LP Founder David Nolan: "Sending money to Schiff was a colossal waste of resources"

[Kludge]

Oh man Nolan is a idiot. That diatribe was hilarious. He basically insulted himself. If you don't like the GOP and you want to run for office, do not run as LP, but as an Independent. The laws in this country make third parties all, but impossible. If you do decide to run as LP goddamn run as a libertarian please. WAR, Barr, and the rest are disgusting.

I really, really tried to like the LP. Some folks in there like Mary Ruwart and Scotty Boman are fantastic people and would make great candidates, if only for their great speaking skills in teaching others about libertarianism. However, the overall LP's hostility toward GOP candidates trying to accomplish similar ends is ridiculous, especially when their argument is NOT founded on libertarian purity, but a political party they have personal attachment to. It's pretty obvious to anyone who has studied the LP - they aren't going to be making significant political change any time soon. Given how intense the bickering/"politics" of the LP are, it's really kind of silly not to work with either the GOP or Dems for people trying to work within government. Though definitely not the exclusive example, the LP showed they are a party of compromise when they nominated Barr & Root. It's time for them to go.

 

[LeifEiriksson]

How many times do I have to say it. Schiff would have been a game changer, he simply would not have been another vote in the congress. He would've changed this nation. He is a leader and the whole country would have followed him.

 

[Kludge]

How many times do I have to say it.

As many times as the Catholic Church will have to say the Pope is infallible.

 

[aspiringconstitutionalist]

Which of us, 3 years out from the Ron Paul moneybombs, would say that our money there was misspent? Yes, Ron Paul lost, but he singlehandedly revolutionized the political landscape of America, and, to an extent, the world.

In 2009 and 2010, our money helped Peter Schiff broadcast a message of liberty across New England that many may have never heard, spoken so eloquently, before. And this week, nearly a quarter of voting Republicans in Connecticut chose an Austro-libertarian for Senate. That's a huge stepping stone.

To an extent, donations to political candidates, even libertarian ones, can be a waste of money, because it is simply diverting resources into the state's own game. But donations to certain libertarian politicians can be extremely worthwhile, if they hijack the state's own game to broadcast the ultimate anti-state message to a wide number of people, using the state's own apparatus against it.

 

[low preference guy]

As many times as the Catholic Church will have to say the Pope is infallible.

LOL!

Anyway, Peter Schiff 2012!

 

[Kotin]

Peter Schiff 2012!

 

[AJ Antimony]

Ha! What an asshole! Sending money to the Losertarian Party is the biggest waste of resources.

 

[Schifference]

I am 48, been unemployed for a couple of years, going to nursing school, owned a business for 13 years, closed it and went bankrupt. We live in CT off of 1 income and have no entitlements. We supported and donated to Schiff. I do not think it was a waste of money. In all my years of voting he is the only candidate that I can say that I truly supported. I am proud to have supported Peter Schiff. Peter is an intelligent person and if he chooses to run in 2012 the results will be different. We won, Connecticut lost. Peter's name got out and we endorsed the best candidate possible for U.S. senate. Schiff could have easily won in a different state.

 

[cbc58]

Which of us, 3 years out from the Ron Paul moneybombs, would say that our money there was misspent? Yes, Ron Paul lost, but he singlehandedly revolutionized the political landscape of America, and, to an extent, the world.

Don't take this the wrong way - but that's not being realistic. What has revolutionalized the political landscape is a crash in the economy, massive unemployment, stock market losses and voter unrest. Yes RP is vocal about the economy but he has had very little impact on the average voter. What you are seeing is a very small group of people getting vocal... which is going to happen with or without RP and his candicy. I support RP and various liberty minded candidates, but most voters are not going to come around until it hits them squarely in the face and in their pocketbooks.

Frankly the RP campaign was a big disappointment and a waste of money IMHO. Not the man himself but the campaign organization in general. And the fact that this group is fragmented and can be hijacked by tea-party movements speaks to the fact that it needs work.

 

[K466]

Don't take this the wrong way - but that's not being realistic... speaks to the fact that it needs work.

Paul got in the debates. That cannot be underestimated. It brought many new people to our side.

 

[Baptist]

Getting 1.9% of people from an independently-minded state to vote for your libertarian principles = $5.50 a vote.

Getting 20%+ of people from a socialized state to vote libertarian for the first time in their lives = PRICELESS.

Schiff > Nolan

 

[amy31416]

Don't take this the wrong way - but that's not being realistic. What has revolutionalized the political landscape is a crash in the economy, massive unemployment, stock market losses and voter unrest. Yes RP is vocal about the economy but he has had very little impact on the average voter. What you are seeing is a very small group of people getting vocal... which is going to happen with or without RP and his candicy. I support RP and various liberty minded candidates, but most voters are not going to come around until it hits them squarely in the face and in their pocketbooks.

Frankly the RP campaign was a big disappointment and a waste of money IMHO. Not the man himself but the campaign organization in general. And the fact that this group is fragmented and can be hijacked by tea-party movements speaks to the fact that it needs work.

Have to disagree.

I came around to RP prior to the crash in the economy, massive unemployment and stock market losses.

RP's platform is a principled alternative to the status quo of both sides, and continues to be such.

Some of the failures of the campaign and C4L are aggravating, but I don't regret donating as I did because of the ripple effect the campaign has had. I do regret donating to Murray Sabrin and a few others, but not RP--so I'm not some uncritical supporter. In regards to the hijacking of the tea party--perhaps all we'd need is the enthusiasm we had in '08 to get it back.

RP is more of a philosopher-statesman than a suave politician--do you expect the masses to swoon over him?

 

[libertarian4321]

lol.. funny i had done the math per vote too... altho linda spent nearly $400 per vote... insane...

i dont believe donating to peter was a waste. the libertarian party always seems to be talking smack.. where are the libertarian parties voting numbers again??

I think Nolan's response was because so many people (usually libertarian Republicans) come out and say "it's a waste to support a Libertarian when they have no chance to win"

Nolan is turning that back on those people, because Schiff had no chance, either.

He makes a strong point if you are one of those people who promote the "vote for a bad Republican over a good Libertarian because the bad Republican is slightly less bad than the Democrat" argument.

You should always support and vote for the best candidate, whether he be a libertarian Republican or a Libertarian. It's unconscionable to support a really bad Republican just to (maybe) beat a really bad Dem when you could have voted for a good Libertarian.

 

[libertarian4321]

Getting 1.9% of people from an independently-minded state to vote for your libertarian principles = $5.50 a vote.

Getting 20%+ of people from a socialized state to vote libertarian for the first time in their lives = PRICELESS.

Schiff > Nolan

Actually, he got 20% of the Republican primary voters, not "20% of the people."

0.7% of the people of Connecticut actually voted for Schiff.

 

[wizardwatson]

I think Nolan's response was because so many people (usually libertarian Republicans) come out and say "it's a waste to support a Libertarian when they have no chance to win"

Nolan is turning that back on those people, because Schiff had no chance, either.

He makes a strong point if you are one of those people who promote the "vote for a bad Republican over a good Libertarian because the bad Republican is slightly less bad than the Democrat" argument.

You should always support and vote for the best candidate, whether he be a libertarian Republican or a Libertarian. It's unconscionable to support a really bad Republican just to (maybe) beat a really bad Dem when you could have voted for a good Libertarian.

This is how most people behave though. Just like sports they are sad/happy when their team loses/wins. Its the same with voting.

Being associated with the winner is more popular than being associated with the what is right.

This is why democracy is dangerous and not even tolerable without being encased in the framework of a country based on law. But people I know, smart people still don't get this, and think the President and Senators should all be based on popular vote, and all issues of policy should be national referendum.

 

[dannno]

20%

23%

 

[libertarian4321]

Ha! What an asshole! Sending money to the Losertarian Party is the biggest waste of resources.

I'd love to hear how it is a "waste" to support a Libertarian candidate who has no chance to win versus "not a waste" to support a libertarian Republican (like Schiff) who has no chance to even get nominated (let along win the actual election).

 

[G-Wohl]

I'd love to hear how it is a "waste" to support a Libertarian candidate who has no chance to win versus "not a waste" to support a libertarian Republican (like Schiff) who has no chance to even get nominated (let along win the actual election).

Because the libertarians are deranged and unnecessarily taking money and support from a party that has the potential to espouse the same views.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Because the libertarians are deranged and unnecessarily taking money and support from a party that has the potential to espouse the same views.

There was a reason the LP was founded. Do you know the history? The LP were actually defects from the GOP because they saw how the GOP was purged. The GOP are in reality bigger Government shills than the Democrats, which ironically, is pretty funny. At least back then, the LP was more libertarian. Still though, not nearly libertarian enough. Hence why they did so poorly in 1980 Presidential election when they essentially ran on the same talking points as Ronald Reagan lmao. Look at what Reagan then did.

 

[G-Wohl]

There was a reason the LP was founded. Do you know the history? The LP were actually defects from the GOP because they saw how the GOP was purged. The GOP are in reality bigger Government shills than the Democrats, which ironically, is pretty funny. At least back then, the LP was more libertarian. Still though, not nearly libertarian enough. Hence why they did so poorly in 1980 Presidential election when they essentially ran on the same talking points as Ronald Reagan lmao. Look at what Reagan then did.

Yes, I am aware of their history. In a more uninformed, unfortunate part of my youth, I was a member.

The country has laws which make third parties incredibly uncompetitive. The rational members of the party have left, which is why only lunatics and weirdos remain. The GOP is the obvious choice for people of a limited government persuasion in today's climate.

Political education really doesn't come from a political campaign. It's an extremely inefficient way to spread a message. Think tanks, PACs, books, articles, hell, even letters to the editor, are much better methods, and much more cost effective.