I agree. I look at it this way. I used to live in a very conservative area, but I was registered democrat. If there was a vacancy for a local office, and I had a "conversion" the year before and went from being a very public far left wing liberal to solid red republican, what would the local party say if I tossed my hat in the ring? They probably would not think too highly of my candidacy. Admittedly, the switch from far left to far right is not as big of a leap as from conservative to Libertarian but it appears the big L party is looking for name recognition this year to springboard it into major party status.

Researching this article, it appears the Libertarians are split between dejected people who supported Dr. Ruwart (or another candidate) and others who say "So? Barr has little chance of winning anyway. At least our party will be taken seriously which is never is. We need a guy like Barr to show the world we are not all crazy people in shacks from the Dakotas writing manifestos on our antique typewriters when we're not busy on AM radio." Well, name recognition is great, but what good is it if your big selling point until now was being the "Party of Principle" but now you switch to whoever will get you the most press, especially if he contradicts various points of the party platform? Come on.

I would really like to believe that Barr had a serious change of heart, but I am hesitant to declare my support for him just yet. Then again, Presidential Elections often end up being a choice of the lesser of several evils, so perhaps he is the way to go (at least as a protest vote). I just think they could have done better at picking a candidate with stronger credentials, but given the other choices (Vegas oddsmakers and talk radio hosts) perhaps that is too much to ask for.

Perhaps it is all academic. Perhaps the apologists will be correct in that Barr will simply be a springboard to get the Libertarian party into double digits nationwide (I hope they run a candidate in every congressional race), open up ballot access, and use this as a building year so in '12 they can return to a true Libertarian to head up the ticket. I hope so. I really think we can do better than a two party system.

That's the problem some Libertarians feel they are in. They feel they needed name recognition and somebody on the mainstream "inside" with "experience" to get the votes. Unfortunately, their two candidates that fit that bill, Gravel and Barr, really do not conform to much of the Libertarian party platform. Honestly I think Gravel would have been a better fit, even if he is more of a socialist on some domestic issues. Who would have thought a pro-"War on Drugs" nominee would run with Libertarian party backing?

Personally, I would have loved to see Ruwart (or another one) get the nomination and run on a "common sense, outsider" type of platform. If this is the way they cross the 15% threshold then how do they guarantee they go back to the old guard Libertarians in '12? How do they ensure they did not alienate their own (albeit small) base? I would hate to see them go the way of the Reform Party.

Before this I was relatively certain I would register as a Libertarian before the next election, out of protest against the recent policies of the Democrats, to help with ballot access in my state, agreement with much of their platform. Now with Barr holding the nomination I am reconsidering.

"Well, sir, uh, you see, it's not that I support a war against your compound, per se, it's just... What? The Free Men of the Sovereign Northern District Nation? Huh? I'm not aware of a country by that name. No, I'm sure you are a member of an accredited diplomatic mission. What? I think it's great you have an information ministry. No, I'm not knocking AM radio. Anyway, as I tried to mention earlier I am against the methamphetamine lifestyle. Yes, well, I'm sure you would strenuously object. Yes, you can have a war against a concept. No, it's not a 'bullshit' existentialist question. With all due respect I don't care who NPH agrees with. No I will certainly not meet you in the parking lot to settle this matter of honor. Uhhh... Security?"

"How much of a Libertarian am I. Well, if elected, my first official act as president will be to marry you."

Illegitimi non carborundum.

"No, I really don't want to suck down some of your crank.... Oh, you mean methamphetamine? Thank God. I still pass."

Of course, the democratic campaign is making John McCain look better every day.

I don't understand this conclusion. How do the Clinton machinations make John McCain look any different whatsoever?

Out of genuine curiosity, what candidates were lunatics?