As a change of pace from the million Democratic primary topics in the media, I was wondering to gauge interest on the party which might just get the greatest number of Sciforums votes in 2004. I'm not making this a poll because I'm not sure how much interest it will garner in this forum, so if you have a preference, just post who it is and possibly a short explanation. LP (and other 3rd parties like Green) have a strong popularity on the internet, so if you don't know about it, visit lp.org and take their quizzes and stuff.

Disclaimer: There's a difference between small l and large L libertarians/Libertarians. It's a complex issue that's been beaten into the ground before. Last I heard, the national LP was still being run by Harry Browne's disciples and has numerous corruption problems, nevermind Browne being a fucking idiot who said stupid shit about 9/11.

As for what's been going on lately, Carla Howell dropped out. Too bad, she would have been a really strong candidate in addition to pulling in women who'd vote for anyone with a vagina. Ron Paul isn't going to run either. Now, to the candidates themselves.

Michael Badnarik (http://www.badnarik.org) - Angling to define himself as the pro-2a candidate, seems to be generic libertarian on most other issues, including opposing War on Drugs, taxes, welfare, Patriot Act, Affirmative Action, death penalty. Opposes Iraq war on constitutional grounds, doesn't say it was unjust or anything which I can respect. Basically pro-life but wouldn't force it on others, and supports gay marriage/adoption.

Clyde Cleveland (http://www.clevelandforgovernor.org) - Some sort of LP/Natural Law/Green fusion candidate. Seems to be decent on small government and taxes, but TM is sorta out there.

Jeff Diket (http://www.geocities.com/jeffdiket) - The choice for social conservatives. Strongly anti-abortion and anti-gay. Check out this quote from his website.
Opposition to attempts by political internationalists to sacrifice U.S. sovereignty and national independence to the dictates of a New World Order. You can count on Jeff to vote against any bill that would involve putting the rights of Americans in jeopardy by any world political body. He has long fought against the wrong-headed schemes of such NWO lobbying groups as the Trilateral Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations.

He seems to be allied with Buchanan's ideologues, despite supporting free trade and ending the War on Drugs. On the positive side, he attacks the two major parties as nominating Presidential candidates who are typically "Socialist Candidate A and Socialist Candidate B." and seems like a conspiracy nut about the chicoms and Clinton.

Gary Nolan (http://www.garynolan.com) - Seems to be frontrunner right now due to the fact that he's a nationally syndicated radio host. Has worked at small government think tanks, appeared on FNC, CNN, MSNBC, and rightly attacks Republicans as the big-spending hypocrites they are. Generic LP basically - small government, anti-WoD, anti-Patriot Act, anti-interventionalist. Wish his site had more info.

Mike Ross (http://elect_mike_president.tripod.com) - Looking to capitalize on the angry anti-Browne faction. Atheist, and teeters on the brink of being an Anarcho-Capitalist. Typical libertarian stances with an A-C bent, he's less about smaller government than ending it altogether.

Aaron Russo (http://www.russoforpresident.com) - Famous, rich Hollywood producer. Has some interesting interviews on his site. Somewhat more of a left-libertarian, but his views on most issues (guns, taxes, etc) would still be acceptable to most LPs. Very anti-war, wants immediate withdrawal from Iraq, teeters on the brink of leftist vitriol on Bush/Cheney and big business. Wants to make medical Marijuana the center of his campaign.

Blake Ashby (http://www.ashby2004.com) - Running in the GOP primary against Bush, although basically a libertarian. Seems to be a vanilla small-government type. I REALLY want him to get some press coverage, somehow get into a debate, and stop Bush from pandering (with giant spending entitlements) and force him to be a fiscal conservative again.

Nolan looks the best of these for me. Principally because he recognizes how much like democrats the republicans have been acting like, fiscally, in recent years. Also for his isolationist ethos.

I will vote for Jeff Diket if he will get us out of the UN.

I am one of the few, the proud, the pro-life Libertarians. Where did you see him say anything anti-homosexual or pro-life? I tried to read his site, but the yellow text nearly gave me a seizure, so I didn't finish it all.

I will vote for Jeff Diket if he will get us out of the UN.
I would vote for ANYBODY who would get us the fuck out of the UN.

As far as Diket's social conservatism goes, I'll try to find out where I read that and cite it here. If his site is any indication, he really doesn't have his shit together. I mean, a Geocite with poorly formatted and blindingly yellow text? Please.

I'm personally pro-life but it is my belief that it is the job of the population as a whole to foster pro-life sentiment through civic responsibility, rather than draconian governmental regulations.

As a true libertarian, I recognize that voting in national elections is a waste of time. I'll probably do it anyway just to make a statement, and since it coincides with some local elections. Mike Ross is closest to my position, and so I'd probably vote for him if he runs in Texas. In November, it'll be whoever is on the Lib ticket.

I've been a small-l libertarian for 25 years and a loyal voting member of the Party for most of that. But I'm ready to toss the Party: stop registering so it will lose ballot status.

The Libertarian Party has no practical, pragmatic understanding of the fact that politics exists whether we like it or not, and that we have to deal with it.

There is only one important issue this year and it outweighs all others combined: Bush simply must be unseated. Four more years of letting his strings be pulled by people who realize he has no brains, no will of his own, and no powers of observation, who therefore can exploit him blatantly, shamelessly, and completely, makes the likelihood of a complete breakdown of American civilization much too real. Yes I know nothing is certain and it might not go down that way, but I think we'd be bigger fools than Bush himself for taking that great a risk for that great a stake. This is as big a risk as the brinksmanship of the Cold War. Right up there with letting Wilson manipulate us into entering WWI (arguably on the wrong side at that) and setting the whole white-knuckling Twentieth Century into motion.

The absolute last thing we need in this election is an attractive third-party candidate who might siphon off the moderate and pissed-off factions of the Republicans who might otherwise be wooed into voting for Kerry or Clark. It's been argued reasonably that Nader could be the reason Bush is in the White House at all. If the 2004 election is as close as the last one, do we want Nolan to be the reason he stays in?

In most elections I say that I can't stand the Democrats any more than the Republicans, so why not make a statement and vote Libertarian. In this election I have to honestly say that I would much prefer to live under the administration of any one of the Democrats rather than Bush. Hell, even Sharpton. He'd be another outsider like Carter who simply couldn't get anything done to really upset us. And it would sure put the fun back into Saturday Night Live, Mad TV, and the Daily Show.

The Nature Conservancy for the limousine liberals, the Sierra Club for the greying Boomers, and even Greenpeace and PETA for the eco-militants -- all have accomplished more than the Green Party, and done it more suavely and with more bang for the buck. (Well maybe PETA ain't so suave but they sure do work cheap.)

We need to dissolve the Libertarian Party and form a club. Use our money, energy, and influence to work on specific issues. Instead of fighting over abortion and immigration, leave that stuff to the politicians. Work together to end the War on Drugs, the Patriot Act, and corporate welfare. Put initiatives on the ballots in states that permit it to make "none of the above" a choice in all elections.

We're supporting the Central Asia Project, an organization that builds schools which teach a more or less American version of freedom in their curriculum in the Mideast, to give parents an alternative to the terrorist training academies in poor areas. Why can't we do something like that right here in America, found schools that offer an alternative to the government's curriculum?

There are so many things that a movement can do that a party cannot. And there are so many things that the Libertarian Party cannot do because every voter can find at least two planks in our platform that offend them and because the press can't help portraying it as the Kook Party that wants to abolish the government.

This is the year to abandon the Libertarian Party. The ecologists figured out how to get their way a long time ago. Let's try their way. Our way isn't working.

Worst of all, this is the year that if we get our wish and attract a lot of voters, we could actually swing the election in the direction of national suicide.

But frag, your vote really is irrelevant. The amount of time you waste going to vote has a much greater chance of impact buy using it to buy lotto tickets instead. Why not use the little power you have to make a statement. That way the major parties will be inclined to pander toward you next time around.

But frag, your vote really is irrelevant. The amount of time you waste going to vote has a much greater chance of impact buy using it to buy lotto tickets instead. Why not use the little power you have to make a statement. That way the major parties will be inclined to pander toward you next time around.Yes, I'm quite familiar with that strategy and I've been preaching it to everybody I know for years. The American Communist Party never won an important election, yet the two major parties were so scared by its level of support that by the 1950s both adopted the entire Communist Party platform.

All a third party has to do is become a big enough threat, siphon off enough votes, and the major parties will co-opt its platform and put it into action without it ever winning more than a few city council seats.

The problem with this strategy is that it is long term. What we have in 2004 is a very short term crisis. If Bush is re-elected, there is a very good chance that there will never be a "next time around." Look at what his puppeteers have accomplished in four years. They've come very close to repealing the Constitution, giving the President powers that only Congress was granted. They've got the legislative, executive, and judicial branches acting in collusion to rig elections and nullify the Bill of Rights. They've got U.S. troops invading a sovereign nation that was less of a threat to us than France, overthrowing its government, and occupying it. The Bush Dynasty's coziest friends are being awarded contracts non-competitively to execute projects that only exist because of the war that occurred for no reason.

They've got the planet's entire Islamic community, which is one third of the human race, on the brink of considering us an imminent and nearly unstoppable threat to their way of life. All because of Ferengi Rule of Acquisition #34: War is good for business.

Thoroughly amoral people who don't care about us at all have gotten almost total control of the government and they're so smug about our inability to stop them that they don't even bother to conceal their action.

Given four more years, they will completely solidify their power and destroy ours. The Libertarian Party won't matter because there won't be any more elections.

Yes, I could be wrong in my analysis of what's been going on, but I haven't seen any more credible explanations. Yes the American people could surprise us and take back the country by force, but these are the same people who submit to strip searches in airports and who have been brainwashed into believing that Saddam masterminded 9/11.

There is one shred of democracy left in the USA. There are a lot of people who, for various reasons, are skeptical of Bush. The Democrats have a chance of winning the election. Sure, the puppeteers will patiently start fresh and try to recover their power. But it will, with any luck, be a long time before another President comes along with the lethal combination of stupidity, naivete, and hubris that made it possible for them to gain so much ground during one single term of office.

You say my vote doesn't matter? How many votes decided the 2000 election? My wife and I don't intend for Kerry or Clark to lose California by two votes because we voted for a Libertarian.

We're scared. You younger people should be frightened out of your socks.

While I agree Bush is a frightening individual, the scenario you paint seems a bit far fetched. Your one vote still won't make a difference.

while i agree to most of your positions, Kerry is just a Bush clone. To elect Kerry will further the war agenda. BUSH and KERRY ARE BOTH WARMONGERS!

To that end look at Kerry's voting record. Kerry has never met a spending bill
Bush didn't like as well as IRAQ!

Libertarian.

Welcome libertarian! Do I know you from another forum?