From: GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis)
Subject: Re: LIBERTARIAN - TRUE GRASSROOTS EFFORT
Organization: Stanford University, California, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 08:19:42 GMT

In article <1992Aug13.195223.14783@encore.com>,
rcollins@encore.com (Roger Collins) writes:
>Enough of the rambling, now for some questions.  First, how come I
>haven't heard of LP until recently, and then, only on Usenet?  Sure, I
>have heard jokes that used the name when they could have inserted any
>other 3rd party, but not in serious conversation.

Because the media sources you rely on to stay informed have decided
that you have no reason to be interested in the LP and are therefore
not supplying you with any information.  If you expect that
situation to change you are going to have to do something to change
it.  You should be writing and calling to all the places that are
keeping you informed of the Demopublicans' antics and *demand* that
they start covering other alternatives if they want your continued
business.

>*If* Marrou/Lord were to get equal press, *and* they didn't appear as
>radical as their followers, I think they'd have a good showing, if not
>win.  You even have a woman on the ticket!  I'll even dismiss the second
>condition since activists of any group seem radical compared to the
>status quo.

Please see my earlier post under "The debating game" if you'd like
to help me be heard in California's long seat seante race.

>Are there any press success stories to tell?  Is there any hope
>of getting on a national debate?

Yes there are some press successes but not much probability of a
national unless a lot of voters are willing to become pro-active
political consumers.

>I'd at least like to see the Libs get more press.  Can't you guys do
>some Barnum and Baily style marketing?  Or are Libs too high-brow for
>marketing stunts?

The San Diego LP tried to get me bookings on my visit there this
monday.  After sending out a serious press release and following
it up with phone calls that were never returned they decided to send
out another titled something like "Libertarian Senate Candidate to
Bungee Jump Nude from the Union Tribune Building: We'll do anything
to prove we're serious".  Anyone who read the release all the way
through would have found out that the whole thing was a stunt to get
the attention on people  who should have responded to the first
release but didn't.  None the less, they actually got some calls
asking if I was really going to do it.  Initially I was pretty
pissed that they had sent out that second release without my
permission, since I am trying to run a serious and credible
campaign.  However, I had to agree that they did make their point
and I did finally manage to talk to some media people although not
nearly as many as I would have liked too.

>I can see one reason for the lack of press: I can see some producer
>saying, "We can't cover one of the 3rd parties without covering them
>all, and we can't possibly do that, so forget about covering the Lib
>candidate, Murphy." :)  But *if* Libs are the only other candidate on
>the ballot in all 50 states, that seems newsworthy.

Unfortunately the more accurate answer is more like "we're too lazy
to decide which of these other people are newsworthy and interesting
even if they don't have much chance of winning and which of them are
just flakes".  The media, just like most voters creates a
self-fulfilling prophecy by deciding in advance who can and can't
win.  This is a bad enough thing when voters do iut, but far, far
worse, when the media does it because one media outlet has far more
im pact than one voter in determining the course of an elexction.

>I heard on the news that MTV is covering politics rather seriously now,
>in their own unique way.  Since they are anything but "established," it
>seems they would be much more receptive to covering an "alternative"
>choice like Marrou/Lord.  What do you think?

Have you written to them to ask that he be included?  NO?  Then
don't be surprised if he isn't.

>Again, I think the platform is too extreme to be politically feasible
>(even though I agree with it more than any *other* party's), but the
>idea of mixing the Rep.  fiscal policy (in word not deed) with the
>liberal view on freedoms (not even the democratic view anymore) is a
>winner.

The Libertarian Platform is a long term statement of goals.  No
Libertarian alive believes that it will be implemented in anything
other than a slowly staged progression.  As the less radical parts
are adopted and show that they work, the other parts are going to
start looking a lot less radical.  Of course, if things keep
deteriorating at the current rate we may ball just live to see the
Second American Revolution.  Faster but messier on all counts.

>Comments?

I think I've already done enough of that. :-)

/June
From: Tom.Cavender@iphase.UUCP (Tom Cavender)
Sender: FredGate@iphase.UUCP