of the LP…

  16. Lidia Seebeck Says:

    Here’s some video ideas, since we know a lot of her stances already, because of “Healing”

    What’s her take on pet ownership? What does she think of NAIS? (I imagine that she is on the side of Animal Welfare rather than Animal Rights, and therefore fine with pet ownership, and I imagine she is against NAIS considering where she lives, but I’d love to know her take)

    How would she approach diplomacy with truly isolationist nations like North Korea or Myanmar (sp?) if she felt there was a legitimate threat to our soil?

    Here’s a wierd one. Imagine you’re President, Mary, and all of a sudden a major disease epidemic (like Fusarium, or Karnal Bunt/Smut) hits American small grains production (the latter actually happened in 1996, the former could very easily occur). How would you guide the USDA (assuming there is still a USDA) to corral the epidemic quickly without infringing on farmers’ rights?

    I ask this last one because as an agronomist I’m having real trouble coming up with a solution that doesn’t involve the word “restrict” or outright “ban”. I’d love to see Mary tackle this.

  17. Stefan Says:

    Joe, while I like the contents of the video and Ruwart’s behavior, but agree with you with the presentation. You have to take into account it is quite an emotion issue, put yourself into her shoes and the emotional pressure by a fellow candidate calling for your drop-out, just a week or so after he hinted his interest to make you VP should be be chosen. The video should have been edited, for instance, it should have been cut off just as she ended, with a nicer advertising (and not let to “roll on” a little longer). But her campaign learns also and can make it more professional next time. I would also say she should be in a different background, perhaps more “formal”, in an office with a simple background and a picture or with a table in front with her book perhaps. One has to keep in mind she probably does not have the funds - like many other candidate too - to get a professional team.
    It could also be great if there is a radio or TV show with a moving picture of her (MP4, not MP3) and then with some picture/promotions flashing. She could get a professional IT person from the RP meetup-groups in her region who can arrange this.

  18. Susan Hogarth Says:

    That is what I fear might turn regular voters off. I think even publically stating that as an ultimate goal could turn a lot of voters off.

    What do you see as the alternative? I mean, assuming we agree that freedom is the ultimate goal, then we only have a few choices as candidates:

    (1) just lie (of course they will be ‘outed’ as not being actually libertarian).

    (2) learn to deflect questions graciously

    (3) (I know this one sounds pretty wild) learn to represent the truth with forthrightness and in a non-threatening way?

  19. Steve LaBianca Says:

    Well, here we go again, with the pseudo libertarians calling for libertarian candidates to make it libertarian lite.

    These guys who call for this just have no guts. Can you imagine how, say 20 or more years ago, especially during the Reagan administration’s crack down on drugs, David Bergland and Ron Paul calling for the end to the drug war . . . YES, ALL DRUGS!

    Now, 20 + years later, with the public more amenable to this idea, Mary Ruwart is supposed to just talk about ending marijuana prohibition only. These guys absolutely have no guts, and no sense of what it means to stand up for liberty.

  20. Steve LaBianca Says:

    DrGonzo Says:
    May 14th, 2008 at 11:21 am

    I like Ruwart, and there is no doubt she is a Libertarian, but her message would not be accepted by the majority of regular voters. Saying you want to legalize heroin and crack probably isn’t going to go over so well with many Americans.

    The most correct terminology is “ending prohibition” of drugs. Before drug laws were enacted in the early part of the 20th century, these substances were not prohibited by governments . . . at all, at any level! Then, unconstitutional laws were passed, prohibiting drug commerce and use, unless prescribed by “licensed” (that is privileged) manufacturers and dispensers.

    Starting small is NOT the answer to the problems of the drug war. The drug war causes, directly and indirectly untold hardship, deaths and wasted resources in its wake. Starting small is not an answer to solving the problems of the drug war.

    As the old saying goes, reach for the stars, if that is what your goal is. These people are weenies . . . apologists for the state intrusion into and ruining people’s lives, way more than drugs ever could.

    This is a wedge issue. It ought to be used to drive a “wedge” between Libertarians and every other party out there.

  21. Steve LaBianca Says:

    Live Free or Choke Says:
    May 14th, 2008 at 12:54 pm

    When Dr. Ruwart announced her campaign, she moved to the top of most LP members list of POTUS nominees, however she is now SADLY damanged goods. LPers need to find another champion in Denver.

    How so? Damaged in what way? Damaged in whose eyes?

    Please explain.

  22. DrGonzo Says:

    What do you see as the alternative? I mean, assuming we agree that freedom is the ultimate goal, then we only have a few choices as candidates:

    Freedom is the ultimate goal. However, putting out a message most voters don’t agree with will accomplish nothing.

    Well, here we go again, with the pseudo libertarians calling for libertarian candidates to make it libertarian lite.

    You are intentionally being dishonest, or you really know nothing about politics.

    It isn’t even widely accepted that marijuana be legalized. What do you think they are going to say to a candidate who wants to legalize hard drugs?

    Stick with the same message though. I know it makes more sense to keep getting no votes.

  23. DrGonzo Says:

    “Starting small is NOT the answer to the problems of the drug war. The drug war causes, directly and indirectly untold hardship, deaths and wasted resources in its wake. Starting small is not an answer to solving the problems of the drug war.

    As the old saying goes, reach for the stars, if that is what your goal is. These people are weenies . . . apologists for the state intrusion into and ruining people’s lives, way more than drugs ever could.

    This is a wedge issue. It ought to be used to drive a “wedge” between Libertarians and every other party out there.”

    Those are all great ideas. If your aim is to keep getting as little votes as possible.

  24. Steve LaBianca Says:

    DrGonzo Says:
    May 14th, 2008 at 12:29 pm

    It sounds good stating it that way, but people will then ask if you are for legalizing hard drugs. A candidate will not be allowed to remain that vague on her views.

    Like I said, I don’t think the majority of Americans are ready for that. It makes more sense to start with marijuana, and see how that works.

    I absolutely disagree. The drug war problems will not be solved by any stretch if marijuana is the target. Obviously, any move, legislatively is a move in the right direction, but the drug war problems, turf wars, drive by shootings, knocking over old ladies to feed an overpriced black market drug habit WILL NEVER BE SOLVED BY ENDING JUST MARIJUANA PROHIBITION! Just as Libertarians call for ending the War of aggression on Iraq as soon as logistically possible, so should we call for ending the War on Drugs! People’s lives are at stake . . . in both these wars!

  25. DrGonzo Says:

    I absolutely disagree. The drug war problems will not be solved by any stretch if marijuana is the target. Obviously, any move, legislatively is a move in the right direction, but the drug war problems, turf wars, drive by shootings, knocking over old ladies to feed an overpriced black market drug habit WILL NEVER BE SOLVED BY ENDING JUST MARIJUANA PROHIBITION! Just as Libertarians call for ending the War of aggression on Iraq as soon as logistically possible, so should we call for ending the War on Drugs! People’s lives are at stake . . . in both these wars!

    You can disagree, but that doesn’t mean Americans will agree with you. The fact is most Americans are not going to support the legalization of hard drugs. This point isn’t even arguable.

    So it boils down to what is more important. Would you rather start with a small change of marijuana, or keep getting a few hundred thousand votes while calling for decriminalization of all drugs?

  26. Steve LaBianca Says:

    Those are all great ideas. If your aim is to keep getting as little votes as possible.

    More “Votes is everything” arguments. Repeat over and over. How about Hillary . . . or Obama if they fail to capture the Dems nomination? That will get us votes. Heck, maybe even Hillary could be persuaded to support medical marijuana!

    Get Real! The best impact the LP can have, is to move the debate in our direction. Unless we’re talking about tens of millions of votes at stake (which we aren’t), our best impact is to influence the political discussion in our direction. This fairy tale that getting 1 million, or maybe even 2 million votes is some major accomplishment with a watered down message is a step forward is buying into the whole racket that the major parties partake in . . . which by the way is the reason the country is in the mess its in! Emulating the problem is just that . . . contributing to the problem!

  27. DrGonzo Says:

    Get Real! The best impact the LP can have, is to move the debate in our direction. Unless we’re talking about tens of millions of votes at stake (which we aren’t), our best impact is to influence the political discussion in our direction. This fairy tale that getting 1 million, or maybe even 2 million votes is some major accomplishment with a watered down message is a step forward is buying into the whole racket that the major parties partake in . . . which by the way is the reason the country is in the mess its in! Emulating the problem is just that . . . contributing to the problem!

    The best impact the LP can have is to keep getting less than 1 million votes? Thinking like this is why it has remained a small party. Getting 1 or 2 million votes is a huge step forward and you build on that. That is how you build a support base for a party. You don’t say it is my way or no way and keep with the same group of people.

    No, starting with a small change is not contributing to messing up this country. It is also not emulating the problem. It is called a compromise. The most important thing a politician can do is this.

    What do you think the regular average joe is going to think when they hear she wants to legalize heroin?

    Again, your ideas are good if you would rather remain a small party. I wish the party to get much larger, and attract new voters. This is why I prefer to compromise.

  28. Steve LaBianca Says:
    1. DrGonzo Says:
      May 14th, 2008 at 3:05 pm

    You can disagree, but that doesn’t mean Americans will agree with you. The fact is most Americans are not going to support the legalization of hard drugs. This point isn’t even arguable.

    So it boils down to what is more important. Would you rather start with a small change of marijuana, or keep getting a few hundred thousand votes while calling for decriminalization of all drugs?

    Until more and more Americans agree that the drug war CAUSES the crime problems and ruined lives, starting small as a means to reaching to ending this havoc wreaked on Americans by the government, is a total myth.

    Start small, well these are the the ideas that are being kicked around in the Democrat and Republican parties. Why emulate that? It is going nowhere to solving the drug war. Plus, you’re not differentiating the LP from these other parties. Nobody is going to vote for Libertarians if the candidates just say the same thing, or nearly so. No, the principled stand against the war on drugs, well promoted is what makes the LP a different party. Your strategy of starting small isn’t different enough to attract votes.

  29. Steve LaBianca Says:

    Again, your ideas are good if you would rather remain a small party. I wish the party to get much larger, and attract new voters. This is why I prefer to compromise.

    That is a ridiculous accusation to say I’d rather stay a small party. This isn’t an either/or choice. I will say this . . . if it was either/or, I would just go be a Democrat or Republican. I can have the biggest parties of all!

    And if it was either/or (again, which it isn’t) I’d rather stay a small, principled party, than become a large, corrupt one.

    The only way becoming a larger party means anything, is if it remains principled in the process. Otherwise it is just Republican and Democrat all over again. That my friend, is how you define a waste of time. Why reinvent the wheel, the Democrats and Republicans have invented that one already!

  30. Denver Delegate Says:

    I was surprised that Dr. Ruwart posited the American people as superior to that of a dictatorship (acknowledging that there are substantive differences between the term “dictatorship” and “monarchy”). I’d rather have a government with Mary Ruwart as the dictator or monarch than a tyranny directed by a majority of the American people.

    See Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s defense of monarchies over democracies at

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/hoppe/hoppe4.html

  31. Steve LaBianca Says:

    I wish the party to get much larger, and attract new voters. This is why I prefer to compromise.

    If you want a big party, why not b a Republican or Democrat? Really! I’m not trying to run you off or anything. I seriously want to know. If “bigness” is the goal, why not just try to influence the major parties from within? I ask this sincerely.

    The LP can only be a viable entity if it remains principled in taking the principled positions which the other parties are so far unable to take. Emulating them make the LP meaningless. It becomes one fish in a whole school of fish . . . essentially invisible. Even if you think the LP is invisible now, why go to the effort of changing the message to remain invisible.

    No, the LP is viable only as a principled political party. If large is the goal regardless, then nothing will change . . . the Democrats and Republicans have that market cornered. Persuasion, patience and principles . . . the three P’s is what will take the LP to where it needs to go. The three “C’s”, compromise, coercion and curt will never get us to where we want to be . . .unless it is just to be “big”.

  32. Steve LaBianca Says:

    DrGonzo Says:
    May 14th, 2008 at 2:58 pm

    You are intentionally being dishonest, or you really know nothing about politics.

    I’ll take that as a slander. I certainly AM NOT INTENTIONALLY being dishonest!
    If you mean that I know nothing about Republican or Democrat politics, I’ll ay this . . . I only know that in compromise which is what the Democrats and Republicans do constantly, everybody loses.

    In compromise, nobody gets what they want. Over time, we all suffer, except those who work the ominously coercive system we call government. Playing “politics” by the same old rules of compromise will never get us to where we want to go. Compromising one giant step backward with a small step backward is still worse! We can only be successful by changing the tone and direction of the debate. Anything else is just playing politics the old fashioned, lose/lose way.

  33. Thomas L. Knapp Says:

    DrGonzo,

    You write:

    “It isn’t even widely accepted that marijuana be legalized.”

    Bullshit.

    Outright marijuana re-legalization has passed in large cities—including, as it happens, Denver. “Lowest law-enforcement priority” for marijuana has passed in others. Outright legalization of Marijuana got, if memory serves, 38% of the popular vote in Nevada and 44% of the popular vote in Colorado last year despite underfunded campaigns for it and federally-funded ONDCP campaigns against it.

    Medical marijuana has been adopted in 12 states, it would have been adopted by a 69-31% margin in DC if Bob Barr hadn’t managed to prevent the votes from being counted, and even in conservative states it passes or comes close to passing wherever proposed.

    The wall has been breached, the enemy is in full retreat—and you’re whining that instead of pursuing and completely routing them, we should retreat and pretend it never happened.

  34. Committee for Clarity Says:

    to be clear
    Knapp you give the LP way to much credit for taking on the drug war. No one has ever noticed the LP for that stand accept to trivialize our candidates as nut jobs.

    The real success has come from organized groups outside the LP.

    Just once it would be refreshing if you could get something right.

  35. The Democratic Republican Says:

    Michael Seebeck Says:

    May 14th, 2008 at 1:49 pm
    Joe Buchman, if you teach marketing, why aren’t you on the LNC??? We need talent like that!

    Ya, that’s exactly what the LP needs. You genius radicals just keep searching for the way to polish the turd (your ideas); I’m sure you’ll come up with the method some day. Maybe with a big bow or something.

  36. Michael Seebeck Says:

    Well, DR, since the D’s and R’s have been polishing the turd (their ideas) for decades and people keep buying it, ya think that maybe, just maybe, they have figured out how to market statism to the sheeple, then maybe, just maybe, the LP can do the same, even if it’s not a turd (despite your malformed opinion), and market freedom to the sheeple?

    Sheesh! Sales 101: Have a marketing plan that works.

  37. Andy Says:

    That is a ridiculous accusation to say I’d rather stay a small party. This isn’t an either/or choice. I will say this . . . if it was either/or, I would just go be a Democrat or Republican. I can have the biggest parties of all!

    And if it was either/or (again, which it isn’t) I’d rather stay a small, principled party, than become a large, corrupt one.

    The only way becoming a larger party means anything, is if it remains principled in the process. Otherwise it is just Republican and Democrat all over again. That my friend, is how you define a waste of time. Why reinvent the wheel, the Democrats and Republicans have invented that one already!

    What is the point of having a political party if you don’t want it to grow large enough to eventually win seats in an election?

    THat isn’t what it means at all. It means turning people onto the Libertarian ideals of freedom and protecting civil liberties. Americans aren’t going to further investigate Libertarian ideals if they hear from the beginning we want to legalize every drug. You are in the extreme minority of Americans who think this. Thus, why would you put it out there to immediately be rejected.

  38. Thomas L. Knapp Says:

    Committee,

    I’m not sure where you think that I gave the LP in particular any “credit” at all for taking on the drug war. It is part of a broad anti-drug-war coalition, but I made no statement as to how important a part of that coalition it is—just a statement that it should be part of a pursuit rather than of a retreat.

    It’s probably safer to stick to criticizing things I actually say than it is to just make something up and pretend I said it. I may not catch you at that latter one every time, but I usually will.

  39. DrGonzo Says:

    In compromise, nobody gets what they want. Over time, we all suffer, except those who work the ominously coercive system we call government. Playing “politics” by the same old rules of compromise will never get us to where we want to go. Compromising one giant step backward with a small step backward is still worse! We can only be successful by changing the tone and direction of the debate. Anything else is just playing politics the old fashioned, lose/lose way.

    Actually compromising is how politics work. My way or no way only works in an oligarchy or dictatorship.

    Again, your views are only good if you want to remain a small party that gets no national attention.

    No, the LP is viable only as a principled political party. If large is the goal regardless, then nothing will change . . . the Democrats and Republicans have that market cornered. Persuasion, patience and principles . . . the three P’s is what will take the LP to where it needs to go. The three “C’s”, compromise, coercion and curt will never get us to where we want to be . . .unless it is just to be “big”.

    Who said the goal is large regardless? The goal is to put the Libertarian message out there. One that people will embrace, and reasearch further. You don’t say legalize all drugs or else. You say we are for legalization of marijuana, and then if they come on board tell them why we want to legalize all drugs.

    You only need to look at the success of the LP since ‘71 to see if your marketing strategy has worked.

  40. DrGonzo Says:

    Thomas Knapp,

    I know the numbers for legalization of marijuana. 44% still leaves another 56% of the country who does not want it legalized. That is a lot of people.

    My point was, if that many people are still against the legalization of marijuana, what do you think they will say about a candidate who wants to legalize crack?

  41. Thomas L. Knapp Says:

    DrGonzo,

    There are a number of different views of how a political party should pursue its agenda.

    One is that it should work hard to get people to agree with it, after which those people will vote for its candidates.

    Another is that it should work hard to get people to vote for its candidates, after which those people will agree with it.

    For a party based on an ideology like the LP, the former course makes more sense. Most parties start off with some kind of core ideological convictions (for example, the Republicans came together to oppose the extension of slavery into the territories, and to support the imposition of a protective tariff), and start falling into “whichever blocs we can put together to get a majority” patterns AFTER they’ve secured some measure of success.

    Do I think that we should run on “legalizing crack?” No, because that issue is far from ripe—but I don’t think we should deny it either. We’re for it, and saying we’re not for it won’t get us any lasting benefits.

    Incrementalism? Sure. But we should only run on things we actually support, and we should run on the things we actually support that are most attractive to voters.

    The 44% of Coloradoans who voted yes on legalizing marijuana represent about 100 times the percentage of Coloradoans who usually vote for the LP’s presidential ticket. They’re probably easier to get than the 56% who voted against medical marijuana, they’ll probably be more inclined to stick with us later when marijuana is legal and we’re ready to talk about legalizing crack … and 44% in a three-way race for public office is quite likely a winning vote tally.

    Of course, there’s an issues “mix,” and an LP candidate probably isn’t going to get 44% on that issue alone. Some of that 44% will abandon the candidate over other issues. Others from the 56% may support the candidate over other issues.

    Not that that’s either here or there. While I expect that an LP candidate might get some positive media for supporting marijuana legalization, none of the candidates—including Kubby—have tried to make that their single issue. Ruwart or Kubby will, for the most part, be talking about the same issues that the other parties’ candidates are talking about: Iraq, the economy, health care, etc. They’ll be talking about those issues from a Libertarian policy perspective, and I think we have some opportunities to pick up enduring support on those issues because of it.

    In any case, we could argue this all day, and it’s hard to do so without getting simplistic. Suffice it to say that I think Libertarians should target large, libertarian-leaning issues constituencies which don’t get good representation from the major parties. A large minority supporting one party—if that can be pulled off—is better than a bare majority split between two parties.

  42. David F. Nolan Says:

    I have run for U.S. Congress as a Libertarian twice—in California in 2000, and in Arizona in 2006. Both times, I spoke at about a dozen candidates’ forums, whose attendance ranged from 20-30 people to 500+. Whenever I was asked about drug policy, I gave a hardline libertarian answer: end all drug prohibition. (In my first campaign, I made that my lead issue.)

    Not once, that I recall, did anyone in the audience take me to task for this. I got negative responses on many OTHER issue stands: immigration policy, ending the war in Iraq, privatizing Social Security - but no flak whatsoever on the drug issue. From my experience this is about the LEAST scary issue that Libertarians have to deal with. And Bobarr is wussing out. Pathetic, really.

  43. Andy Says:

    “Andy Says:

    May 14th, 2008 at 5:05 pm
    That is a ridiculous accusation to say I’d rather stay a small party. This isn’t an either/or choice. I will say this . . . if it was either/or, I would just go be a Democrat or Republican. I can have the biggest parties of all!

    And if it was either/or (again, which it isn’t) I’d rather stay a small, principled party, than become a large, corrupt one.

    The only way becoming a larger party means anything, is if it remains principled in the process. Otherwise it is just Republican and Democrat all over again. That my friend, is how you define a waste of time. Why reinvent the wheel, the Democrats and Republicans have invented that one already!

    What is the point of having a political party if you don’t want it to grow large enough to eventually win seats in an election?

    THat isn’t what it means at all. It means turning people onto the Libertarian ideals of freedom and protecting civil liberties. Americans aren’t going to further investigate Libertarian ideals if they hear from the beginning we want to legalize every drug. You are in the extreme minority of Americans who think this. Thus, why would you put it out there to immediately be rejected.”

    Hey, there’s some guy posting under my name!:)

  44. Clark Says:

    BONZO PARROTED: The fact is most Americans are not going to support the legalization of hard drugs. (END)

    ...’legalization’ is a term used by goddamned republicrat ignoramusses!

    ...hint: there won’t be a proposed law to ‘legalize’ drugs..(‘oh please mr. republicrat politician, will you ‘legalize’ drugs for me?)

    ...knowledgeable people understand these goddamned laws denying people OBVIOUS, inalienable rights to self-medication, ingestion, etc.. ought to be REPEALED..

    REPEAL, not ‘legalize,’ you Rush Limbaugh-ish Republican idiots/parrots.. ;o)

  45. Clark Says:

    ..question for republicrat prohibitionists, etc. numbskulls: if it was necessary to amend the Con. in order for the feds to get involved in alcohol prohibition, wouldn’t it be necessary to amend the Con. in order for the feds to become involved in ‘drug’ prohibition?..

    (hint: republicrats suck!) ;o)

  46. Alex Peak Says:

    Who shot this? Eyes should be at 2/3, not 1/2, from the bottom. I thought everybody knew that. It makes it uncomfortable to watch when it’s at 1/2.

    Dear Dr. Mary Ruwart, you were smeared, yes. Let the smear die. You’re keeping it alive by continuing to refer to it. You’re letting your opponent define you. This is bad campaigning.

    I am thoroughly disappointed in Dr. Ruwart’s first video. Look at what Kubby and Barr have been doing with their videos.

    I expected the quality of Ruwart’s campaign to be much better than it has been. At this point, I think I’ll have to switch support to Kubby, until Ruwart gets around to doing better campaigning.

    Respectfully,
    Alex Peak

  47. Alex Peak Says:

    DrGonzo writes, “Saying you want to legalize heroin and crack probably isn’t going to go over so well with many Americans. She will immediately be labeled a fringe lunatic with that message.”

    Dude, 99.9% of libertarians want to decriminalise heroin and crack. Every Libertarian presidential candidate has held this belief, and every Libertarian candidate we select in the future ought to hold this belief.

    It would be a horrible mistake for libertarians to only talk about pot, since that would simply make the voters think we’re a bunch of pot-heads who want to get high. When you tell them that the entire war on drugs doesn’t work, that makes them listen—they realise you’re not just holding that position because you want to get high, but because there must be something wrong with the status quo.

    Besides, we’re here to promote libertarianism. We’re here to promote, among other things, ending the war on drugs—because that’s what we believe in. To promote it, we have to talk about it. Avoiding it won’t promote it.

    “It sounds good stating it that way, but people will then ask if you are for legalizing hard drugs.”

    So we tell them, “Yes, abolutely and without remorse.” Then we explain why.

    “Like I said, I don’t think the majority of Americans are ready for that.”

    And they’ll never be ready for that if there aren’t people (e.g. the LP candidates) talking about it and promoting it.

    Sincerely,
    Alex Peak

Leave a Reply