The Greens got a lot of their ideas into the mainstream after Nader. Ex., every other product on the shelf is now “green” or “organic” and even the nominee of the Republican Party endorses government action to combat global warming. That would’ve been unthinkable eight years ago. The LP could conceivably do the same if they got even 3-4% of the vote.

Another good example is John Kerry. Many thought he was the most “electable.” In fact, he was a terrible candidate. It’s really hard to believe he could lose to Bush four years ago. A good Dem candidate should have won in a landslide.

I wasn’t there (at the convention) but assume they chose Barr for name recognition and the possiblity of getting more attention and votes. But, as conservative Repub’s are learning, it does no good to compromise your principles to get more votes. Ultimately, you end up with less. McCain is a great example of this. The Repub’s could possibly have nominated someone I could vote for (and small gov’t conservatives too); instead, they (with the media’s help, and a quirky primary process) nominated the Repub most like the Dem’s.

I know it’s unpopular, but I think being called an ideologue is a compliment. To me, it means being true to your principles, even if that is not the most successful road in the short run. I’m not that interested in effective gov’t; I’m interested in less gov’t.

Mike, I agree, I don’t think I’ve been censored.

Okay…

Since when has the prevailing Pandagon vibe prevented you from expressing yourself? And when have you been stopped from expressing yourself?

Just because we may not agree with what you say doesn’t mean you shouldn’t say it. Who knows, you might even contribute a valuable point… (that was just a gentle tease…)

Now if that racist idiot Tanstaafl (from the recent Science vs. ID thread) shows up, that’s entirely different…

And do you think ideologic purity is more important than the ability to facilitate effective governance?

When you look at these candidates, it makes you wonder about the fundamentals of our American system. Seemingly, it has become impossible for ANY party to nominate a candidate with a solid track record of philosophically consistent positions, votes and actions.

I have my own thoughts on this, but they’re libertarian in nature and not welcome here.

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2008/may/24/vegas-white-house-hope/#/The_candidate/

An excerpt (emphasis mine):

“Like any great American success story, Root has created a carapace of legend around himself, the truth of which is a little hard to know. But it’s compelling and deeply entertaining, which is why Root is so good on TV and thinks he can deliver more votes than any Libertarian in history. (The Root Experience can also be exhausting, like being the straight man on the stage of a filibuster infomercial in which Wayne Allyn Root is selling Wayne Allyn Root and Wayne Allyn Root-affiliated awesomeness.)”

The guy is like a parody of the stereotypical rich prick, except he’s serious.

Oh, and why I still love the Las Vegas Sun:

“If the campaign is just a way to drum up business, he really is the perfect candidate for the Libertarian Party. A founding tract of the movement, after all, is Ayn Rand’s “The Virtue of Selfishness.”

The party deserves a man who cares about himself, his family and his money, and very little else.”

He is an authoritarian in libertarian clothing.

Which means he’s the perfect representative for the Libertarian Party.