NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #20/NN_1992_20.iso/spool/comp/org/eff/talk/5745

Text File | 1992-09-09 | 3.7 KB | 74 lines

Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Path: sparky!uunet!stanford.edu!morrow.stanford.edu!news
From: [e-mail] (June Genis)
Subject: Re: taxes, theft, police, etc.
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (News Service)
Organization: Stanford University, California, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 16:11:26 GMT
Lines: 62

In article <[e-mail]>,
[e-mail] (Garnet) writes:
>>In article <[e-mail]>,
>>Besides, what is it about so many Libertarians that seems to make them
>>unable to field candidates for positions other than President? If
>>Libertarianism is such a good deal, why can't we have a demonstration of it
>>in a couple of cities, or a state?
>
>This is not correct.  The Libertarians have elected officials serving in
>the state legislative assemblies of New Hampshire, California, and Alaska.
>(There might be other states, but I know of these three.)  Maryland has
>canadites on the ballot for the Senate and House of Representatives in the
>5th and 6th districts.

Unfortunately this isn't quite true.  There are two Libertarians
currently serving in the New Hampshire stat house. There were 3
previously in Alaska.  There has never been anyone in California
although we have had two county supervisors one of whom is still
serving.  There will be about 500 people nationwide seeking election
as Libertarians this fall in addition to the Presidential ticket.

>There are several reasons why Libertarines have not done well in the polls.
>Some of them include:  media coverage, ballot access, and finances.
>
>Libertarians get very little media coverage.  Perot says that he _might_
>run for president and he gets front page news before he is even on one
>states ballot.  I have not seen a single article in the _Washington Post_
>that even mentions the Libertarians.  (Gary Wills did have an op-ed piece
>on them.)  Had Perot stayed in the election, he would have been included
>in the Presidential debates.  Marrou will not be included.  When newspapers
>do profiles on the various canadates, they usually omit libertarian
>canadates.  Most people I have talked to do not know who Marrou is nor are
>they aware that there is a Libertarian Party.

As the Libertarian candidate for the 6 year U.S.  Senate race I can
tell you personally how frustrating it is to keep hearing about
"California's *two* women Senate candidates" (there's actually
another besides me) or "the four" U.S. Senate candidates (there are
10 that are fully ballot qualified for the two seats combined).
When I opened my statewide office in San Francisco last week, not
one reporter showed up despite a lot of advance work.  They thought
it was more important to cover yet another rally to keep the Giants
in San Francisco.  When John Seymour (seeking re-election to the
remaining 2 years of his appointed seat) rolled through town for 20
minutes yesterday to unveil a bill board, everyone was there.

>And since the Libertarine Party is a small party, it does not have the mega
>bucks the other two parties do to spend on advertizing.  Plus some of its
>limited resources must be spent on getting onto the ballots.  This is a
>chicken-egg problem.  With no money, people do not know about the LP.  And
>if people do not know about the LP, they won't give it money.

This was one of the most frustrating things about the Perot movement
for me.  Since Perot had 100 million of his own money to spend he
became a "credible" candidate and therefore got lots more media
coverage which meant he had to spend a lot less of his own money.
Meanwhile Marrou, who was offering solid idea and programs while
Perot sprouted sound-bites was ignored.

>Garnet Harris

/June