I'm sort of concerned Comrade Rendell is going to make a bid (which will likely be successful) for this seat as soon as Specter retires/dies, which could conceivably be as soon as 2010.

Do we have any concrete plans to run a candidate in this election?

This is not a criticism of the membership letter, but let me add something else that I see from my perspective.  If I would give it a (corny) category title it might be, “Become a Libertarian Ambassador.”

Many of you do this already.  You belong to some focused special interest groups with liberty-oriented themes that intersect with ours.  That shared interest exposes them to your being a libertarian.  (Now as long as you don’t leave them with the check after your meeting, you will probably be remembered positively by them and that should reflect positively on the LP too!) 

What am I talking about? Here is an undoubtedly incomplete list of a few efforts/groups where LP members have worked with others:  Ron Paul Meetups.  REAL ID opposition. Gun-rights efforts.   PA ballot access.  Stadium tax opposition.  Property rights groups.

Your being there will be valued because you’re the LP contact. If you’re on an LPPA committee, that’s even better!   

We have issued joint media releases and position letters to politicians with organizations including: ballot access groups, pro-gun groups and groups opposing REAL ID.  There’s every reason to believe that your involvement with your favorite groups can lead to the same.

Perhaps I’ve over-emphasized the LTE and media release aspects because that’s my “high impact, low maintenance” thing, but jointly organizing a rally, for example, with other groups would be even better.  Remember that for many of these organizations it won’t hurt them to say they are aligned with the LPPA on a particular issue. 

Mark

The December 2008 PA firearms event update follows.  If you wish to attend an event to setup a table, OPH booth or some political function, then please contact the hosting organization for rules and restrictions.

If you have corrections or additions to this compilation, forward that information to me and I'll include it in a future update.  Your additions are appreciated because most promoters won't update their show websites until first quarter 2009.

Mark

========================================================

Firearm Events for Pennsylvania - 2008 December Update


November 15-16, 2008 - Greencastle, PA (N of Hagerstown, MD)
Gun Show, Mason-Dixon Auto Auction
Appalachian Promotions
717-697-3088  AppPromotions(at)aol.com
http://www.appalachianpromotions.com

November 15-16, 2008 -- Greensburg, PA (Westmoreland County)
Gun Show, Westmoreland Mall Annex
PA Gun Collectors Association
412-531-5087  412-486-1129  admin(at)pgca.us
http://www.pgca.us/

November 15-16, 2008 - Lake Harmony, PA (SE of Wilkes Barre)
Gun Show, Galleria of Split Rock Lodge
Eagle Arms Productions
610-398-2650

November 15-16, 2008 - Sellersville, PA (N of Philadelphia)
Gun Show, Forrest Lodge VFW
Commonwealth Target
570-640-0144

November 22-23, 2008 -- Leesport, PA (N of Reading)
Gun Show, Leesport Farmers Market
Appalachian Promotions
717-697-3088  AppPromotions(at)aol.com
http://www.appalachianpromotions.com

November 22-23, 2008 - Pottstown, PA
Gun Show, Sunnybrook Ballroom
Pennsylvania Antique Gun Collectors Association
361-774-5330

November 28-30, 2008 - Macungie, PA (SW of Allentown)
Gun Show, Macungie Memorial Hall
Eagle Arms Productions
610-398-2650

November 29-30, 2008 -- Schnecksville, PA (near Allentown)
Gun Show, Schnecksville Fire Co.
Appalachian Promotions
717-697-3088  AppPromotions(at)aol.com
http://www.appalachianpromotions.com

December 6-7,  2008 - Allentown, PA
Gun Show, Agricultural Hall
Antique & Modern Arms Shows
610-997-8613

December 13-14, 2008 -- Harrisburg, PA
Gun Show, Farm Show Complex
Mid-Atlantic Arms Collectors
570-679-2250  800-679-2250  maacpsse(at)echos.net
http://www.maacpsse.com/maac.html

December 19-21, 2008 - King of Prussia, PA (near Philadelphia)
Gun Show, Valley Forge Convention Center
Valley Forge Gun Collectors
610-975-0877  www.valleyforgegunshow.com

December 26-28, 2008 - Allentown, PA
Gun Show, Days Inn Conference Center
Eagle Arms Productions
610-398-2650

As much as I hate to say it, I think that Bob Barr's "look and feel" would be a big limiting factor.  Frankly, he is very nerdy, and as much as that shouldn't matter, and only the issues should matter, that's just not the reality.

In this past election, so many people I talked to liked Obama because he was well-mannered and spoke well and didn't think the same of McCain.  Many people weren't able to get past McCain's lesser personality and listen to the issues, which is sad.  I'm not saying that a president is picked by looks or anything (like when Ralph accused Alice of voting for a mustache in the Honeymooners), but it consciously or subconsciously sways people.

This from Politics1 (http://www.politics1.com/):

PENNSYLVANIA - 2010. Lots of undecideds to fight over if the new PPP-D poll is any indication. US Senator Arlen Specter (R) leads TV talk show host Chris Matthews (D) by a vote of 40% to 27%. Keystone State political insiders tell Politics1 that they now believe Matthews is likely to run.

Less Antman does make some good points, but I think the overall gist of the article is wrong. Trying to define the Libertarian Party brand as anarchism or anarcho-capitalism is a mistake that was tried already.

Antwell is correct that anarcho-capitalists and anarchists in the LP who do run as candidates for public office certainly don't highlight the beliefs that they chastise others in the LP for not holding. And for good reason, anarchism and living in a society are not compatible unless human nature changes.

Prior to 2006 the LP platform was basically an anarcho-capitalist manifesto, and it cost the LP credibility as a viable political party. I, for one, was not sad to see it go. Credibility is easily lost, but it takes a long time to gain.

I'm here because I think we desperately need an alternative political party in the United States to oppose the one that we have now. When the LP first formed, there were still viable libertarian elements in both major parties that the LP could appeal to and hope to influence. Ron Paul's campaign this year, if it did nothing else, showed that the libertarian element in the R Party is completely insignificant.

The Republican Liberty Caucus and the Democratic Freedom Caucus may exist, but there are no significant libertarian elements remaining in either party. At the national level, both parties are about the special interests that fund them and all else be damned.

Trying to define some particular ideology in the LP at this point will relegate it to the realm of sparkling cocktail party conversation for intellectuals. The LP cannot go back to what it did at its inception and expect to have even remotely the same effect. The rise of the internet and direct mass communication means the LP no longer needs to serve as a feeder organization for the Liberty movement. We should not conduct electoral politics to the exclusion of all else, but the LP does not need to be all things to all aspects of the Liberty movement.

I think the LP is on the right track. If we look beyond the presidential race, one in which the Libertarian Party candidate had the second highest vote total ever, we find that Libertarian Party candidates were doing better in many places. One candidate in Georgia had over one million votes, the first time that has happened, and our own statewide candidates had the second, third, and fourth highest vote totals ever for Lib candidates in PA.

The message of Liberty is getting out through our candidates and it is beginning to resonate with the electorate. I think we did gain some credibility this year, and that is important. This does not mean we should not pursue other avenues or work with others to promote Liberty. I do think we need to continue to broaden our base, as there are both progressive and conservative elements in the Libertarian message.

I think if there was a problem this year, it was that so many in the LP attacked our own presidential nominee either because he didn't fit with some imagined mold for a Libertarian or over some other speculated reason for not attending a meeting. If we want to build credibility as a political party, attacking our own nominees is not the way to go about it. The problem isn't in the definition of Libertarian, it is that so many believe theirs is THE definition of Libertarian.

We need to work with everyone who wants to maximize individual liberty and minimize the role of the state. All such people should be welcome in the LP. Trying to define the LP as some fraction of that will lead to either perpetual infighting over who is appropriately principled or a schism that fractures the Party, ending any chance for a credible challenge to the Special Interest Party with its D and R wings.

So...  What should we do?  What hope is there?  Do YOU have the answer?

It seems to me that we need some kind of miracle.  I freely confess that I have no idea what it is.  But the sheeple need to WAKE UP somehow.  So...  We tried someone with some measure of name recognition this time around (Barr).  He spent the first half of the miniscule amount of media time he got answering the same questions about his Republican voting record.  The second half of the time he managed to get, he did his best to repeat the same basic message of "less government, lower taxes, more liberty."  And frankly, that's about as deep as it was even possible to get with the 20 second interviews the MSM graciously granted him on slow news days when Sarah Palin hadn't said anything even more stupid than yesterday.

Yeah...  Lew Rockwell's version of the libertarian vision is more radical than a lot of LP members.  And the LP has most definitely managed to drive off some of the more dedicated ZAP-zealots.  (I consider myself to be among them, btw, lest anyone think I meant that in a bad way.)  But a lot of my Voluntaryist/Agorist/Anarchist friends have long since given up hope that the State can ever be anything BUT an instrument of violence and coersion.

But although I too believe that we could indeed to JUST FINE without a huge government that relies on coercive taxation, I also realize that my ideas are utopian.  (At least, probably for MY lifetime.)  And I would love nothing more than for the nation to wake up and get a boner for the Constitution, and insist that we actually follow it.  This would be such a HUGE leap in the direction of true Liberty, that I continue to participate in the political process.

How do we wake the hypnotized masses?

I don't know.  I'm truly depressed now, to be honest.

Makes perfect sense.  Re-establish the Libertarian brand to differentiate between conservatives and progressives... and then proceed to talk about anarchism in the rest of the article.  100 million people vote for a Republican and a Democrat . Instead of taking the good from conservatism and the good from progressives and packaging it to the people in a way that doesn't scare them, we'll brand the party as anarchists and pacifists.

That'll bring em' in!  Of course, it's not about viability or visibility... it's about being too similar to the major parties that managed to get 100+ Million votes. 

The author seems to think there is an African-American side to Obama's heritage. I don't believe there is. Obama's father was Kenyan, there was nothing American about him. I don't know if Obama's mother was descended from American slaves.

Not all blacks in the United States prior to 1863 were slaves and not all slave owners were white. If the author of the article is a Libertarian, I'm sure this is something we can overcome.

I'm going to have to agree here.  There is something to be said for the irony that someone whose ancestors came here as slaves would not recognize slavery when he sees it.  But I think it would have been better to post this issue without bringing it up.  It would have been more precise if the OP had used "African American" because they were indeed the victims of slavery, and there have indeed been "black" people who have owned slaves.  It's a common misconception, for example, that the slaves that arrived here from Africa were simply hunted and nabbed by Europeans in Africa to accquire them.  Much more often the Europeans traded guns or other comodities with African tribes who had captured members of rival tribes in their own wars.  So "black" people were involved in the slave trade as well.

Anyway...  All that historical stuff is just to emphasize the fact that participation in slavery or other atrocities has absolutely nothing to do with skin color.  There are, unfortunately, no truly innocent people here on planet earth.  Within every tribe / nation / ethnic group there are good and bad people, and examples where the BAD people used force to do horrible things to someone else.