We have to accept it, sort of

For all practical purposes Barack Obama has won the presidential election. I am now waiting for a great golden light of understanding and hope to wash over me from above.

Here it comes.

Never again will we hear from the radical left in our nation, or from other nations, that the USA is a nation of racists. That is a good thing, and may actually be helpful in international relations, as well as silencing a very irritating component of society. I celebrate with gusto the freedom of speech, but most of us can admit that forty years of vitriolic poison spewed by the radical minority can get tiresome.

Freedom of speech is an important right to me, and I respect that right for everyone. Now, with the "Fairness Doctrine" certain to be reinstated, the government will give us a right that we already have. In fact, the government will force that right on privately owned radio stations. That serves those small broadcasting corporations right for thinking that they could own anything.

Dang, that light faded.

Okay, here it comes again.

Brett Hume, of Fox News Channel is talking about how much he believes that Barack Obama is a great guy, and he is speaking from his contacts with him in his professional position as a news anchor. "The Barack Obama we have seen during this campaign," Brett Hume says, in so many words, "is not the same guy we came to think of as a liberal lawmaker."

And Carl Rove is saying that now is a time for America to celebrate, for the same reasons I gave in the second paragraph of this post. We have come a long way from the sixties, and that is definitely a good thing.

I actually feel some hope that President Obama can rise to the challenges the office he is about to take. He is going to have to deal with an empowered Democratic Congress with an agenda that even he--if he is the pragmatist he says he is--will have to reject.

He will face challenges from North Korea, Russia, Venezuela, Iran, Saudi Arabia, China, Ecuador, and Pakistan, among other countries, and the way in which he took the election should give us hope that he has the will and courage to stand up against them, and act in the best interests of his country.

I remain somewhat skeptical, because I am not against big government because of something I learned, but because it is part of my very nature. Barack Obama comes into office with the same hope and promise that his predecessor, George Bush, had--to change the way things were done in Washington. But he plans to do so through a bigger government. That, to me, is more of government as usual. I tend to agree with Thomas Jefferson, who said, "Any government that is big enough to give you everything you need is big enough to take it away."

I don't feel that the current economic crisis is the fault of any political party or person. My Libertarian Soul agrees with Alan Greenspan's sentiments, which imply that it is the lack of any sense of self-preservation by careless and criminal financial executives that caused the problem.

The laws of the land should be enforced. If someone trespasses on the inherent right of others to prosperity, that person should go to jail. Period.

I remain skeptical that the lessons of history can be ignored, and that more taxes and more union involvement will be good for the economy. In the past, such policies have resulted in the loss of jobs and a higher cost of living.

If Barack Obama can make his plan work to the betterment of our economy, then good, but it would only be a temporary fix at best. If it doesn't work, well, there is another Congressional election in two years.

We will survive, and we will overcome hardship. That has been proven by the American Spirit time and time again.

The Greater of Two Evils: My Closing Argument

First of all, my prayers and thoughts go out to Barack Obama, his sister, and their families in sympathy over the loss of their grandmother, Madeline Dunham, who succumbed to cancer earlier today. Be assured that my thoughts and prayers are sincere, for the loss of a family member who meant so much to her family--one to whom Sen. Obama refers as "a hidden hero--" is a terrible loss and very hard to take, especially at a time when one has to focus elsewhere.

I would have loved to use this space on my blog to expound on the virtues of the Libertarian Party, and why Bob Barr should be our next president. Although I feel the current Libertarian leadership misinterprets or misapplies the principle of non initiation of aggression in regards to the state of the world and our national security, every other principle of the Libertarian Party is very close to my heart and my own personal convictions. The "Fair Tax" initiative, the return of constitutional rights to the states and the individual, the removal of Federal Government interference in our daily lives, and an end to prohibition are all issues I care about.

Because I feel that more government is the last thing this country needs I can not, in my heart, believe that an Obama presidency could do anything to help the economy. His economic proposals to tax and are much closer to government as usual than are McCain's economic proposals to cut spending. Obama claims to want to end the influence of special interests, but he has already said he is prepared to give tax incentives to General Electric--a mega-corporation that really doesn't need help from the government to make money--or any other company that develops alternative energy. He knows that it will take at least ten years for these alternative energy sources to develop into a viable replacement for petrofuels and coal, so that means at least ten more years, with his energy program, of sending hundreds of billions of dollars to other countries for our fuel. That's hundreds of billions of dollars that our economy could use.

The resulting energy and economic crises are not what troubles me about an Obama presidency. We have been through worse, during the Ford and Carter years, after 9-11, and after Katrina, and we have survived

"I don't feel Barack Obama has an evil bone in his body"

When I refer to "the greater of two evils" I am not talking about the man himself. In spite of his association with Bill Ayers and Reverend Wright--both of whom are haters--I don't feel Barack Obama has an evil bone in his body. His ideas are well intentioned. He feels a calling, and genuinely believes that he is the knight in shining armor who can save the world. His failing in his inexperience and in his highly idealogical view of the world and the way things work in reality.

Questions that really bother me about an Obama Presidency:

Why do Code Pink, and Move On both support Barack Obama even though he has assured us that he would escalate the war in Afghanistan and invade Pakistan, even though ? For the last six years, they have protested against all war. Have these two organizations suddenly become Hawkish?

Why don't visions of hydroelectric dams blocking wild rivers, or solar collector arrays and noisy wind farms on pristine wilderness land alarm the radical ecological activists who support Obama?

During the primary season, Hillary Clinton said, "John McCain brings to the presidential campaign years of experience and bipartisan leadership. All Obama has is a speech he made in 2002."
Does she support Obama, then, only because he is a Democratic candidate?

Why do Obama's supporters, such as Senator Joe Biden and Governor Bill Richardson, keep lowering Obama's limits for the definition of "middle class?"

Rep Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) has accused Barack Obama of lacking "political courage," but he supports Obama. Is he admitting to being a typical two-faced politician?

The obvious answer to these questions is disturbing.

All of these people, including Senators John Murtha and Barney Frank, feel that Obama as President will be easily manipulated, due to his inexperience. They want a strong Congress and a weak president, even though the approval rating for Congress is down to 9%. A weak Executive Branch removes a check and balance against Congress.

The reasoning behind the radicals is even more sinister. These are the same people who believe that Condoleeza Rice had a privileged upbringing, even though she grew up in a black middle-class family--her father had to work two jobs to support the family--in a racially segregated Alabama. They are the real racists, no matter how many times they call Republicans and fiscal conservatives racist.

Their hate speech won't stop with an Obama Presidency. They will criticize the President for not pulling troops out of Iraq fast enough or for getting more involved in Afghanistan. They feel he will easily back out after just a little criticism. They will feel empowered--a white semi-majority making the Black man bend to their will. The radicals' idea of "Democracy" is actually rule by mass hysteria. And this is why I can't vote for Obama.

Rule by mass hysteria is what killed Socrates, started the American Civil War, and produced Hitler's rise to power.

And that is the truth.

Pavement for the proverbial road

Senator Obama is full of good intentions. By raising taxes on those who make more than a certain amount of money--and that amount has yet to be determined, according to Joe Biden and Bill Richardson, he hopes to "spread the wealth" to encourage more consumer spending and create more jobs. He also hopes to use that tax increase to fund the many social and work programs.

There is nothing in his stated plans to balance the budget. The real lie of his plan is that it is much closer to the present administration's than the "cut spending" plan of the McCain campaign, regardless of the Democratic candidate's claim that McCain's economic plan means "four more years of the Bush policies."

Barney Frank, the Democratic senator from Delaware, and Chairman of the Senate Finance Comittee, has assured us that, with Barack Obama as President, "we (Congress) will spend as much as we need to and not worry about the deficit."

That seems very close to the Busch economic program.

It is questionable as to how Obama's tax plan would help create jobs. Income tax is assessed on gross income, so a business with an annual gross income of $250,000 paying a 39% tax rate would have its available funds reduced to $152,000. That amount would be reduced by another $30000 in FICA and Medicare taxes, Having only $132,000 for payroll, payroll taxes, business expenses, and inventory, how would that allow for job growth? Obama's plan would prevent jobs from being created.

Theoretically, the extra spending power provided by tax cuts to 55% of the working population, and the tax credits to 40% of the working population would help increase the amount of capital to small businesses. But when the government takes money, that money rarely gets back into the economy. The cost of bureaucracy alone takes the majority of the funds, and the rest is spent as subsidies to pharmaceutical, insurance, oil companies, and union contracts. That money rarely translates to more consumerism.


Whether Obama or McCain is our next president, we won't see much change in politics as usual. Government can not fix the economy, it can only make matters worse. It isn't that politicians are trying to bring down the economy--their intentions are well meant. People have come to expect the government to do something, whether it turns out for better or worse. More taxes and more money in the government take away from money that could be given to charities and community programs that can better serve those who need help. We would do better to remember "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions."

Posting for the heck of it

I haven't abandoned this blog, but I just haven't been excited about anything enough to do justice to what I feel is needed to be said. It isn't that there isn't anything to write about, just that there seems to be too much to write about, and not enough passion about it to finish what has been started. So, just to let folks know that Rev Jim is still alive and well, here is an endorsement, of sorts:

Random rants about random Presidential candidates

I have an extreme distaste for trial lawyers. It was trial lawyers who robbed me of a very good career in electronics and the retirement benefits that went with it, for something that happened sixty years ago at the bequest of the government, and for which nobody who worked for that company, or administered it at the time I worked there, had any blame or responsibility. Trial lawyers are all about greed, and personal gain, often taking up to 60% of the jury awards for themselves. They have no conscious when it comes to taking jobs away from people and causing them to suffer as much as their clients.
John Edwards is one of these trial lawyers, who made hundreds of millions of dollars off of the victims of his lawsuits. He has made it clear that, if he would become President, he would continue to rob people of his jobs by attacking "Corporate America" with more taxes and regulations. He has made a personal precedent to put corporations out of business, and to help make the middle class as dependent on the Federal government as are many of the poor.
As a Libertarian, I think it is laudable that Ron Paul has exposed the public to Libertarian answers to social and economic issues, and has received an overwhelming positive reaction to such. However as far as foreign policy is concerned, Dr.Paul is either naive or totally ignorant. For one thing, he has said that it is "ridiculous that America would be attacked because we are too rich or too free." I agree with that statement, such a thought isn't only ridiculous, but is outright propaganda promulgated by the extreme left to make their "hate America first" point. What Paul is missing, when he addresses the war on terror this way, is that the fanatics who would attack America are not attacking us because we are too rich or too free, but because the majority of Americans and Europeans worship God on Saturdays and Sundays. These religious fanatics, such as Ayman Al Zawahiri and Osama Bin Ladin, have convinced their followers that in order for the Seventh Imam, the Islamic Messiah, to come to earth, that the earth must be cleansed of infidels, that is those who do not follow Sharia Law the way it is interpreted by the Wahadi school of thought. Ignoring this threat, or pulling out of the Middle East, as Dr. Paul suggests we do, will allow these extremists to gain power, possibly taking control of an entire nation in which they can expand their resources. Isolationism, Ron Paul's foreign policy, will not make them or their jihad go away.
A question I would like to ask Dr. Paul, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and Barak Obama, is based on the following scenario, which is a legitimate projection considering the situation in the Middle East:
If the United States leaves a weakened government in Iraq, Iran, Al Qaeda, Saudi Arabia, and other foreign powers will find it in their interest to support and step up insurgency in that country. Eventually, Iran will invade Iraq with Iraq's oil resources as its goal, and Saudi Arabia will join in battle against Iran. The Straits of Hormuz will undoubtably be closed, and there will be no Middle Eastern oil exported anywhere. To the above mentioned candidates, I ask:
"With practical energy alternatives twenty or thirty years down the road, with restrictions on domestic oil exploration and drilling, how do you propose to get groceries on the shelves of the markets with the severe oil shortage caused by the inevitable world war in the Middle East, and how will you respond to the wrath of the rest of the world putting the blame on America for creating the situation."
I will bet that they would not even be able to answer the question.

Not My Kind

Republican candidate for the Presidential nomination, Congressman Ron Paul, presents himself as a libertarian, and is favored by roughly 50% of the Libertarian Party members. He is, however, not my kind of Libertarian.
My kind of Libertarian is pragmatic, rather than a blind follower of the Faith in Libertarian principles. The pragmatic Libertarian is no less a believer in Libertarian principles than is the Ivory Tower Libertarian, but the pragmatic is inclined to apply those principles within the tolerance of the situation in question.
Dr. Paul fails to acknowledge the facts. He tries to shove the Libertarian principles down our throats, without consideration of the situation. He defends his views by citing the crackpot 9/11 conspiracy theorists when talking about his opposition to the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. He is, in fact, a politician, not a statesman, as can be seen in his Wikipedia entry. In fact, he was the only professional politician ever to run for office as a Libertarian. It should be remembered that, when he ran for President in 1988, he received the lowest national vote count in the history of the Libertarian Party. It should also be remembered that, after the 1988 elections, he was heavily criticised by Libertarians for improperly representing the Libertarian principles.
Where would Dr. Paul draw the line of defense against those who do us harm? Would he actually wait until there is another invasion of our sovereignty, in which thousands of innocent citizens are killed? It is true that, if Saddam had been left alone, we would not be fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq, but, where would we be fighting them? Our enemy, which is waging a continuing war against us, is not a foreign country. Our enemy is a population of men who follow an extremely radical religious philosophy, in which the only way to reach Paradise is to murder those who do not follow their particular brand of religion. They have no borders. If we were to wait for them to come to us, the toll in human lives would be catastrophic. Dr. Paul's isolationist philosophy would ensure that such a toll would be taken. The pragmatic Libertarian is not an isolationist.
Dr. Paul does not represent all of the Libertarian principles. He is an ardent prohibitionist. On the issue of abortion, he would like to return to the days of back alley butchers.
Libertarian philosophy can not be imposed from the top down--it must work its way up from the individual and the smallest possible community.
Neal Boortz, who literally wrote the book on the Fair Tax Initiative, is my kind of Libertarian. He understands that preserving the future of our way of life is not the "temporary" security of which Ben Franklin spoke. Walter E. Williams, who often writes about the need of the individual to take personal responsibility in order to earn and preserve our natural rights, is my kind of Libertarian.
Gary Johnson was elected Governor of New Mexico in 1994 and served in that office for the full two terms allowed by that state's constitution. As Governor, he was an outstanding example of how the pragmatic Libertarian operates within the practical situation. He successfully repealed New Mexico's prohibition of package liquors on Sunday, which resulted in a dramatic drop in DWI/DUI incidents in that state. After he granted permission for a Native American clan in New Mexico to open a casino on its reservation/property, the Federal government sought an injunction against the opening of that casino. Governor Johnson successfully stood against the Feds, in the name of states' rights and property rights, and the injunction was dropped. He allowed homosexual partnerships to be legally recognized in New Mexico. While not able to repeal New Mexico's income tax, he reduced spending while creating tax incentives for commercial ventures in New Mexico, dramatically improving that state's economy--a policy that was continued by Governor Bill Richardson. Amid severe criticism from both Democratic and Republican politicians, Governor Johnson brought the question of marijuana prohibition to the forefront. Johnson did all this with very little experience in politics. He is not, by any means, a professional politician. Gary Johnson, of course, is my kind of Libertarian.
The Libertarian Party has been trying to shake the image of the "Ivory Tower Libertarian Crackpot" for many years. Dr. Paul has, in the Republican Party Presidential nomination debates, presented himself as just that. Libertarians would do well to ignore his bid for the Presidency.

We're All Going to Die!

Well, perhaps some day. This kind of illustrates the general reaction to yesterday's electons.

Go Ahead and Screw It Up

I hope this election comes out in favor of the Democrats, but not for the reasons you may think. If the Democrats win control of Congress, there will be a change, all right, but it will not be a change in politics-as-usual. The voters will realize just how bad their representation truly is, as Big Government spending continues and Congress remains a do nothing entity. Time and taxpayers' money will be wasted on bills doomed to veto, and on the promised investigations. Spending bills will fail, and there will be problems distributing government checks. Debates and filibusters will continue to consume Congress will prove to the voter that the power grab is on the part of the legislative branch, not the executive branch.
The change that will come with a Democrat Party victory will be in the voter, not in the government. As the flow of money in the economy decreases, jobs will decrease. That decrease will be felt even more if the Democrats are successful in passing a minimum wage increase, and more home-owned businesses fail because they can’t afford wages or payroll taxes.
The poor performance of Congress over the years will leave its mark on the citizenry, and many will realize that the one-party Demopublican system can do nothing for the common man. This will mean that by 2008, we should see a drastic change in the way people think about Democrats and Republicans. The people will be so angry at politics-as-usual, we may see the first President elected running as an independent or third party candidate.
I hope that, if the Democrats win, they really screw it up. We should expect nothing less.
To my fellow Libertarians: Four words for 2008--Steve Forbes for President.

Uh, What? Oh, It's the SSPRC!

Let's take a trip to The Soviet Socialist People's Republic of California, and take a look at what's on the ballot there. Hmmmm. Proposition 87. Its proponents say that by charging energy companies to drill for oil in that state, the state gets money to give to alternative energy research. It will, they say, help Americans wean themselves from foreign oil. They claim that the issue, if passed by the proletariat and elected by legislature, would prevent Big Oil from passing the added costs of drilling in California to the consumer.
Let's ask some theoretical and rhetorical questions here. If, suddenly, there was absolutely no oil or petroleum fuel available, would we be prepared to have ways to transport goods and services, to get to the market, our jobs, and schools? The intent of the proposition 87 is sincere in that it would encourage the use of alternative energy, but is enough available to immediately replace the use of fossil fuels? Can we all afford to ride bicycles to work, drive solar powered, hybrid, or hydrogen cell automobiles, and are enough of these available to everybody? Are engine components that can withstand the high temperatures and non-lubricating characteristics of ethanol thoroughly tested and readily available to the general public?
My reason for posing these questions is simply that proposition 87 has the potential to stop oil production in California. It is a thinly veiled attack on the perceived enemy of the proletariat, Big Oil. Oil companies earn an average of nine cents to every consumer dollar, far less than the profit margin of dairy companies or coffee producers. There is no point in running a business unless a profit can be made. It is a fact of life.
Proposition 87 would make oil production unprofitable in California, and would result in loss of jobs, and diminish the cash flow in the economy. It is, in reality, a punitive tax, which would result in drastically higher fuel costs throughout the United States, bringing about drastically higher inflation rates. But, no matter, we can just blame all that on Bush and the Republicans, no matter what the cause, right?
To be sure, reduced reliance on foreign oil is a very worthy goal to work toward, as is speeding up research on alternative fuels and alternative energy sources. But, as those resources are not immediately available, proposition 87 would actually increase the demand for foreign oil. That means more money for Al Qaeda and Hezbollah. I suppose the proletariat would blame that on Bush, as well.
In truth, what Prop 89 proposes is that billions of dollars be taken out of the economy, used to hire bureaucrats--read those who contributed to certain legislative and administrative campaigns--to "administer" the taxpayers' contribution to alternative energy research, then return the twenty- or thirty-thousand dollars that is left over back to the economy, to be used for such research. That is the way Big Government works.
In consensus reality--as opposed to California reality--funds from the private sector and free trade commerce more efficiently provide energy research companies with more capital that can be used for actual research.
Why not, instead, offer tax incentives to the energy companies to spend more research money on alternative resources? That is where the money is going to be in what is, ideally, the near future. The oil companies will eventually have to switch to producing alternative energy, anyway, so why not give them incentive to begin research now? That is, after all, what the executives get the big bucks for anyway, isn't it?
Libertarian philosophy does not tolerate government meddling in the affairs of private enterprise, but, as long as Big Government is going to hold your hand while you cross the street, why not charge Starbucks a fee for opening drive up windows? Why not use revenues from public parking and toll roads for energy research, and development of alternative energy resources? Why can't we figure out ways to reduce the demand for gasoline and fossil fuels? This makes more sense than destroying the economy in the name of conservation.
Hopefully, common sense will prevail, and Proposition 87 will be defeated in the polls, but then, common sense and California aren't exactly best of friends, are they?

Correction--Note to Self: The name of the leader of Hezbollah in Lebanon is Nasrallah, not Rasmallah. Writing from memory is not always the best way to check facts. Apologies to my readers.

Libertarian Candidates need to stress Pragmatics

There are some Libertarian candidates in some states who have done something that Libertarians have never done before--played politics to the polls. In response to polls, Gubernatorial candidates in several states have declared that they would order "their" National Guard units home from Iraq and Afghanistan, on the premise that they are their fighting an "illegal" war, and that they are not there in direct defense of the United States.
I understand, and support the basic Libertarian tenet that US armed forces should be used only for the direct defense of our nation, but to say those troops are being used for purposes other than the defense of our nation is naive. It is by the words of our enemies, those who are sworn to the destruction of the United States, that we know that their victory in Afghanistan and Iraq will be used to strengthen their ranks and resources. Having control over a nation would not only bring us back to the situation that brought about the attacks on 9/11, but would give them even greater resources than they had in 2001. As long as we are still dependent on foreign oil--a situation that cannot be remedied over-night, no matter how much research on alternative resources is being done--a jihadist monopoly on oil is all they need to devastate the economy of Capitalism throughout the world. There would be no free enterprise, one of the Sacred Cows of Libertarianism. It isn't one of the leaders of the United States saying this; it is the leaders of the radical Jihadist elements who are saying this. If we withdraw our troops from either of those countries, leaving a failed state behind, our enemies will declare it a victory, just as Nasrallah considered the ruination of Beruit and the deaths of hundreds of innocent Lebanese civilians by his actions a victory. Victory for the Jihadists will strengthen that movement, and make it even more dangerous to our national security. You have to look at the big picture, look at the future and the results of our actions, and get out of the 2003 frame of mind.
It is hypocritical of a Libertarian to ignore "innocent until proven guilty," another Libertarian principle. We cannot say that the war is illegal until we can say for sure that the intelligence that led Clinton and Bush to believe that Saddam was an immediate threat to our national security was known to be flawed. That will be hard to prove, considering that the UN weapons inspectors were denied access to certain facilities in Iraq on their final tour in November 2002, and left without ever inspecting those facilities. It is even harder to prove now, since it has been discovered that plans for building nuclear weapons were included among the documents posted from Saddam's portfolio on the US government website until November 2nd. Are we really calling the former Iraqi Air Force Generals al Tikriti and Sada liars when they swear that they shipped what they took to be wmd and nuclear materials to Syria aboard Russian cargo aircraft in February 2003? It still, to this day, is very hard to prove that, right up to D-day, Saddam didn't have stockpiles of weapons that he had said he would use against US interests. The people of Iraq were not forced to vote. They voted in spite of violent pressure not to. We cannot relegate those people back to imprisonment by a tyrannical government. That would be against Libertarian principles
I'm not saying that invasion and war is the best solution. There were a lot of mistakes made, and rectifying those mistakes is even harder. Paul Bremmer mismanaged the interim government, and even anti-jihadi, pro-American Muslims, Egyptians, and Arabs criticize the coalition forces for not initially sending enough troops to prevent disaster, and not paying enough attention to creating jobs and repairing the infrastructure.
Another criticism of the coalition forces is that they didn't overthrow Saddam in 1991, or support the insurgency against Saddam, as we should have in the aftermath of the Gulf War. Clinton wanted to do that in 1998, but he was stymied by the unnecessary, frivolous, and costly impeachment proceedings. We can't go back in time to rectify the situation, but we can do it now. It's just much more costly and difficult now, especially the way it is being done now.
I like the suggestion that some pundits have made that there should be a program for jobs similar to the WPA in 1930's America. But that is the responsibility of the Iraqi government, not the American taxpayers. I would take that several steps further--Wal-Mart, McDonald's, Intel, and the like should be encouraged to set up shop in Iraq. I know, you'll say that they would be targets for anti-American violence, but they don't need to do business in the violent areas of that country. Start in Iraqi Kurdistan, which has been peaceful since April of 2003. Stay away from Baghdad, Tikrit, and the Anbar province--there are eleven other Iraqi provinces that are not experiencing violence. The poor and the jobless will move out of Sadr city to get jobs. They will loose their incentives for violence against the Iraqi government as they become part of the work force. The insurgency forces would be diluted, divided, and diminished. In order for that to work, Iraq needs a better police force. I say that the training of the police force be privatized. Let companies that deal with law enforcement and security contract with the Iraqi government to do the training and recruitment of the police force.
We should, perhaps, diminish the number of actual trigger pullers in our forces in Iraq, and concentrating more on logistics, air support, intelligence, and training. We need to encourage the new Iraqi government to tell us what exactly they want or need from us, and we need to work with that government on what they could do to help us develop an exit strategy. In a nutshell--the conduct of the operation is not up to politicians, it is the job of diplomats, entrepreneurs, and generals.
The Libertarian candidate should stress his or her strong points--the points of Libertarianism that cannot be rationally argued against. Personal responsibility, charity from the smallest possible community rather than welfare from Federal bureaucracy, an end to Big Government spending, states' rights, individual freedom, the Fair Tax proposal from Neal Boortz and others, the repeal of the Federal payroll and personal income tax laws, an end to Federal micromanagement of our daily lives, the repeal of laws creating victimless crimes, a level economic playing field, equal rights for everybody, strict constitutional limits on the Federal government--these are all strengths in the Libertarian principles.
As far as foreign policy, trade policy, and diplomacy goes, Natan Sharansky's The Case For Democracy should be required reading for all Libertarians. Sharansky was a voice for the dissidents in the old Soviet Union, and is still a voice that should be heard in the foundation of international liberty. One of his main points is that there is no such thing as a benevolent dictatorship. His argument on this point is very compelling, based on the fact that a dictator must create unstable situations in order to not be overthrown himself. Sharansky is a good example and a strong voice for international Libertarianism.
The Libertarian Party needs to be able to capitalize on its successes. Gary Johnson, for instance, was a Libertarian who got elected twice as the Governor of New Mexico, running as a Republican, but practicing Libertarian policy, somewhat successfully. He did not practice politics-as-usual during his tenure. Instead, he repealed the Blue Laws in New Mexico, reducing DWI violations in that state by 42%. He successfully. challenged the Federal Government over the right of the sovereign Native American nation in New Mexico to operate a casino. He reduced taxes and government spending, and made the economic environment in that state conducive to economic growth. Johnson held the highest elected position any Libertarian in America has held since the presidency of Thomas Jefferson. Libertarians should have taken that and run with it, instead we dropped the ball. We had the highly respected and widely read National Review on our side--during Johnson's tenure, Libertarian and Libertarianism were words often seen in that publication, but we failed to take advantage of that. It was an audition that the Libertarian philosophy passed, but failed to capitalize on.
Alan Greenspan held the highest post that any Libertarian has ever been appointed to in US history. As head of the Federal Reserve Bank, an entity Greenspan philosophically opposes, he virtually did nothing to control money supply, and created an economy strong enough to withstand an enemy attack on American soil, natural disasters, and high gasoline and fuel prices. There are now more jobs, and higher trading volume than ever, and the credit goes not to any Government administration, but to Greenspan. This is another audition that Libertarian principles passed. Libertarian candidates should really try to capitalize on it.
Politics-as-usual is not the Libertarian way. Libertarian candidates should be able to stress this point in a positive light. We are the only party for which "Vote for me, because I'm not the other guy," can effectively work. “ Pragmatics, not politics” should be our catchphrase.