(click on ads for more details)

They Can Dish It Out, But.

Politics 101 says: If you want to change public policy, you have to change the politicians.

For the better part of three decades now, the Libertarian Party has been taking potshots at the Republican Party and using the GOP's shortcomings to
fundraise for its operations. And during that time, the Libertarian Party's electoral success has pretty much been . squat.

The fact is, the LP represents a solid governing philosophy, but has been a basket case as a political organization dedicated to electing candidates who
share its ideology. In THIRTY YEARS, they've never elected a single individual to Congress under their party's banner, and I think less than a dozen
individuals TOTAL to state legislatures around the country. What little ballot box success they've had has been in non-partisan, down-ballot races.

LP candidates in general elections pretty much run on a platform that the GOP has failed to represent the limited-government/personal freedom agenda to its maximum effect. Heck, I'll give 'em that. They're right. Many of our candidates don't live up to the ideal.

On the other hand, however, the Democrats' candidates are FAR worse. This is simply political reality. And
by running what are often nothing more than "paper" candidates in races they never win, the net effect of the Libertarian Party is to siphon off just enough
votes to defeat the Republican and elect the Democrat. And they call that "victory." Guess it depends on what "is" is.

How helping to elect Democrats advances the cause the LP purports to champion has always been a mystery to
me. It's like burning down the village to save it. Or as Libertarian Aaron Russo would say, "It's insane!"

Anyway, as Chairman of the Republican Liberty Caucus, I told columnist John Miller in National Review Online
last week that (1) Libertarian candidates have historically been nothing but spoilers who effectively elect the WORST possible candidate for the pro-liberty
cause in a close race, and (2) Republicans need to do more to represent the strict-constitution philosophy if it wants to attract Libertarians and other limited-government conservatives back into the GOP
fold. In other words, BOTH parties bear fault.

But holy moly! You'd have thought I'd sliced the LP's ear off. Libertarians sent me outraged and indignant notes chastising me for daring to state the obvious. Apparently, it's OK for the Libertarian Party to regularly and often dump on the GOP for its failures,
but it's mean-spirited to point out the LP's colossal failure over the past thirty years to actually elect any candidates. Seems the LP isn't used to having someone shoot back.

Well, get used to it folks. Your days of punching the Republican Party in the nose without having someone swing back are over. While I consider us philosophical allies, we're also friendly competitors who will no longer concede the limited-government/pro-freedom vote to you. We're coming for your supporters. We want them back in the GOP because the GOP will be better and stronger with them pushing us in the right direction. And as I said earlier, we actually elect candidates . and THAT'S the way to change public policy.

For those of you who wish to stay on the outside and continue fighting via the third-party option, go for it. I understand your position and frustration. Even
share much of it. I respect your choice and commitment. But you're going to have to start justifying why people who share your ideology should continue to support your electoral failure with their
time and hard-earned contributions. The GOP is far from perfect (don't I know it) . but as a political party, we do what a political party is supposed to do:
elect candidates. And as more and more LP'ers recognize the futility of the third-party movement and rejoin the GOP, we'll not only elect MORE Republicans but BETTER ones, as well.

Let the competition begin.

Chuck Muth
Chairman
Republican Liberty