[jackbob]

The question, therefore, is whether or not the Libertarian Party will be prepared to take advantage of this window of opportunity and finally become a true, competitive ballot-box alternative to the Democrats and the Republicans.

This question is quite deceptive. On reading the article up to this question, it would seem that the proper wording would have been:

The question, therefore, is whether or not the Libertarian Party will be prepared to take advantage of this window of opportunity and finally join with the Democrats in order to become a true, competitive ballot-box alternative to the Republicans, thereby ensuring a permanent return to Democratic party hegemony.

Mr Chuck Muth proposes that "...if you want to be a political party, then you need to WIN elections to significant offices. THAT?S the measure of an effective political party."

Oh? I guess Mr Muth does not follow public policy innovations very closely. The most successful party in the 20th century on changing government economic policy never won an election. The most successful party on changing social policy also never won an election. Those two parties, the Communist Party and the Socialist Workers Party, didn't need to win elections. Mr Muth just does not get it.

He also does not quite comprehend the meaning of being a loser. He thinks winning elections is the only way to win. But having seen a good number of politicians abandon the pledges they made to supporters after winning and being socialized into the select winners circles, it becomes quite easy to comprehend that all those supporters were the big losers even with their winning candidates.

Putting the slightest amount of critical thought to any part of the rest of his advertisement, will show point for point, just how phony his political opportunism is. If he is successful, the Libertarian Party will become just like the Republican Party, splitting each others votes, and providing the democrats a sure win in every election.

I don't know if he is actually an opportunist, phony libertarian, or a decrepit libertarian. But one thing is for certain, the current Democratic Party cavalry operation going on in the rear of the conservative Republican movement, that is the current Libertarian Party operations, need more Chuck Muths operating if their to succeed.

[misterrob]

For any political party to succeed they have to show that they can win an election otherwise, they should just call themselves a PAC or lobby group that throws their support behind anyone who votes their issue. Why run in an election if you are not going to make an effort to win? Are you just acting the role of spoiler like Nadar or are you going to be someone like Perot or John Anderson?

It is far too easy to dismiss the libertarians as democrats whereas one could point out the big government republicans that are taking over the republican party or the folks who think that the church should be having a say in governmental affairs or that government should be telling you how to run your life from a moralistic sense.