The Latest Tim West Video

I’ll just let this one speak for itself.

Props.

posted by Stuart Richards
  • http://UnCivilDefence.blogspot.com MRJarrell

    I’ll be glad when the Convention is over and the LRC and Tim finally get the message that the LP doesn’t want what they want. Will they have the good grace to fade away or will they, like others hang around and complain for the next few years until they become our own fringe? Regardless, it’ll be nice to see this nonsense and ill will go away.

  • http://www.libertyforsale.com Timothy West

    ending all taxation and welcoming all refugees post 9/11 are politically untenable positions for any sort of political party that actually wants to win elections and change public policy.

    In the great majority of voters eyes, and certanly in the eyes of the babe interviewing Badnarik, the party he was representing IS nuts. Badnarik actually did a WONDERFUL JOB with the interview, but the entire appearance was TRASHED by the platform expose you see above. It undermined his entire appearance.

    There will be decisions made post convention that will be interesting depending on the results obtained in Portland.

  • Michelle Shinghal

    I think that the men who plotted to be free of England and her king sounded nuts to their neighbors as well. But, maybe men were men then. You know, they said what was on their mind and you knew where they stood. I think that would be refreshing today. I would take “nutty” over the republicrat political fisting anyday.

  • http://www.frankworley.com Frank Worley

    Groovy Video.

    I think it hits the nail on the head.

  • http://www.libertyforsale.com Timothy West

    Why not just adopt an actual short term every 4 years platform
    where we say what we want to do for the nation every four years working through the political process?

  • http://UnCivilDefence.blogspot.com MRJarrell

    “The great majority of voters”…that’s a loaded phrase, considering the abysmal turnouts in this country. The fact is that the people in Colonial America that Michelle alludes to did consider the founders to be a lunatic fringe, for the most part. Those founder didn’t attempt to make their message palatable for the sake of expediency. That’s what made them special and unique. What the LRC seemingly wishes to do is turn the LP into Tori Lite. Ending onerous taxation is and shall remain a core principle of the LP as will free immigration. Waving the 9/11 Fear Flag is a tactic of the Republicrats, not the LP.

  • http://UnCivilDefence.blogspot.com MRJarrell

    “Why not just adopt an actual short term every 4 years platform where we say what we want to do for the nation every four years working through the political process?”

    Why? So we can sway with the political winds for the sake of a few votes? Hell, even Boortz gets it…Americans don’t want to be free.

  • Barry Wray

    The Libertarian Party needs to continue to be the party of principle!

  • http://www.libertyforsale.com Timothy West

    Those founders were under conditions of war and open rebellion.

    there’s a considerable difference between ending ALL taxation and ending onerous taxation, I am perfectly fine with the latter and think the former is impossible achieve through the political process. Only if you believe in no government can you advocate that.

    I believe in small Consitutional government and before you get to no government, you have to stop the current expansion, then you have to start shrinking it. When we get to the level proscribed by the Consitution and Bill of Rights, I’ll get off the train and you guys can continue.

    But your insistance on making the beginning the same as the end is making the train really hard to start up.

  • http://www.libertariantv.com Walt Thiessen

    I’ve got to hand it to you, Tim. You managed to turn one newscaster/interviewer’s comments into a representation of the majority of Americans. Congratulations on the transmutation.

  • http://UnCivilDefence.blogspot.com MRJarrell

    There was no open rebellion when the founders began their mission and formed their basic principles. No-one involved is making the begining the end or vice versa, that’s just more Reformista rhetoric. The fact of the matter is that taxation is subjective. For some, like the Founders a few cents were onerous. For some now, 30% of their livelihood is onerous, or 1%. Best to end all taxation of income and free people, then government will be forced to downsize. Any other method is just lip service and not going to happen.

    I’m still wondering if the LRC will remove itself if repudiated at the convention? Most LP members aren’t going to take to planks that call for federalising police and the like.

  • http://www.libertyforsale.com Timothy West

    Walt,

    oh really? So tell me how you think that ending all taxation and and welcoming all refugees ARE looked at by a prospective voter?

    I think Badnarik LOST votes based on that appearance.

  • http://www.libertyforsale.com Timothy West

    MR,

    it depends. We’ll make our decisions based on many factors. Why not wait and see what the adopted planks are and what the pledge issue winds up being? Thats what I am doing. I’ll advocate a course of action once all the known info is in.

  • http://www.gabejohnson.org/ Gabe J

    they forgot to add “legalize prostitution” to the list of resasons we are nuts.

  • http://www.lpnm.org Joseph Knight

    What’s right isn’t always popular and what’s popular isn’t always right. Our party should keep positions based on principle and our candidates should offer incremental planks that advance us toward that ideal.

    Just for the record, if the “purists” win – I’ll keep on fightin’. If the “pragmatists” win – I’ll keep on fightin’.

    I’m a principled pragmatist, no conflict. No reform needed, it’s not our principles that are broken.

    Joseph Knight, New Mexico

  • jnice

    MRJ: I continue to be amazed at comments from “purists” that claim anyone who advocates anything less than anarchy to be just another “Republicrat”.

    I believe the LRC will GROW in the next couple of years, because we have a message that allows several types of libertarians and libertarian-leaning liberals or conservatives to support our positions. Your message, on the other hand, only makes room for people in the upper-most portion of the libertarian spectrum. The LRC won’t be going away any time soon!

  • jnice

    Tim: Effective video, by the way.

  • Brian R. Miller

    I’ve been a Libertarian since 1996, and I completely agree with West’s message. It’s incrementalism which will introduce Libertarianism to the country, not some sudden anarchist sea change pipe dream where government is abolished, all regulations are ended, and fire/police services are provided as private contracts.

    The Libertarian party is in no position to be dictating to the libertarians in this country who don’t subscribe to the extremes of libertarian thought that they’re “not libertarians.” All that does is provide people already worried about joining a third party with more excuses to stay in the Democratic or Republican parties.

    Tim’s video communicates very effectively the challenges which we face as a political party. We can either take steps to conquer those challenges, or remain a marginalized party which blows all its wad on ballot drives and cannot make a TV appearance without being referred to as the people who would let bin Laden settle in St. Louis.

  • http://voteoverstreet.org Kris Overstreet

    I’m on Tim’s side, but I really don’t think the video is effective in any way. It doesn’t demonstrate any basis for the assertion that calling for tax abolition and open, unrestricted borders makes us look like kooks. (The evidence is there, but this video doesn’t show it.)

    The video doesn’t really go beyond, “Because we said so, that’s why!” That’s really unfortunate, especially since the last chance the LP has to become a viable party before 2008- and possibly ever- is unfolding in Portland right now. Something stronger than this is needed to drown out the all-or-nothing, rule-or-ruin anarchists who have controlled the party for over twenty years.

  • Brian R. Miller

    No, the video very effectively demonstrates the media reaction. The whole confused “Ummm. . . *pregnant pause* it looks like there’s a LOT there” means “what sort of whack job are you? Now, provide me with a couple of amusing quotes so I can dismiss you as a non-serious contender.”

  • x

    Don’t disrespect Badnarik.

  • http://www.libertyforsale.com Timothy West

    I’m not. He was great – but the platfrom graphic basically undermined everything he said. He said the LP want to return government to it’s Constitutional roots – and then how that we want to end all taxation and welcome all refugees, both of which have nothing to do with the Constitution and in fact undermine it….and undermine everything Badnarik said.

  • http://www.libertyforsale.com Timothy West

    sorry brain is bad right now – lots of mistakes. You get the idea.

  • Brian R. Miller

    Yes, they didn’t report on Badnarick’s position — they reported on the platform, which DOES disagree with many of Badnarick’s positions.

  • Mike Cheel

    To most people, libertarian philosophy goes against everything they have learned growing up, regardless of the logic behind it. We need to address that bad logic and really show how our philosophy can really solve the problems we claim it can. We need to overwhelm people with truth and facts if we ever want to change their minds.

  • Graham

    I remember seeing that on TV when it happened and seeing ‘Libertarian platform” and how it was worded and just thinking “Oh, shit”

  • Rob D.

    “We need to overwhelm people with truth and facts if we ever want to change their minds.”

    Which is precisely what I and a number of other libertarians (not readers of HoT) over at the Maher forums do almost every day. Pick your battles and do what you can.

    I.E. – http://boards.billmaher.com/showthread.php?t=47300

  • Graham

    As for Always invoking “the founders” (as if the founders were “perfect” and the progress of man froze 200+ years ago).. Well ok, we all know what they did and the means. Not exactly political means. LP is a political party, right? Or is it an army? So I don’t see how you can compare modern politics to armed revolution, unless armed revolution is what you propose.

  • http://www.titaniumgirl.blogspot.com elle

    Call me nutty – but I agree w/the stance that Badnarik took back then and I still do now.

  • http://www.ilovephysics.com Chris Moore

    Why does the LRC continue to insist that “the voting public” does not want to end income taxes. They have NO evidence.
    In tax-happy Massacussetts, they came really close to abolishing the income tax completely.

    LRC, let me see your poll results. Until then, stop making unsubstantiated claims.

  • http://www.libertyforsale.com Timothy West

    just go ask any person on the street, chris. And that graphic did not say ending all income taxes. I siad, and our platform says, END ALL TAXATION.

    Ask them the right question, Do you support ending all taxation? and see what you get.

  • David Perkins

    The video show what’s wrong with the LP and the country in general and that is a lack of respect and tolerance. When you attack a persons views in this manner they become defensive and you lose what small chance you have to change there view. If you show respect and tolerance for other people’s views then they will be more willing to listen to what you have to say and you have a better chance of changing there viewpoint. Until you can change the other person point of view you are fighting a losing battle.

  • http://imnotparanoiditstrue.blogspot.com/ Ryan B.

    Why not just use the scare tactics that the republicans and democrats already use? ie the war on drugs simply state “what you don’t want to end the the war on drugs? you mean you want the terrorists to win?” reason smugglers have jobs because of the drug trade and how else will they smuggle in weapons of mass distruction and how many foriegners do we piss off in our drug war. In taxation like 31 said ask any person on the street if they would like to have more money in their pocket you know the answer.
    The problem is not the platform it is the way of getting the message across.
    like 27 it is a matter of spreading the message to anyone willing to have a discussion about the issues anywhere that may be.

  • http://libertynow.spaces.msn.com/ Len

    So the majority of voters don’t agree with our platform. Are they right?

    Many Americans at one point in this country viewed blacks as inferior to whites. Were they right?

    Seems like quite a few Germans agreed with Hitler for awhile. Were they right?

    The Libertarian Party claims to be the Party of Principle. What are those principles and are we willing to stand by them and fight for them even if 99% of the country thinks we’re nuts.

    We all agree we need less government. I feel there is room in the LP for everyone who wants less government and I will work with anyone towards that goal. What I cannot support is the constant battle between those who can’t agree on how much less government. We are all on the same fucking side and it’s time to act like it. If we don’t the statists win. They are already winning if nobody has noticed. Let’s start getting serious about this shit. Agree to disagree where necessary, STFU and start winning this war.

  • Stuart Richards

    It’s not about being right, it’s about winning elections. We can be as right as we want, but unless we’re putting people into government it all just amounts to mental masturbation.

  • Steve

    If you’re a 35-year old virgin who’s never kissed a girl, it’s easy to bash women or praise chastity. It’s harder to admit that your approach has been clumsy, and that you have to build a relationship natuarally rather than pushing all your quirk at someone on the first date and “to hell with them if they can’t accept me for it”.

    In its 35-years, the LP has neither won nor polled highly enough to exert meaningful influence on the national level. Enough’s enough with the status quo. I’m tired of this notion that one can’t be a “purist” AND a “pragmatist”! It’s not impure to go to the public with incremental proposals that build toward your ultimate goal… rather than never going anywhere because you insist that the ultimate goal is Step One. This is historically the ONLY way to affect lasting change. It would sure beat the hell out of another 35 years of scratching our nuts and farting on every first date, wondering why we never get laid.

  • http://libertynow.spaces.msn.com/ Len

    My point is that we all agree on one point: we need less government. Now here we are wasting time and energy on each other trying to figure out why we haven’t gotten there. Besides the obvious governmental hurdles that keep our party back we also have: internal nit-picking over who is a libertarian and who isn’t, and a largely ignorant public who can’t grasp what we’re trying to tell them.

    As to our internal bullshit, like I said we’re on the same side. Semantics about pledges and the wording of platforms is nothing more than re-arranging of the deck chairs. If we’re gonna sink it’s not gonna make a fuck’s worth of difference. We have our principles, do we believe in them enough to stand by them or are we ashamed and hide them? We all want less government, let’s work together to get it.

    Now as far as the public is concerned, they have given us the reality we live in. It sucks. We cannot allow it to continue this way. Incrementalism will go nowhere. We stand up or we give up.

  • http://www.libertariantv.com Walt Thiessen

    I think the majority of voters WOULD like to see the ending of all taxation. What they’re concerned about is the ability of the government to fulfill what they feel is the government’s role without funding it via taxation. People have various opinions on that subject. Different people envision different roles and levels of involvement by the government. The more of a role they envision, the more they are reluctant to give up taxation.

    Tim gets into an uproar about this, but I really think he overreacts. I don’t expect all taxes to disappear at once. I honestly don’t think that most “purists” do either. Some might like it to happen, but most don’t expect it. I’d expect that it would be more likely to happen incrementally over a long period of time, if it happens at all.

    Does this mean that we must change the platform? If I’ve said it once, I’ve said it a million times. The platform doesn’t get read nearly as often as people like Tim believe.

  • http://www.libertariantv.com Walt Thiessen

    By the way, let me answer a question some of you might be asking. How often do I believe the platform gets read? I’d estimate that perhaps one out of every 10,000 libertarian prospects considering the party actually reads the party’s platform.

  • jnice

    Len (post #34): Godwin’s Law?

  • jnice

    Walt: I know that Badnarik didn’t get the opportunity for many television appearances in his 2004 campaign. Apparently the people from MSNBC did their homework prior to his arrival in the studio that day, didn’t they?

    And it’ll happen again with our 2008 candidate (assuming he/she gets air time), if the platform still advocates radical positions. Or maybe our candidates can sign some sort of legal contract prior to TV interviews that prevent any conversations about the LP platform from taking place.

  • http://www.libertyforsale.com Timothy West

    Walt,

    you and I have had enough convos for you to know that I AGREE WITH YOU. The problem is that it’s gets used by our opposition to beat us over the head with and for little snotty chick anchor people to ambush our candidates with.

    I’ve never claimed that any significant amount of voters actually read our platform themselves. They dont have to, they have it interpreted for them in the worst possible light by said snotty little chicks on MSNBC and other media.

    and as long as SHIT like ‘ending all taxation’ is in there, they will continue to do so. That’s not something for a party platform, it’s a description of a ideal society.

  • David Tomlin

    Bin Laden is under indictment. If he tried to openly “settle in St. Louis”, he would be arrested regardless of immigration law.

  • Steve

    I don’t know whether to laugh or cry at some of these suggestions put forth by apologists. “It’s okay, not very many people actually read our platform.” “Hmm, maybe our candidates can refuse all media appearances unless the reporter agrees not to mention our platform.”

    Look, if a party’s platform is a source of embarrasment or threat to credibility, then that platform doesn’t deserve to make media appearances and has no one to blame but itself for lack of success.

    The people who are framing this debate in terms of “purists” vs. “flip-floppers” are being unncessarily devisive. We are ALL purists! The only question is whether it’s more effective to talk only in terms of the ideal goal, without presenting any practical steps to getting there, or to focus our message on the steps that can be achieved in one generation’s time. I propose that the latter is the only way we’ll ever get anywhere. PLEASE, drop the defensive force-shields for a minute and just think it through!

  • http://www.ilovephysics.com Chris Moore

    I’m NOT embarrased by the party platform. It’s the reason I joined the Libertarian Party. If I came across Harry Browne in 1996, and he said he wanted to reduce taxes a little, maybe push for medical marijuana, then I would have passed right by and joined the Republican Liberty Caucus. If the LP eventually goes that way, then I will join the LRC. Might as well. What would be the difference?

    And you will have to accept that the opposition is going to frame EVERYTHING you say in a negative light. That’s how it works. If you call for a 3% across the board reduction in the income tax, then you want to “give tax cuts to the rich.”

    I am very much a pragmatist. I don’t want to end all taxation tomorrow. But bitterly fighting over things that really don’t matter all that much is not “doing politics” and “winning elections”.

    The party’s problems are not the platform and the pledge. The party has little money and very little brand identity.

  • http://www.libertyforsale.com Timothy West

    the party has little money becuase the more the general voter base finds out about libertarianism, the LESS they are likely to vote for it. This was proven by polling during the Badnarik Campaign, where progressive polling revealed that the more information on the LP the voter got, the more Badnarik’s percentages went DOWN.

    the info is no longer up on the web that I know of, but I bet someone can find it.

    The pledge has been left in place for another 2 to 4 years in any case. Everybody will just have to deal accordingly.

  • Brian R. Miller

    If I came across Harry Browne in 1996, and he said he wanted to reduce taxes a little, maybe push for medical marijuana, then I would have passed right by and joined the Republican Liberty Caucus.

    And you would have gotten to endorse religious-right-wing neoconservative big-government types on your letterhead and insisted you were “making a difference” too.

    the more the general voter base finds out about libertarianism, the LESS they are likely to vote for it

    I don’t think that’s a fair characterization. The more people find out about anarchism masquerading as “libertarianism,” the less they are to support LP candidates who don’t necessarily agree with the anarchism espoused in the current platform.

  • http://www.ilovephysics.com Chris Moore

    “And you would have gotten to endorse religious-right-wing neoconservative big-government types on your letterhead and insisted you were “making a difference” too.”

    Yeah. So what’s the difference between the RLC and the LRC? Each pushes watered down libertarianism. At least the RLC actually elects candidates from time to time.

  • undercover_anarchist

    What’s wrong with accepting all refugees? Who has the authority to deny them?

  • Stuart Richards

    Accepting all refugees would be great, if it were politically possible in today’s climate. We have to focus on what’s possible, and then go from there.

  • http://www.ilovephysics.com Chris Moore

    Why not have balls and say what you actually believe instead of saying what you think people want to hear.

    The LRC is advocating doing exactly what turns most people off of politics all together.

  • Stuart Richards

    We’re being principled-what we say we’ll do is exactly what we’ll do, or get repeatedly voted against trying.

    We’ll just not promise to do anything terribly radical to begin with is all. This is how you move the nation in a libertarian direction.

  • Pingback: Hammer of Truth » The First Portland Post-Mortem()

  • paulie

    No, that’s how you start selling out a political party, to become the target of every nutcase and opportunist out there (think: Reform Party).

  • toowm

    So, you create a watered-down, incrementalist platform.

    MSNBC puts up a favorable graphic?!?

  • http://www.libertyforsale.com Timothy West

    it cant be worse. Lets just get it to the point where our candidates dont have to get bushwhacked by it on national live TV.

  • http://www.pnar.org Tom Blanton

    Let’s see now, when a news wench says “There’s certainly a lot there”, that really means “You people are nuts”.

    Give me a break. How about a little intellectual honesty, Tim. This is more about a certain group’s disdain for certain LP positions than any sort of cohesive strategy of attracting more people to the LP.

    The whole notion that the LP should fold whenever an opponent criticizes a position is really ludicrous. This is what political opponents do.

    The number one gripe with Democrats is that they don’t have a message.

    The number one complaint about Republicans is that they claim to be conservative, but they aren’t.

    The one thing that people do respect the LP for has been sticking to principles. It seems the so-called pragmatists either don’t agree with many LP positions or they are unable to understand/articulate the benefits of these positions. The BS that “I’m for it but the voters aren’t” isn’t cutting it.

    The tv ad is too clever – by half.

  • http://freestateproject.org Seth

    MRJarrell wrote:
    I’ll be glad when the Convention is over and the LRC and Tim finally get the message that the LP doesn’t want what they want. Will they have the good grace to fade away or will they, like others hang around and complain for the next few years until they become our own fringe? Regardless, it’ll be nice to see this nonsense and ill will go away.

    Well well, the shoe is on the other foot. Will you have good grace to fade away now, or will you hang around and complain for the next few years? Seems like this ‘nonsense’ isn’t going away.

  • http://www.pnar.org Tom Blanton

    Brian writes: “I’ve been a Libertarian since 1996, and I completely agree with West’s message. It’s incrementalism which will introduce Libertarianism to the country, not some sudden anarchist sea change pipe dream where government is abolished, all regulations are ended, and fire/police services are provided as private contracts.”

    This is hyperbole bull crap, Brian. Where in the platform does it call for abolishing government? Where in the platform does it call for all regulations to be ended? Where does the platform insist that all changes be made suddenly?

    It is hard to have rational conversations with people who simply pull facts out of their ass. It is also hard to discuss politcal strategy with people who insist they know what other people want to hear but have no data to back their claims – in fact there is data that refutes their claims (regarding party growth).

    If voters think we are all nuts, maybe it is because some libertarians make stuff up or exaggerate.

  • Menno Troyer

    Up to now, I have been quite active in my local LP. The only reason I became politically involved in the first place is because I perceived the LP as a true Party of Principle regarding individual rights and sovereignty. It has now resoundingly lost that distinction. I now face the choice of either remaining affiliated with a political party whose platform no longer reflects my values, or opting for a path outside of politics altogether…

    Thank goodness there exists an alternative for all of us who are newly disillusioned with the LP and the political system in general: Free State Project/ NH Underground! Please consider joining me in making a last (victorious!) stand for liberty in the Free State of New Hampshire, where the Second American Revolution has already quietly begun… know what, maybe it’s not such a sad day for liberty lovers after all! http://www.nhfree.com http://www.freestateproject.com

  • http://freestateproject.org Seth

    It’s pretty funny to me, Menno, that here I am in NH, cheering the LP platform changes, as a sign of progress and reform so that moderates now control the party, and we can make political headway everywhere including in NH, and here you are, jeering the LP platform and calling for people to join the FSP and take a stand.

    It goes to show that _both_ sides are working within the FSP… The FSP is NOT just for those who are upset with the platform, but also for those who approved heartily of the change.

  • http://www.libertyforsale.com Timothy West

    voters think we are nuts becuase we tend to throw up the version of libertarianism most assured to make them think that.

  • Menno Troyer

    Seth wrote:
    “It goes to show that_both_sides are working within the FSP…The FSP is NOT just for those who are upset with the platform, but also for those who approved heartily of the change.”

    I am well aware of that, and I have no problem with that. I feel that right now the time is ripe for appealing to those who are newly disillusioned with the LP and politics in general, and let them know there is an alternative outside of politics, specifically the NH Underground. The FSP is a broader umbrella organization whose sole purpose is to get all types of liberty lovers to NH, which is great! Yet if the only option in NH was to work within the political system, I would no longer be interested, since I now feel abandoned by the one party that I felt even remotely aligned with. I plug the FSP whenever I can, partly because they are better known than NH Underground, and because anarcho-capitalists like myself are among those welcomed by the FSP.

    Sorry if I made you feel left out.

  • http://www.edthompson.com Rolf Lindgren

    The Patriot Act does not paint the LP as radical or “you’re nuts”.

    I don’t have the latest polling data, but 2 years ago when the war on terror and the war were much more popular, Russo’s poll showed that barely 50% of the public supported the Patriot Act.

    I’m sure a solid majority now opposes the Patriot Act.

    So the Patriot Act does mean “you’re nuts”. That’s right its means the U.S. Congress is nuts.

  • Stuart Richards

    Menno’s got a really good point.

  • http://freestateproject.org Seth

    Menno, no harm, no foul.

    I just wanted it to be clear that even within the FSP ranks, we have all sorts, not just those upset with the platform changes… We have our share of radicals and moderates, purists and pragmatists.

    I’m one of the more active pragmatists, and then you have someone like Russell Kanning, one of the more active anti-political purists. Our methods are completely different, sometimes at very much odds, but in person, we get along just fine, if of different minds. We camped near each other at PorcFest, even. We know we’re on the same side, working for the same goal, even if we disagree about how to get there, or where ‘there’ exactly is. We’ll likely be arguing strongly over just how little government is needed 20 or 30 years from now when we are all old and gray, but in the meantime, we are all working toward ‘less’ ….

  • http://www.libertyforsale.com Tim West

    Rolf,

    only 2 of the 4 points were bad – the sound effects that played along with the points made should clue you in to the ones I mean, along with the lengthy description I wrote along with the video on you tube.

    when the bell rings, it’s a good issue. When you hear the horn, it’s shit.

    the 2 that sucked totally overshadowed the good.

    but those 2 are gone now :)

  • Pingback: Hammer of Truth » A Fair Idea For Jilted Purists()