Libertarian Media Montage

Q: What’s the difference between a Libertarian television ad and Santa Claus?

A: They’re both figments of our imagination, but at least you know what Santa Claus is supposed to look like.

That right there is the conventional wisdom, and outside of our Presidential races, it’s generally true. HOWEVER. A lot of serious Libertarian races have emerged this year, and with those serious races come some serious ads. I thought I might give our loyal Maccabees a taste of what Libertarian campaigns on the march look like.

And yes, I will actually slap them up for your viewing pleasure, but you’ve gotta come with me across the jump. And I warn you that this is an exhaustive list.

First up we’ve got Eric Sundwall’s campaign over in New York. It’s beautiful, so here’s to hoping that Eric gets to tell the electionistas to fuck themselves in federal court this week.

Next up we’ve got Phil Maymin, with a straightforward no-frills campaign ad that’s still sure to speak to plenty of disgruntled Shays voters.

Here’s the Kevin Cherry ad we’ve been talking about, I gotta say it’s even better than I thought, very professionally done. Cherry’s definitely going to have a serious impact on his race, if he doesn’t win it outright.

What’s really awesome to behold is the media-savvy campaigns that have released SEVERAL ads for their candidates. I don’t know if they’re all running on television slots, but if they’ve got the money they damn well oughtta.

David Schlosser’s got a lot of good stuff up right now, ready for some TV ad runs. So here we go with all four of them…

Laying out his credentials:

Quoting Ben Franklin:

About accountability:

Something of a montage of his campaign:

Jack Cashin’s got a lot of great videos on his site, but the only ad I saw that was even remotely within the timeframe for a TV spot was this bad boy:

What else… Allen Buckley, running for Lt. Governor of Georgia (seeing a theme here, kids?) has a television ad. Looking pretty sharp, too… his kid is adorable! ^_^

That’s all the ones I’ve been able to find… you see any more, link a brother up, ‘kay?

45 Comments
  1. The Maymin ad would be enough to get me to vote Democratic. The dig about not protecting the rights of Mexicans is racist and meant to pander to the hateful Right. It is unlibertarian and this is not a man the LP ought to endorse. If I still lived in Connecticut I’d be raising a stink about the stench coming from that campaign. Libertarianism is not some more extreme version of conservative. Get over it or get out.

  2. Most are great, very professional. Where have all the libertarian kooks gone?

    “The dig about not protecting the rights of Mexicans is racist and meant to pander to the hateful Right.”

    Is it unreasonable to require that residents of our country to be legal? Do Mexicans, or any foreigner, have a right to live here? Should libertarians in politics be kooky and advocate no borders? I think it is silly to call enforcing existing immigration law ‘racist’ and as for the ‘hateful right’ comment, you’ll find that the majority of Americans see illegal immigration as a problem that needs a solution.

    Perhaps you’d prefer an unelectable libertarian utopianist to an electable libertarian pragmatist?

  3. What’s really awesome to behold is the media-savvy campaigns that have released SEVERAL ads for their candidates. I don’t know if they’re all running on television slots, but if they’ve got the money they damn well oughtta.

    I have viewed many of the ads, and they look professionally done. I fear that many of them will run the ad once, on one station and waste their money. When you run ads, you must run them over and over again on the same station. If someone only sees your ad only once, they will probably forget about it.

    It is also important to remember that a good public relations campaign can create 4 times as much media, for free, as a good advertising campaign can.

    If any of these candidates need any help with advertising, or public relations, they are encouraged to send me an e-mail at [email protected]

  4. I’d be remiss if I didn’t point out George Phillies’ media page:

    http://phillies2008.com/tv_ads

    There are both potential ads, as well as radio spots. One group of radio spots is meant to allow ANY Libertarian to run them, merely by adding a “Paid for” airtime signature.

  5. BTW, Jake Porter (see above) deserves most of the credit for the Phillies TV spots, and Frank Worley, for the recent radio spots.

  6. Speaking of Libertarian ads, this hasn’t been posted to HoT yet:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ayrz5T169t4

    Not really good for particular endorsements (yet), but this is the sort of sound discussion we need more of… With some better editing, and more structure, this would be good. It’s got some flaws (whackjob discussion for example), so I don’t recommend putting this onto anyone’s campaign site… but someone (nudge nudge to Steve Gordon) needs to get something similar for people to promote. Even a 10 second “I support XYZ running as a Libertarian” would be a good intro/extro to use with an revised version of this…

  7. “Is it unreasonable to require that residents of our country to be legal?”

    Yes. That would imply the regime a partial property right in every piece of property in the country, thus making the people mere tenants (serfs) rather than owners in this country.

    “Do Mexicans, or any foreigner, have a right to live here?”

    No more than you do. Should the regime have a right to tell you whom you are not allowed to invite on your property, rent to, employ, etc?

    “Should libertarians in politics be kooky and advocate no borders?”

    We should advocate private property borders, the only kind that have any legitimacy.

    “I think it is silly to call enforcing existing immigration law ”˜racist’ and as for the ”˜hateful right’ comment, you’ll find that the majority of Americans see illegal immigration as a problem that needs a solution.”

    It is racist, so it’s factual to call it racist. The majority can easily be wrong; for example, a majority was at one time in favor of slavery – so what?

  8. “Perhaps you’d prefer an unelectable libertarian utopianist to an electable libertarian pragmatist? ”

    I would prefer an unelectable principled libertarian to an equally unelectable quasi-libertarian.

  9. I am actually doing an ad buy this week for Kevin Cherry and Allen Buckley. We are buying about 210 ads on cable in Atlanta. We will be running them on Head line news ,Comedy Channel,History Channel and The weather Channel the ads average about $7.00 each.If any one would like to give to the cause please call me.
    Doug Craig 1-770-861-5855

  10. Here then is the new libertarian Declaration of Independence: “all men are created equal(except Mexicans), and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights (except Mexicans), among which are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (except Mexicans).”

  11. Paulie, pretty sure you’re confusing libertarianism with anarchism.

    “That would imply the regime a partial property right in every piece of property in the country, thus making the people mere tenants (serfs) rather than owners in this country.”

    Under an involuntary government (which we currently have), that is the case. All land is ultimately under the auspise of the United States government.

    “No more than you do. Should the regime have a right to tell you whom you are not allowed to invite on your property, rent to, employ, etc?”

    Earth to anarchist, we live under an involuntary government. Your anarchist utopia is a pipe-dream. Politics are not for anarchists.

    “We should advocate private property borders, the only kind that have any legitimacy.”

    Please, anarchism is never going to come about. Let’s take a step in the light of reality.

    “It is racist, so it’s factual to call it racist.”

    Please. How is it racist? By your fiat?

  12. “I would prefer an unelectable principled libertarian to an equally unelectable quasi-libertarian.”

    Teehee. If you’re not an anarchist it seems, you’re quasi-libertarian…

  13. Paulie, pretty sure you’re confusing libertarianism with anarchism.

    No confusion, I’m both.

    Under an involuntary government (which we currently have), that is the case. All land is ultimately under the auspise of the United States government.

    Then presumably you have no problem with drug laws, atxes, regulations, or any other ownership rights the government excercises over its legitimate property (everything within its borders, by your own statement). Why do you call yourself a libertarian?

    Earth to anarchist, we live under an involuntary government. Your anarchist utopia is a pipe-dream. Politics are not for anarchists.

    Earth to statist, I realize we live under an involuntary government, and am trying to change that. You apparently like the idea of involuntary government (otherwise known as rape) so why are you a “libertarian”? I have no utopia, or pipe dreams. Politics is for libertarian anarchists until we can end politics.

  14. Please, anarchism is never going to come about.

    How do you know? I happen to think not only will it come about, it is pretty much inevitable, and may well happen earlier than most people would imagine possible.

    Teehee. If you’re not an anarchist it seems, you’re quasi-libertarian”¦

    It would seem there are a lot of quasi-libertarians running for office and running around all over the place these days.

    You seem to be one of them based on the tenor of your comments.

    Last time I checked, governments exist to protect the rights of their *citizens*.

    You fall that line of bullshit? Actually, governments exist to protect their own power and the wealth of politically connected individuals and corporations. Everything else is hype and window dressing.

  15. Last time I checked, governments exist to protect the rights of their *citizens*.

    Let’s take this at face value for just a minute and explore the implication. Does that mean governments have unlimited “rights” to kill, imprison, torture, abuse, rape and in any other conceivable way abuse the rights of resident aliens, foreign visitors, and citizens of other countries? Your comment is utterly nonsensical and deplorable thinking for a (presumed) libertarian.

  16. Racist? The observation that the purpose of the government of America is to secure the rights and liberties of Americans is racist?

    Did you think the purpose of American government was to protect the rights of Mexicans? Iraqis?

    A Mexican-American is 100% American and is subject to the full protection of the American government. An Iraqi who legally immigrated to America is 100% American. But whoever enters America illegally does not have the same rights of free migration.

    The libertarian position is for free migration. But of whom? Should we open our borders and let in the six billion people who don’t live here? No. It’s the most libertarian thing in the world to protect your property from uninvited guests. Seal the borders. And the people who’ve entered illegally are still uninvited. Send them home.

    Feel free to respond on my website. I host a free, anonymous, public forum and this issue was discussed there at great length.

    Thanks,
    Phil Maymin
    MayminForCongress.com

  17. The libertarian position is for free migration. But of whom? Should we open our borders and let in the six billion people who don’t live here?

    Yes. Of course, that’s assuming six billion would want to, which isn’t true.

    It’s the most libertarian thing in the world to protect your property from uninvited guests.

    I agree; I have no problem with, say, protecting your property from immigration enforcement agents who seek to remove your invited guests.

    http://www.reason.com/links/links091906.shtml

    But, if we assert that the whole country is the government’s property, that leads to all sorts of problems.

    On your own property, you have every right to ban guns and drugs, charge rent (taxes), pass regulations – in short, do whatever you want. Why not, if it’s their property?

    Seal the borders. And the people who’ve entered illegally are still uninvited. Send them home.

    Uninvited by whom? Read the link.

  18. “I realize we live under an involuntary government, and am trying to change that. You apparently like the idea of involuntary government (otherwise known as rape) so why are you a “libertarian”?”

    No, I don’t like the idea of involuntary government. In fact, as described by others, I am an anarcho-capitalist. I despise being called an anarchist though. I am for a state, just a voluntary state. However, I realise that voluntary states are *not* going to come about. I choose to make our involuntary government as friendly to liberty as possible.

  19. “You fall that line of bullshit? Actually, governments exist to protect their own power and the wealth of politically connected individuals and corporations. Everything else is hype and window dressing.”

    I don’t disagree that our government, now, serves its own interests, but it also does protect our liberties (at least some of them.)

    “Does that mean governments have unlimited “rights” to kill, imprison, torture, abuse, rape and in any other conceivable way abuse the rights of resident aliens, foreign visitors, and citizens of other countries? Your comment is utterly nonsensical and deplorable thinking for a (presumed) libertarian.”

    Where do you get the idea that by protecting only citizens’ rights (which is anarcho-capitalist in character, I’ll discuss) involves violating rights of non-citizens? Just as “protection agencies” under anarcho-capitalism protect only their clients, our government should only protect its clients, that is its citizens.

  20. Mayhim can’t show me anywhere where the Founders restricted immigration. There were no passports, no forms, just open immigration. So there is no mention of such things in the Constitution. If the power is not granted the government doesn’t have it. And the Founders believed that all people had the same rights. The govt. has a jurisdictional monopoly and is to protect the rights of all people living in that jurisdiction. They don’t own it. They can’t simply tell peaceful people they aren’t allowed to live and work and trade peacefully. Again show me where Jefferson wrote “all citizens are created equal”. He said that all men were created equal.

  21. but it also does protect our liberties (at least some of them.)

    How generous of them. I say we’d be better off without their “protection”.

    Where do you get the idea that by protecting only citizens’ rights (which is anarcho-capitalist in character, I’ll discuss) involves violating rights of non-citizens?

    Well, when you deport people from communities which welcome them and rely on them economically, you violate the rights of people. Including citizens.

    http://www.reason.com/links/links091906.shtml

  22. Maymin, like me, is an immigrant. We are “legal” because it served the regime’s cold war propaganda purposes to classify us as refugees. I still remember the USSR well enough, and have spent a lot of time in Mexico (I’ve been to every state there, just as I’ve been to every US state except Hawaii, and every country in Central America). The Mexicans and Central Americans are no less refugees than we were, but they don’t have an Israel to go to (and I’m glad we didn’t have to go there). Millions of them wish to immigrate and the US regime allows five thousand a year.

    There but for the caprices of the regime go we.

  23. Libertarians for more immigration control, term limits, and balanced budgets? Are we being overrun with disgruntled Republicans? I can get this much from Lars Larson and Neil Boorst, Bush sycophants disguised as libertarians.

  24. Are we being overrun with disgruntled Republicans and Democrats and Independents?

    I changed it for you.

    We can only hope so. Thats the only way a political party increases it’s support base. They all immigrate here from other parties or from no party. THE KEY IS, IS IT A BALANCED MIGRATION?

    How telling that libertarians support open borders everywhere but into the LP itself – those borders have to be locked down at all costs. Political immigration is where every ‘libertarian’ in sight turns into a conservative Republican.

  25. Seth,

    It isn’t down persay, it is just not up yet. I don’t know why Mark published that URL before it was ready.

    -Wes

  26. Is it a balanced migration? Quite clearly not. It’s been overwhelmingly conservative/Republican and until that changes, don’t expect anything big from the LP.

    As for migration to the LP: sure, I’m all for it. C’mon in. Just don’t demand that you become voting members without an oath of citizenship. Don’t say the Constitution needs to change because it’s too long and out of date. Don’t demand that the party change so it becomes more like the parties you left to make you feel more at home. And don’t demand that it provide enough political welfare to make everyone want to come in and join, thus destroying what made people want to come to it in the first place.

    Other than that, if twenty million people wanted to join tomorrow, I would have no objection.

  27. “… show me anywhere where the Founders restricted immigration. There were no passports, no forms, just open immigration. So there is no mention of such things in the Constitution.”

    It is called Constitution of the United States of America and the first sentence says: “We the People of the United States,…” So it was not for Chinese or Irish, and the reason was to “… insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense.”

    It feels good to help other people with my money. It is the same good feeling to invite everybody else into my country. Do you really believe that anybody in the world has the same claim on this place as the U.S. citizens?

  28. We the people of the United States makes no mention of immigration. Neither does domestic tranquility or common defense. Thanks for playing, try again.

    It feels good to help other people with my money. It is the same good feeling to invite everybody else into my country.

    You own the whole country? I didn’t know that. Please don’t send me upstairs without dinner.

    Do you really believe that anybody in the world has the same claim on this place as the U.S. citizens?

    Yes, since “this place” is just an area arbitrarily defined by lines in the sand drawn by a thug protection racket. However, whether you are an “illegal alien” or a high government official of immigrations enforcement you have the same right to be on anyone’s personal property without invitation – none.

    So, you see, it’s actually the immigration agents who are trespassing and helping themselves to your money, as well as inviting themselves on other people’s property.

  29. Several of 9/11 terrorists were illegal aliens. There can be no national defense if millions of people can come and go illegally. The same goes about domestic tranquility: one of two snipers who terrorized Washington D.C. was an illegal alien.

    I did not say I own the whole country. But I am a citizen of this country and I don’t want this place defined by the lines in the sand to become a free zone where any criminal or any terrorist or anybody willing to cut the line by braking American laws can come and go.

  30. Several of 9/11 terrorists were illegal aliens.

    Not really.

    http://www.911truth.org/index.php

    Even if the silly 19 Arab conspiracy theory were true, it does not create a federal power to control immigration.

    The same goes about domestic tranquility: one of two snipers who terrorized Washington D.C. was an illegal alien.

    Where did you get this from? As I understood it they were an American ex-military man and his son.

    However, even if true, it still would not create a federal power to control immigration.

    I did not say I own the whole country.

    Your statement that inviting people into “your” country is the same thing as giving away “your” money implies an equivalent ownership.

    a free zone where any criminal or any terrorist or anybody willing to cut the line by braking American laws can come and go.

    Those “American laws” (edicts) violate natural law, so those who seek to enforce them are the criminals and terrorists.

%d bloggers like this: