Wednesday, December 26, 2007

Caucus Countdown

Well, folks, next week we get to find out how accurate the polling has been. And, of course, I can't resist the temptation to predict (especially after finally getting it right last year for once).

My initial prediction for the Iowa caucus back in early November didn't account for the "Huckabee surge" of the last month -- I had Mitt Romney picked for a solid 1st-place finish, followed by Rudy Ghouliani and Ron Paul. I also left out Fred Thompson, who continues, for reasons unknown to me, to attract some support.

New prediction: Romney (~30%) still wins the state, with Huckabee (~25%) falling back a little. Fred Thompson and Ron Paul will scrap for third, and I'm predicting that Paul (~15%) will win the scrap with Thompson (~12%) taking fourth. Ghouliani (~10%) in fifth, McCain (~5%), with a few holdouts casting votes for also-rans/drops Duncan Hunter, Tom Tancredo et al.

Poll-watchers: Yes, I know you think I'm nuts to call Paul in third, but his supporters are going to make the effort to get out and vote for him. There's more support for Romney, Huckabee and Thompson than for Paul, but it's "softer" support and Thursday is "ER" night.

Paul cultists [1]: Yes, I know you think I'm nuts and that Paul is going to carry Iowa with 90% of the vote. Put down the crack pipe. I won't be surprised if he does better than I predict. I will be surprised -- and not as unpleasantly so as you probably think -- if he carries the state. As a matter of fact, I'll probably have to go to the real ER to get my ticker started again.

Of course, the Republican caucus in Iowa is set up to allow for fuckery -- hand-written ballots to be counted by local party bosses, with non-binding results and actual national convention delegates chosen later at a state convention. If Paul comes in at less than 10%, I'll be right in there with the folks claiming a stolen caucus. I just won't believe that Paul was actually at 90% before his votes got disappeared.

The Democratic Party's caucus is more open -- people stand in groups and identify themselves as supporters of the candidates they prefer. Then they do-si-doh and allemande and all that stuff until everyone is where he or she has finally chosen to be, and the delegates are distributed among the candidates who meet a "viability" threshold of between 15% and 25%.

Prediction: A three-way wash between Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards. They'll split the bulk of the vote, and five points will cover the spread between them. My guess is that Clinton will just barely edge out the other two -- she's more popular and more organized than Edwards and more organized than Obama. The real question is whether Edwards's organization or Obama's popularity will carry 2nd place, and if I had to bet, it would be on Edwards. Call it Hillary ~29%, Edwards ~27%, Obama ~25%.

I've left 19% of the vote open to account for Christopher Dodd, Joe Biden, Bill Richardson, Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel. What's going to happen there? I won't be surprised if Dodd makes that 15% "viability" threshold and gets some souvenir delegates, bringing the top three each down a point or two. I will be surprised if Richardson or Biden break 5%. And I guess we'll find out how many diehard Kucinich and Gravel supporters there are in Iowa: What those guys lack in money and organization, they make up for in having devoted supporters who will brave the weather to stand up for their man. Neither of them will break out, of course, but it's conceivable that either or both might do as well as Biden or Richardson.

[1] -- Not Paul supporters, Paul cultists. There is a difference. If you think Paul might get first, second or third place in Iowa, that doesn't make you a cultist. If you're absolutely sure that he'll carry a majority of the GOP vote in Iowa, then you probably are one.

Tuesday, December 25, 2007

Stage WSPPer

Right now, the URL points to a collection of posts on this blog related to the World's Smallest Political Platform. Pretty soon, though, it will point to a site I'm building to more actively promote the WSPP. Content so far:

- Link to a signable petition asking the Libertarian Party to adopt the WSPP as its platform.

- Link to a Yahoo! Group for discussion of the WSPP.

- Some buttons for linking.

Check it out. If you're a better button designer, etc., than I am, I'd welcome some assistance in making those things prettier.

Friday, December 21, 2007

Life's important questions ...

Does anyone know what port "COM 1" is in Kubuntu/KPPP? For some reason, Kubuntu doesn't seem to be autodetecting my external modem, and I haven't figured out which port to tell KPPP to find it on (there's a huge list which doesn't include "COM 1").

This question brought to you by Susan Hogarth, who just gifted me my first reasonably modern computer (a 1.4 GHz Shuttle PC) in forever, which was delivered by Bev Wilcox on her way through St. Louis taking her granddaughter Kennedy to see the Anasazi cliff dwellings in New Mexico. We had a nice little day yesterday, touring the old courthouse in St. Louis (the place where Dred Scott won his freedom before Taney's US Supreme Court took it away) and then having lunch (Hunan-style buffet, per Kennedy's extremely wise choice). Thanks to Susan for sending the machine, and thanks to Bev for a dropping it off and just for dropping by with a smart kid.

But anyway, back to the machine: It works, and its Windows XP partition recognizes the modem just fine. The other partition was an old Suse distro which didn't even recognize my mouse for some reason. I've had my Kubuntu install CD for some time, and was waiting breathlessly for a computer I could install it on. But I can't connect to the intarweb with it until I get it to recognize that modem (I don't like to spend much time on the Net when running Windoze -- matter of fact, the only reasons I didn't trash the XP partition are that my kids want to play games and my significant other has yet to recognize the clear superiority of OpenOffice over its Microshaft Ohfiz equivalents).

I may try a re-install of Kubuntu tonight, or else retreat to a distro I'm more familiar with like Xandros or Vector. I'm really hot and bothered to get the new machine in action. This old box I'm using now is a 650MHz P3 with 128Mb of RAM -- unimaginably fast and huge ten years ago, reasonably well-equipped when I got it in 2003 or so, completely antiquated now.

Saturday, December 08, 2007

Why I am not a Rothbardian

Having abandoned the core libertarian stance -- opposition to mass murder by the State -- [Brink] Lindsay [sic] and his ilk are on their way out of libertarianism, as I've explained elsewhere, while [Ron] Paul and his "backward-looking" brethren represent the future of the movement.

That's Justin Raimondo of AntiWar.Com, having a cow about Cato Institute Research VP Brink Lindsey's criticisms of Ron Paul as quoted in The Nation.

Most of my reasons for not personally supporting Ron Paul's campaign have been pretty clear, at least to myself.

For example, I believe that "major party" libertarian campaigns are a detour onto a dead end road; that they're inherently a waste of effort that can't produce meaningful change in the direction of more liberty. I believe that it's going to take a new party (maybe the Libertarian Party, maybe not, but they're the only game in town right now that isn't rigged in favor of more state power) to move us toward liberty, because the fortunes of the Democratic and Republican parties are too tied up in their shared monopoly on power for them to risk their piece of that monopoly by breaking away from the status quo in any significant respect.

That's my strategic problem with the Paul campaign.

My ideological problem with the Paul campaign is that Paul is libertarian on some issues, and not on others. What I've been unable to figure out, until now, is why arguing that point seems to not make a dent in the resolve of some that supporting Paul must constitute a litmus test for one's libertarianism or deficiency thereof. And Raimondo has just handed me the explanation.

... the core libertarian stance -- opposition to mass murder by the State ...

Well, no. The core libertarian stance is opposition to initiation of force, and the core libertarian stance in the context of politics is opposition to initiation of force in institutionalized form, i.e. by the state (I don't respect the state enough to give it capitalized proper name status, and seeing other libertarians do so is one of my pet peeves).

Initiation of force takes many forms. Yes, mass murder, including in the form of aggressive war, is one of those forms, and the worst ... but there are others. Day in and day out, the state steals little pieces of many, many more lives than it takes entirely. It steals some of your income. It steals some of your discretion as to what sexual behavior is appropriate between consenting adults. It draws imaginary lines on the ground and dictates who may cross those lines and for what peaceful purposes they may do so.

I'm Misesian to the extent that I recognize the applicability of calculation problems. I can't tell you whether or not three thwarted border crossings, two criminal charges for consensual acts of sodomy between consenting adults, and $20,000 in capital gains taxes are "less than," "equal to," or "greater than" one murdered Iraqi in some hypothetical unit of force initiation. I'm happy to take the word of Justin Raimondo that the answer is "less than" -- but I'm not willing to take the next step, because it leads off a ledge.

That next step is the Rothbardian proclamation, as trumpeted by Raimondo, of "the primacy of foreign policy in determining the politics and direction of an ideological movement."

I certainly give great weight to foreign policy issues, and have generally agreed with Raimondo and with the editorial line of AntiWar.Com on those issues. But primacy -- "the state of being first in importance?" No. At least not if that means in action what Raimondo now seems to be saying it means: That it is the affirmative obligation of libertarians to support a candidate who is libertarian on foreign policy, even if that candidate is anti-libertarian on other issues.

That seems to be the gravamen of Raimondo's approach to the matter of libertarian non-support for Ron Paul, as well as the approach of the "paleo-libertarian" bloc. To be honest, it strikes me as a mirror image -- admittedly distorted, but discernible -- of the Eric Dondero line on supporting Rudy Giuliani: "Who cares about the war, dude? C'mon -- he's pro-choice on abortion!"

In the absence of a "perfect libertarian" candidate (i.e. a candidate who agrees with me in every respect on what it means to be a libertarian, and expresses that agreement consistently in his or her policy positions, of course!), one obviously must make choices between "less than perfect libertarian" candidates on the basis of issues (or just write off electoral politics as a bad job -- which some libertarians have done and for which I cannot blame them).

I certainly weight my preferences among these candidates heavily on foreign policy, to the extent that I simply will not support a candidate who supports the war on Iraq, period, end of story. Far be it from me, however, to attempt to dictate the values of other voters. Back to Mises/Rothbard 101 -- value is subjective. I can't pick your values for you, and neither can Justin Raimondo. You have to choose them yourself.

If Paul was distinguishable from other candidates by virtue of being the only presidential candidate to oppose the war on Iraq, I'd probably vote for him, my other problems with his party affiliation and anti-libertarian policy positions notwithstanding. But make no mistake about this: That party affiliaton and those anti-libertarian policy positions would make this a "hold my nose and go for the lesser evil" vote. I certainly wouldn't consider the decision to cast or not cast that vote to be a litmus test on whether or not I am a "real libertarian."

Thing is, Ron Paul isn't the only presidential candidate who opposes the war on Iraq. I have a number of such candidates to choose from, even within the "major" parties (Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich, for example). And, running on the Libertarian Party line, I can choose between Steve Kubby, George Phillies and Christine Smith in full confidence that any of the three, if elected, would make unilateral, unconditional and immediate withdrawal of US forces from Iraq a first order of business. Or hell, Cynthia McKinney is seeking the Green Party line.

The electorate suffers from no shortage of anti-war candidates whom any voter may choose to support or not support. Nor, in my opinion, are libertarians bound by any a priori strategic or ideological constraints against choosing a candidate other than Paul to support.

Even setting aside partisan/strategic considerations, I prefer a candidate who doesn't hold the crossing of those imaginary lines on the ground hostage to his fear of "cultural balkanization" or to his (anti-Rothbardian, by the way -- see the 6th of the Libertarian Party Rothbard Caucus's "ten points") "particular orderism." I prefer a candidate who defends the rights of all people versus all states, not one who ascribes to some states a legitimate power to decree who may or may not marry whom, even if the Constitution must be damaged to implement that power. And I have plenty of candidates to choose from who are sound not only on foreign policy, but on those other issues as well.

Even as I've written this piece, I've been struck by the notion that perhaps I am a Rothbardian in at least some sense.

My logic is more Misesian that Raimondo's where values are concerned, and I suspect he's somewhat skewed in his evaluation of others' actual valuations in any case. Quoth he in the Nation article concerning the "beltway libertarians" at Cato:

As long as they can abort their babies and sodomize each other and take as many drugs as they want to, they are happy. They don't care who is being killed in Iraq and how many Iraqis are dying. That's their hierarchy of values.

... which, whatever my problems with some of Cato's line may be, I don't believe for a moment.

Furthermore, I've not only preserved "primacy of foreign policy" as a voting consideration (even if only through luck of the draw), but I've chosen a candidate who out-Rothbards Ron Paul on "particular orderism" as applied to immigration.

Go figure. Perhaps Rothbard's biographer should crack his own book.

Friday, December 07, 2007

Necessary Roughness

Note Well: I have said this before, but I'm going to keep saying it in case anyone missed it or expects that it's changed. Repeat after me three times: Tom Knapp is a Kubby partisan. Tom Knapp is a Kubby partisan. Tom Knapp is a Kubby partisan. I'm not neutral, I'm not even-handed, and I'm not interested in talking about any weaknesses from which my own candidate might suffer (I'm interested in knowing about them, of course -- so I can snuff them out before you find out about them). If you're one of my candidate's opponents, I may like you -- in fact I probably do, and maybe the feeling is even mutual! -- but I'm going to mercilessly hammer at every chink I perceive in your armor. No hard feelings on my part. If there are any on yours, well, tough.

So: George Phillies, come on doooooowwwwn! You're the next contestant on "Your Position Is Not What You Just Said It Was!"

From Wednesday's Kubby/Phillies debate on The Liberated Space:

"First, I've never proposed tariffs on China. That was an invention of GE Smith."

Then, from George's campaign web site -- curiously, this position paper is no longer linked to his "issues" page, but was still on the server as of noon CST 12/07/07:

When a country is a dictatorship that suppresses labor unions and shoots labor organizers, the goods it exports are stolen property, stolen from the workers coerced to make them. Stolen goods cannot be traded freely. We should not engage in 'free trade' in stolen property. Furthermore, it is only fair that all manufacturers pay the same taxes. We may differ as to what those taxes should be. However, there should not be one tax rate for Ford Motors, and another much higher tax rate for General Motors. When we place a financial burden however labeled on American manufacturers, fairness dictates that foreign imports be subject to the same burden, a tax equivalent to whatever minimum wage and environmental restrictions foreign manufacturers are avoiding.

Finally, from your friendly Internet dictionary server:

Tariff \Tar"iff\, n. [F. tarif; cf. Sp. & Pg. tarifa, It. tariffa; all fr. Ar. ta'r[imac]f information, explanation, definition, from 'arafa, to know, to inform, explain.] 1.A schedule, system, or scheme of duties imposed by the government of a country upon goods imported or exported; as, a revenue tariff; a protective tariff; Clay's compromise tariff. (U. S. 1833) [1913 Webster]

Has George Phillies uttered the sentence "I propose tariffs on China?" I have no idea.

Has George Phillies proposed tariffs on China, whether he said those actual words or not? Yes, he has -- unless perhaps he's alleging that GE Smith hacked the Phillies 2008 web server, created a fake Phillies position paper out of whole cloth, and then somehow made it impossible to delete that paper while otherwise leaving the server accessible to George's campaign staff for other updates.

Congratulations, George! You're a winner on "Your Position Is Not What You Just Said It Was!" We hope you'll enjoy your prize, a printable/frameable portrait of US Representative W.C. Hawley (R-OR) and US Senator Reed Smoot (R-UT) shaking hands after plunging America into the Great Depression with their take on your idea.

And now for a word from our sponsors ... zzzzzzz ....

Welcome back! It's time for the Grand Prize Round on "Your Position Is Not What You Just Said It Was!" Fresh off his first-round victory, contestant George Phillies says:

Second, my immigration position is the position of our Libertarian Party in its platform.

It's going to be a close one, folks. Let's check our contestant's web site:

Immigration - I support the Libertarian Party Platform. You cannot have open borders and a large-scale welfare system at the same time. You will go broke. As has happened before in our history, if you have open borders poor country governments will pay people to move here, promising them a better life in the New World. Each time we add a worker to the Social Security system, we enormously increase our (unfunded) national debt, because Social Security is run on pay-as-you-go. Under the present welfare system, a vote for open borders is a vote for higher taxes for all. Someday, the Libertarian message of peace, liberty, and prosperity reach the entire world. All people will then enjoy the freedom and high standard of living we take for granted. In that day, immigration and open borders will be non-issues.

Borders - Americans who quote the Statue of Liberty's message 'Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free' should remember that it was written when most of Europe was run by autocratic monarchies. The huddled masses of Europe now breathe free. George Bush has created many enemies for America. Keeping them from coming here to injure our children and grandchildren must remain a top priority for the foreseeable future.

Foreign Workers - All too often, we hear claims that we must import foreign workers because Americans won't do those jobs. 'Those jobs' in question are hard, physically demanding, outdoor work that require constant, careful attention to detail. Those jobs should be receiving a wage premium, not be barely-minimum-wage sources of employment. There are jobs that Americans won't do, notably in the sciences and engineering; we allow foreigners to come here to study, but then require them to leave. Mr. Bush's foreign guest worker scheme is a corporate welfare deal at the expense of the American worker.

Now, let's go to the platform of the Libertarian Party:

The United States government should return to the historic libertarian tradition of avoiding entangling alliances, abstaining totally from foreign quarrels and imperialist adventures, and recognizing the right to unrestricted trade, travel, and immigration. [emphasis mine] [Source: Front matter of Plank IV, "Foreign Policy"]

It's looking good for George, ladies and gentlemen. Can he get over the top? Let's see:

Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders. [Source: Plank IV.1, "Immigration"]

He's going for it, folks! He's going all the way!

Transitional Action: Ensure immigration requirements include only appropriate documentation, screening for criminal background and threats to public health and national security. Simplifying the immigration process and redeployment of surveillance technology to focus on the borders will encourage the use of regular and monitored entry points, thus preventing trespass and saving lives. End federal requirements that benefits and services be provided to those in the country illegally. Repeal all measures that punish employers for hiring undocumented workers. Repeal all immigration quotas. [Source: Op.Cit.]

Woooo! Vanna, raid the prize closet! We've got a Champeeen! Everyone say it with me, now: George, "Your Position Is Not What You Just Said It Was!" Let's give it up for George, first-round winner and now Grand Prize titleholder! What do we have for our contestant, Vanna? A vowel? No, no ... we don't want him to buy anything, we want to give him something. Wow. I'm whelmed, Vanna. You really know how to pick'em. George, you've won ... a book recommendation! Check out this classic political manual to help you further your poltical aspiratons along their current lines!

Thanks for playing, George, and everyone tune in next week for another exciting game of "Your Position Is Not What You Just Said It Was!" -- if we can find a guest. We were planning to have Lou Dobbs on, but we think maybe we just did.

Saturday, December 01, 2007

Candor, compromise and consistency

An open letter from Steve Kubby, published in full for your edification - TLK


Dear friends,

As "decision time" for the Libertarian Party's 2008 presidential nomination draws closer, the gloves are beginning to come off. At the beginning of my candidacy, I committed myself to running a "high road" campaign and engaging my opponents on issues and experience, not on personality. I intend to stick to that commitment ... but I also want to ensure that my fellow Libertarians have the FACTS at their disposal when considering their options.

Over the last few months, several of my fellow Libertarians -- Libertarians who backed and supported my campaign early on -- have decided that another candidate, Christine Smith, better represents them. The main reason cited for this change of heart has been my endorsement of US Representative Ron Paul's campaign for the Republican Party's presidential nomination.

It is not my intention to attack Ms.Smith here. So far as I can tell, she's a fine individual who represents the Libertarian Party well in her public communications and whose decision to seek our party's presidential nomination has made the race more interesting and more issues-centered. We are, however, opponents in the sense that we're both seeking the same position and that only one of us can be "hired" to fill that position. As it becomes more and more clear that Ms.Smith and I both appeal to "the libertarian wing of the Libertarian Party," I think that it's time to talk about our differences -- and our similarities.

The place to start is, I think, with the issues. Ms. Smith's campaign platform is thoroughgoingly libertarian, as is mine. The main difference between us in that respect is that while her issues positions have evolved in a libertarian direction over several months, I have a record of taking libertarian policy positions and sticking to them over the course of more than a decade of Party activism.

By way of example, I offer the issue of immigration.

I am, and always have been, a pro-immigration libertarian who opposes the use of imaginary lines, drawn on the ground by politicians, to limit the freedom of peaceful individuals. Don't take my word for it -- do a little Googling. You'll find that my position has remained the same, and that I've argued publicly and forcefully on its behalf for many years. The position paper on my campaign web site was posted nearly a year ago and has remained unchanged since.

Ms. Smith's web site also offers a stirring, thoroughly libertarian take on immigration ... today. Only a few months ago, however, her position on the issue was very different. Under a hypothetical President Christine Smith of March 2007, "[t]he American citizens of states and cities will have jurisdiction over non-citizens inhabiting their communities" based on a "sovereign right to control the influences and development of their society and its culture." Once again, don't take my word for it. Ms. Smith's positions, now and then, are easily accessible to anyone who cares to look for them.

I'm more than happy to see that Ms. Smith has gone from "states' rights conservative" to "radical libertarian" on the immigration issue over the course of only a few months. I'm not inclined to question the sincerity of that conversion -- but contra her implicit claim to constancy of view in a recent manifesto on compromise ("... advocating freedom always on all issues. This is what I devote myself to in my writing, public speaking, and now in this campaign"), it's obvious that her ideas on what freedom is and how it should be defended have undergone drastic revisions even within the timeframe of her presidential campaign.

I'm glad that Ms. Smith is discovering the consistency and applicability of libertarian ideas. That discovery is a fascinating and enlightening journey, and one which never ends. However, I submit that the first steps on such a journey are best taken in smaller shoes than those we expect our presidential candidate to be wearing now, or 11 months from now.

I believe that my long-time advocacy of plumb line libertarian positions on the issues, compared to Ms. Smith's recent and ongoing conversion, differentiates us as candidates. If I may be so immodest as to say so, I believe that it casts me in better light as your prospective nominee. I'm advocating the same positions now that I advocated a year ago and ten years ago, and I will be advocating those positions a year from now and a decade from now. And I've established a track record for turning those positions into public policy that none of my opponents can match.

Now that I've covered a difference, I'd like to cover a similarity WITH a difference: My endorsement of Ron Paul's Republican presidential candidacy.

Yes, I have endorsed Ron Paul for the Republican Party's presidential nomination. I've stated that if he seems set to gain that nomination, I will withdraw from the LP contest and urge the LP to nominate NOTA and endorse Paul in the general election. I know that that makes some of my fellow Libertarians uncomfortable, or even angry, but I believe that the course I've taken on the issue is consistent with the best interests of the libertarian movement and the Libertarian Party. I'm not going to retract my endorsement, and I'm not going to apologize for it.

Ms. Smith has also endorsed Ron Paul, numerous times. She's just done so implicitly rather than explicitly. She's made public statements in support of Ron Paul's performances in the Republican presidential debates. She's lauded him for legislation he has introduced or sponsored in the US House of Representatives. She has appealed to his supporters to contribute to her campaign as a sort of "backup effort."

The two differences between us on this issue, as I see it, are these:

- I've put my money where my mouth is. I haven't just said nice things about Paul -- I've formally endorsed him and publicly pledged to set my own ambitions aside and do what I believe is best for our movement if he succeeds. Ms. Smith has been far more laudatory of Paul than I have, but has declined to give substance to her accolades. If Ms. Smith believes the things that she says about Paul, I urge her to act on that belief, make her multiple tacit endorsements of his candidacy formal and explicit, and declare her willingness to stand aside if her aspirations and his potential come into conflict.

- I cannot claim to have read or heard every word that Ms. Smith has uttered during the course of her presidential campaign. However, in my experience Ms. Smith's mentions of Paul have been singularly positive and have omitted any mention of issues on which she and Paul disagree. Specifically, Ms. Smith and I substantially agree -- and disagree with Ron Paul -- on issues like immigration and same-sex marriage. Because I believe these issues to be of great importance, I've made it a point to emphasize my disagreement with Congressman Paul on them whenever I discuss his candidacy and my endorsement. So far as I can tell, Ms. Smith has given Dr. Paul a "free pass" on issues where we both agree that he is wrong, and where I consider it the duty of a Libertarian candidate to SAY he's wrong so as to minimize the association of Paul's positions on those issues with libertarianism and with the Libertarian Party.

To summarize: My endorsement of Ron Paul has been explicit, but qualified. So far as I can tell, Ms. Smith's endorsement of Paul has been tacit, but unqualified. Because several of my former supporters have cited my endorsement of Paul as a reason for their decision to instead support Ms. Smith, I urge them to look more closely. I believe that Ms. Smith's position and mine on the matter are very similar, but I believe that I have been more forthright, more consistent, and more attentive to the important issues here.

After more than a year in the saddle of a presidential nomination campaign, I remain committed to the freedom movement and to the Libertarian Party -- and that commitment stretches back for years with a consistency that I'm proud of. As our nominating convention grows closer, it becomes more difficult to come to grips with one's opponents without seeming mean or spiteful -- but come to grips we must, and I'm going to do so even if some feelings get hurt. Part of being a presidential candidate is standing one's views and record up next to the views and records of one's opponents and saying "look -- I'm better." It's hard to do that sometimes. If I didn't BELIEVE that I am the best candidate among those from whom you are asked to choose, I wouldn't bother. I DO believe that, and I hope that upon examination of your options, you'll reach the same conclusion.

Over the next few months, I hope to have the opportunity to talk with many of you about my campaign and about why I believe that I am the right choice for the Libertarian Party's 2008 presidential nomination. In the meantime, let's move forward as comrades in the cause of liberty, keeping our eyes, ears and minds open so that we can make the best choices for our party and our movement. Best wishes, and

Let Freedom Grow!
Steve Kubby
Libertarian for President