One of the issues I have always had with the Libertarian movement is its political ineffectiveness. While a vast majority of Americans will agree with libertarian concepts and positions, they will rarely vote for a Libertarian cantidate as they generally have little chance to get elected. The whole Libertarian position, taken at once, is a very big bite for the average person and their willingness to ignore the parts of it they disagree with are much less than the Republican or Democratic policies they don't agree with.

Is it effective to run a Bob Barr for President with no hope of winning or would we be better finding a few congressional seats where Libertarian cantidate could win and focus on those while pressing for a more Libertarian direction within the Republican party?

Your thoughts?

It is efective to run a Presidential candidate just to get the message out to a broader range of people. I personally am in favor of concentrating on more local elections (school board, town councils) as they tend to be decided by smaller margins, thus making it easier for us to have an impact. The thing that irritates me the most is the argument you have made: people won't vote for Libertarians because they have little chance of winning. Why do they have little chance of winning? Because people won't vote for them. We have to try to break that moronic cycle.

I agree. We need credible local candidates, who ctake resonably moderate Libertarian positions and principles and show how they work on a local level. These cantidates, as they prove their capabilities can then filter up to state and ultimately national postions.

We also need to learn to be more effective in framing the debate. There are a sigfnciant number of people who support Libertarian principles when they are put in the simple terms that make sense to them.

To be successful at this will tke time and a grassoots effort. If the election goes as expected, were have plenty of opportunities to point out the problem with big government.