Conference back40::soapbox

Received: from hustle.rahul.net (hustle.rahul.net [192.160.13.2]) by nic.iii.net (8.6.8/8.6.6) with SMTP id QAA02547 for <gkeller@knot.iii.net>; Fri, 26 Jan 1996 16:08:16 -0500
Received: by hustle.rahul.net with UUCP id AA00246
  (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for gkeller@knot.iii.net); Fri, 26 Jan 1996 13:03:06 -0800
Received: by dehnbase.fidonet.org (mailout1.26); Fri, 26 Jan 96 12:49:24 PST
X-UIDL: 822695113.000
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 96 12:40:57 PST
Message-Id: <28154.31093E54.ann@HarryBrowne96.org>
From: CampaignNews@HarryBrowne96.org
Subject: Release: no to matching funds
Sender: announce-request@HarryBrowne96.org
Reply-To: campaign@HarryBrowne96.org
To: announce@HarryBrowne96.org (Harry Browne for President announcements)
X-Mailer: mailout v1.26 released with lsendfix 1.5d
Status: U
X-Mozilla-Status: 0001


*********************************************************

ONLINE NEWS FROM THE HARRY BROWNE FOR PRESIDENT COMMITTEE
4094 Majestic Lane, Suite 240  *  Fairfax, Virginia 22033

*********************************************************

NOTE:  The following release was posted to Business Wire's 
       national circuit Tuesday evening, January 16, 1996.


LIBERTARIAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE HARRY BROWNE
'JUST SAYS NO' TO FEDERAL CAMPAIGN MATCHING FUNDS

COSTA MESA, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Jan. 16, 1996--Libertarian 
presidential candidate Harry Browne has qualified for federal 
matching funds...but refuses to take them.

"Campaign matching funds are the political equivalent of welfare,"
Browne said in a statement issued Tuesday.  "Republican presidential 
candidates denounce welfare and subsidies, but every Republican who 
qualified for matching funds has his hand out for political welfare 
and campaign subsidies."

"I 'just say no' to this tax-funded subsidy," said Browne.

The Harry Browne for President campaign has raised over $575,000 to
date from more than 4,400 individual donors -- drawing from all 50 
states.

Qualifying for matching funds takes more than just fund-raising, 
according to Browne's national campaign director Sharon Ayres.  The 
Federal Election Commission requires a candidate to raise $5,000 per 
state in at least 20 states.  And that $5,000 must be comprised of 
donations of $250 or less.

"Republicans Steve Forbes, Alan Keyes, and Robert Dornan have
failed to qualify for matching funds," she noted, "Forbes because he 
spent too much of his own money, Keyes and Dornan because they've raised 
too little."

"We have formally requested a Federal Election Commission (FEC) 
advisory opinion verifying that Harry is eligible to apply for and 
receive matching funds even though he won't take them," she said.

Why is Harry Browne asking the FEC to verify that he's qualified
for matching funds -- when he's refusing to take them?

According to Ayres, it's because "many private and public 
organizations use matching funds qualification as a criterion for 
being included in debates or put on presidential primary ballots.  
For example, last week Delaware changed its law to automatically list
on its February primary ballot every candidate qualified for matching
funds."

"Even more important," she continued, "is the fact that the 
Commission on Presidential Debates has specified that qualifying for 
matching funds will be a criterion for deciding which candidates to 
include in the October presidential debates."

Harry Browne is a best-selling author whose latest book, WHY 
GOVERNMENT DOESN'T WORK (St. Martin's Press) is in bookstores 
nationwide.  It is now in its 3rd printing.

Harry Browne is the only Presidential candidate calling for "Huge 
Tax Cuts Now!  Huge Spending Cuts Now!  A Balanced Budget Now!"

WHY GOVERNMENT DOESN'T WORK details Browne's plan to:
    -- Immediately end the income tax and shut down the IRS.
             (What will he "replace" the tax with?  Nothing.)
    -- Immediately slash the federal budget by 50%, with further
             reductions the following years.
    -- Immediately balance the budget.

The book shows how and why to shrink the federal government down to
only those functions spelled out in the Constitution -- which would 
get it completely out of welfare, education, housing, crime control, 
and regulation.  He also proposes privatizing Social Security -- 
selling off federal assets to buy private retirement annuities for 
seniors dependent on Social Security.

The Libertarian Party -- America's third largest political party --
has run presidential candidates in every election since its founding 
in 1971.  In 1992, its presidential candidate was on the ballot in 
all 50 states, and it will repeat that feat in 1996 "despite onerous 
barriers erected by state governments," according to Ayres.  The 
Libertarian Party has already qualified in 28 states on the way to 
50-state ballot status.

                             --30--
          
-- 
Harry Browne for President - http://www.HarryBrowne96.org/
4094 Majestic Lane, Suite 240, Fairfax, VA 22033



% ====== Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) ======
% Received: from mail11.digital.com by us1rmc.bb.dec.com (5.65/rmc-22feb94) id AA23294; Sat, 27 Jan 96 08:39:12 -050
% Received: from nic.iii.net by mail11.digital.com (5.65v3.2/1.0/WV) id AA27521; Sat, 27 Jan 1996 08:30:13 -050
% Received: from knot.iii.net (knot.iii.net [199.232.40.135]) by nic.iii.net (8.6.8/8.6.6) with SMTP id IAA11302 for <keller@cuptay.enet.dec.com>; Sat, 27 Jan 1996 08:28:55 -0500
% Message-Id: <310A28E3.17D9@knot.iii.net>
% Date: Sat, 27 Jan 1996 08:30:11 -0500
% From: Geoff Keller <gkeller@knot.iii.net>
% X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0b5 (Win95; I)
% Mime-Version: 1.0
% To: cuptay::keller
% Subject: [Fwd: Release: no to matching funds]
% Content-Type: message/rfc822
% Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
% Content-Disposition: inline
    

Received: from hustle.rahul.net (hustle.rahul.net [192.160.13.2]) by nic.iii.net (8.6.8/8.6.6) with SMTP id AAA01536 for <gkeller@knot.iii.net>; Sat, 27 Jan 1996 00:39:19 -0500
Received: by hustle.rahul.net with UUCP id AA07638
  (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for gkeller@knot.iii.net); Fri, 26 Jan 1996 21:29:40 -0800
Received: by dehnbase.fidonet.org (mailout1.26); Fri, 26 Jan 96 21:16:20 PST
X-UIDL: 822749139.000
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 96 21:09:06 PST
Message-Id: <28218.3109B524.ann@HarryBrowne96.org>
From: CampaignNews@HarryBrowne96.org
Subject: Release: State of the Union
Sender: announce-request@HarryBrowne96.org
Reply-To: campaign@HarryBrowne96.org
To: announce@HarryBrowne96.org (Harry Browne for President announcements)
X-Mailer: mailout v1.26 released with lsendfix 1.5d
Status: U
X-Mozilla-Status: 0001


News from the Harry Browne for President Campaign

Released: January 24, 1996

THE STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS:
"BIGGER & BIGGER GOVERNMENT AS FAR AS THE EYE CAN SEE"

"President Clinton said, 'The era of big government is over,' and then
spent an hour proposing bigger and bigger government as far as the eye
can see." So said Libertarian Presidential candidate Harry Browne,
referring to the President's State of the Union address.

"As though that weren't bad enough," Browne continued, "Robert Dole
also spoke out against big government and then defended the Republican
budget that makes the federal government $45 billion bigger in 1996,
and bigger still in every year through 2002."

Harry Browne is a Libertarian candidate for President. In his book Why
Government Doesn't Work, he proposes to cut the federal government in
half, repeal the income tax, and balance the budget -- all in his first
year in office.

"Neither Bill Clinton nor Robert Dole has noticed that government
doesn't work. It doesn't deliver the mail on time, it can't keep the
cities safe, it doesn't educate our children properly. And yet they
both think they can solve problems in health care, crime control,
education, immigration, campaign financing, and every other social area
by piling more government on top of the government programs that have
failed so miserably," Browne added.

"Today federal, state, and local governments combined take 47% of the
national income in taxes. The American people are being smothered by a
tax rate many times the one that triggered the American Revolution. But
the Republican and Democratic politicians pat us on the head and
promise to reduce the load by an imperceptible fraction of 1%."

Browne proposes to reduce the federal government to just the functions
specified in the Constitution -- national defense and little else. He
wants to use the savings to repeal the income tax immediately.

In response to political pundits saying the American people want
smaller government but they won't give up their own subsidies, Browne
makes this offer: "If you'll give up your favorite federal program,
you'll never again have to pay income tax.

"You can't have your own favorite federal program without paying for a
similar subsidy for everyone else. So the cost of your program is the
enormous tax load you are paying today. The only way to reduce your
taxes significantly is by ending all subsidies at one time and using
the savings to repeal the income tax immediately. If you'll give up
your favorite federal program, you can escape the income tax forever. I
have campaigned in 33 states, and I have yet to find someone who would
rather keep his favorite program and continue paying income tax."

Browne is running for the Libertarian Party's Presidential nomination.
He is expected to win the nomination at the party's convention on July
4th weekend. The Libertarian Party is America's third largest political
party. Its Presidential candidate will be on the ballot in all 50
states this year, as was the case in 1992.

Harry Browne has already qualified for matching federal campaign funds,
but has refused to take them. "I don't believe in welfare for
politicians, anymore than I believe in welfare for corporations or
individuals," he said.

                              [End]
          
-- 
Harry Browne for President - http://www.HarryBrowne96.org/
4094 Majestic Lane, Suite 240, Fairfax, VA 22033



% ====== Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) ======
% Received: from mail11.digital.com by us1rmc.bb.dec.com (5.65/rmc-22feb94) id AA23292; Sat, 27 Jan 96 08:39:11 -050
% Received: from nic.iii.net by mail11.digital.com (5.65v3.2/1.0/WV) id AA22431; Sat, 27 Jan 1996 08:32:53 -050
% Received: from knot.iii.net (knot.iii.net [199.232.40.135]) by nic.iii.net (8.6.8/8.6.6) with SMTP id IAA11367 for <keller@cuptay.enet.dec.com>; Sat, 27 Jan 1996 08:31:36 -0500
% Message-Id: <310A2983.4D8D@knot.iii.net>
% Date: Sat, 27 Jan 1996 08:32:51 -0500
% From: Geoff Keller <gkeller@knot.iii.net>
% X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0b5 (Win95; I)
% Mime-Version: 1.0
% To: cuptay::keller
% Subject: [Fwd: Release: State of the Union]
% Content-Type: message/rfc822
% Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
% Content-Disposition: inline
    

Received: from hustle.rahul.net (hustle.rahul.net [192.160.13.2]) by nic.iii.net (8.6.8/8.6.6) with SMTP id TAA10932 for <gkeller@knot.iii.net>; Sat, 27 Jan 1996 19:07:49 -0500
Received: by hustle.rahul.net with UUCP id AA23315
  (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for gkeller@knot.iii.net); Sat, 27 Jan 1996 16:02:22 -0800
Received: by dehnbase.fidonet.org (mailout1.26); Sat, 27 Jan 96 15:49:13 PST
X-UIDL: 822791348.001
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 96 15:35:35 PST
Message-Id: <28287.310AB9F9.ann@HarryBrowne96.org>
From: CampaignNews@HarryBrowne96.org
Subject: on the campaign trail
Sender: announce-request@HarryBrowne96.org
Reply-To: campaign@HarryBrowne96.org
To: announce@HarryBrowne96.org (Harry Browne for President announcements)
X-Mailer: mailout v1.26 released with lsendfix 1.5d
Status: U
X-Mozilla-Status: 0001


                 On the Campaign Trail with Harry Browne

Washington, D.C., Tuesday, January 16

4pm: In Washington for two TV shows. The first is "Pork," a somewhat
anti-political show on the America's Talking cable network. Today's
1-hour show features lesser-known Presidential candidates. There are
four candidates but, fortunately, host J.D. Klein focuses on me. I'm on
alone for 20 minutes, with call-in questions; the four candidates are
on for 20 minutes; and then I alone for the last 20 minutes. It goes
very well -- with respectful callers asking good questions.

Washington, Wednesday, January 17

8am: I'm on "Mitchells in the Morning" (a husband and wife team) on the
National Empowerment Television cable network. The Mitchells are
obviously very libertarian, and the 1-hour show goes very well. Only at
the end of the show do I realize that Dan Mitchell is Daniel J.
Mitchell of the Heritage Foundation, who writes frequently for The Wall
Street Journal, National Review, and other publications. He says he
enjoyed "Why Government Doesn't Work," and I suggest some publications
that might be glad for him to review it.

10:30am: At the Cato Institute to meet with Stephen Moore, who says
he's going to approach a major publication to let him review "Why
Government Doesn't Work." He's an indefatigable writer -- who seems to
have a lengthy article somewhere almost every week. Stephen is
enthusiastic about the book and the campaign, and provides a lot of
information on good contacts and media possibilities.

12 noon: Pamela and I stick around Cato to hear Phil Gramm announce his
new economic program -- wondering whether he's going to try to steal
our Libertarian thunder. I'm astounded at his proposal to fight big
government: in his second term he will slow government growth to just
the rate of inflation. Even his claque didn't applaud that one. I
obtained a printed copy of his plan because I thought I must be getting
too old to hear correctly. This is how the great hope of Republican
libertarians will save us from big government?

Nashville, Wednesday, January 17

8pm: Pamela and I are home for 24 hours -- to catch up on
correspondence, laundry, and other assorted chores, and to remind the
dog and cats that we pay for their food.

Memphis, Thursday, January 18

Midnight: Here for the National Affairs Briefing, a Christian political
forum, where I'll be speaking tomorrow night. Tonight I have a midnight
radio show by phone with Tom Kahm on KSFO in San Francisco. The show
goes well but the connection is bad, and after half an hour we give up
and reschedule it for tomorrow night.

Memphis, Friday, January 19

A day of radio talk shows. The Mike Fleming Show is a brief 10-minute
interview, but it goes well -- with Fleming asking, "Is there room in
the Libertarian Party for me?" Then Jan Mickelson in Des Moines.
Throughout the 1-hour interview there are political ads for Lugar,
Forbes, Buchanan, and other GOP candidates. Their ads make a perfect
foil for my offer to the listeners: "Give up your favorite federal
program and you'll never again have to pay income tax." Next an
in-studio interview with Diane Hampton in Memphis. I'm tired as I enter
the studio but, as usually happens, I'm fired up the moment the show
starts. We have a very good 1-hour interview. She asks Pamela whether
I'm always so keyed up.

9pm: The National Affairs Briefing. Because of the near-blizzard
weather, everyone is disappointed at the turnout. The promoters
expected 10,000; we hoped for 5,000; but the actual crowd is 1,500 -
2,000. Newt Gingrich is so disappointed, he refuses to give his speech.
I'm preceded on the platform by Richard Lugar, a fire-breathing
preacher, and Alan Keyes -- with each of the three turning up the
volume another notch. I use a lower-key approach, and I get a good
reception -- interrupted with applause a few times -- but it's far from
my best speech. I'm happy to find that most everyone here wants a lot
less government than we have now -- but they still think Phil Gramm,
Pat Buchanan, or Alan Keyes will deliver it. Being here didn't
accomplish all we expected, but it helped -- and I'm glad to have the
practice speaking to large crowds.

Midnight: On again with Tom Kahm in San Francisco. He's an ex-cop, and
he agrees with me on everything except the War on Drugs. Even there,
however, he isn't obsessed with the topic, he respects my viewpoint,
and we don't get stuck on the one issue. Most of the time we talk about
repealing the income tax, privatizing Social Security, and other hot
issues.

Memphis, Saturday, January 20

7:35am: When do we get to sleep around here? I am up for another radio
show by telephone -- this one with economist Murray Sabrin in New
Jersey. Murray is a libertarian (and maybe a Libertarian) and very
supportive. But doesn't he know it's Un-Libertarian and a sacrilege to
the Party of Principle to get up so early on Saturday?.

1pm: A half-hour meeting with Howard Phillips, head of the Taxpayers
Party. He worked in the Nixon administration and quit when he realized
that no one in the upper echelons cared about the issues; their only
concern was reelection. Howard is a friendly, likable man -- more
libertarian than conservative. He is rabidly anti-politician and thinks
conservative politicians deceive their supporters: "The conservative
leaders say the right things, pat people on the head, hand them a
six-pack, and then sell them down the river." We discuss our common
interests and identify our few disagreements on principles. We agree to
look for ways to further our common goals.

>From here, we head for Vermont, New Hampshire, New York, and Washington. . . .

-- 
Harry Browne for President - http://www.HarryBrowne96.org/
4094 Majestic Lane, Suite 240, Fairfax, VA 22033



% ====== Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) ======
% Received: from mail11.digital.com by us1rmc.bb.dec.com (5.65/rmc-22feb94) id AA24455; Sat, 27 Jan 96 20:26:18 -050
% Received: from nic.iii.net by mail11.digital.com (5.65v3.2/1.0/WV) id AA29080; Sat, 27 Jan 1996 20:16:56 -050
% Received: from knot.iii.net (knot.iii.net [199.232.40.135]) by nic.iii.net (8.6.8/8.6.6) with SMTP id UAA13769 for <keller@cuptay.enet.dec.com>; Sat, 27 Jan 1996 20:15:36 -0500
% Message-Id: <310ACE85.3245@knot.iii.net>
% Date: Sat, 27 Jan 1996 20:16:53 -0500
% From: Geoff Keller <gkeller@knot.iii.net>
% X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0b5 (Win95; I)
% Mime-Version: 1.0
% To: Geoff Keller <cuptay::keller>
% Subject: [Fwd: on the campaign trail]
% Content-Type: message/rfc822
% Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
% Content-Disposition: inline
    

Received: from hustle.rahul.net (hustle.rahul.net [192.160.13.2]) by nic.iii.net (8.6.8/8.6.6) with SMTP id FAA26280 for <gkeller@knot.iii.net>; Fri, 2 Feb 1996 05:31:26 -0500
Received: by hustle.rahul.net with UUCP id AA28120
  (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for gkeller@knot.iii.net); Fri, 2 Feb 1996 02:28:41 -0800
Received: by dehnbase.fidonet.org (mailout1.26); Fri, 2 Feb 96 02:20:34 PST
X-UIDL: 823286523.002
Date: Fri, 02 Feb 96 02:11:01 PST
Message-Id: <28912.3111E571.ann@HarryBrowne96.org>
From: CampaignNews@HarryBrowne96.org
Subject: On the Campaign Trail
Sender: announce-request@HarryBrowne96.org
Reply-To: campaign@HarryBrowne96.org
To: announce@HarryBrowne96.org (Harry Browne for President announcements)
X-Mailer: mailout v1.26 released with lsendfix 1.5d
Status: U
X-Mozilla-Status: 0001


                 On the Campaign Trail with Harry Browne

Vermont, Sunday, January 21

4pm: We fly into Burlington, after leaving Memphis early in the morning
and changing planes in Philadelphia. This is the 32rd state (+ D.C.)
we've campaigned in -- and, for the first time in 17 months, our
luggage doesn't arrive with us. We're picked up by Lynn Fife and Peter
Baker, who drive Pamela, Rob Martin, and me through the snow to
Randolph for the Vermont LP convention.

5:30pm: Because the plane was late, we arrive an hour late at the
convention . My speech is the last item on the agenda, and everyone is
waiting patiently at Lupine's restaurant (which Scott & Amy Berkey have
opened today solely for the convention). We get a very warm welcome.
The speech is well received, and we all sit down to dinner. Many people
tell me what a good job Ken Lindell has done in bringing the Vermont LP
back to life after it faded a few years back. Afterward, Peter Baker
drives us 2-1/2 hours through a snow storm to Nashua, New Hampshire.
Our bags finally catch up with us at midnight, so I don't have to shave
with a knife in the morning.

Nashua, New Hampshire, Monday, January 22

1pm: I speak at the Nashua Rotary Club, arranged by Don Sommese. I
think it's my best speech so far, but I'm asking a lot to have these
rock-ribbed Republicans turn away from their lifetime party. I ask how
many want more government, and three gentlemen raise their hands; all
the rest vote for smaller government. I push hard on the point that the
Republicans have shown they have no intention or plan to bring that
about, despite what they say. If we really want things to change, we
have to look elsewhere.

New York, Monday, January 22

10pm: I'm on the NewsTalk national cable TV network with Patrick
Halpern. Call-ins are supportive and the show goes well.

New York, Tuesday-Wednesday, January 23-24

I watch President Clinton's State of the Union speech and write a press
release that will go out to 2,100 news organizations tomorrow morning.
I mention that the President said, "The era of big government is over,"
and then he spent an hour describing bigger and bigger government as
far as the eye can see.

I have a couple of days "off" -- to catch up on correspondence and
other administrative work. I get a chance to read the campaign mail. So
many wonderful letters. I wish it were possible to reply to each one
personally, because I appreciate the kind words and the information,
and I want the writers to know how much it means.

I'm impressed by the inventiveness and initiative of people everywhere
-- writing letters to the editor, calling into talk shows, arranging
displays, donating copies of the campaign book to libraries, sending
books and writing letters to influential leaders of organizations to
acquaint them with the campaign.

Obviously, not all these efforts succeed. But that's the nature of any
enterprise, and it's wonderful to see how many efforts do succeed. I am
very fortunate to be doing this; I've had a very interesting life, but
this is by far the most exciting thing I've ever done. And I'm a lucky
person to be associated with so many dedicated people who want to see a
freer country.

New York, Thursday, January 25

I tape the Phil Donahue show with four other "lesser known" candidates
(probably to air the week of February 5 or the following week).
Multi-guest shows are difficult. You have to pick your shots carefully
-- speak only to the most important issues; otherwise, you risk being a
butt-in pest. I focus on the income tax. The audience is probably lower
middle class, and yet they applaud enthusiastically when I propose
repealing the income tax and replacing it with nothing. Phil Donahue
says to me, "You folks want to repeal all the drug laws," and when I
say nothing would be more effective in reducing crime, the audience
again applauds spontaneously.

I also get a chance to present my Social Security plan and to point out
that, unlike the other candidates, I'll be in the race through November
-- trying to win or at least change the national debate to the question
of how fast we can reduce government. On the whole, the show is
worthwhile, but I can't help envying my appearance on the Donahue show
in 1973 -- when I had an hour as the only guest. But the campaign is
young; opportunities like that will come soon enough.

Washington, D.C., Friday, January 26

I'm on the Chuck Harder radio/TV show. It goes out live to several
hundred radio stations, and is videotaped for syndicated distribution
to a number of TV stations. He's in Florida; I'm in Washington in a
small office, staring into a TV camera; and his listeners are all over
the country. He's a good host, but he's obsessed with the idea that
foreign competition is stealing American jobs. I point out that
American companies competed successfully against low-wage countries
until U.S. regulation became too oppressive to overcome. I don't win
him over completely, of course, but I do manage to get on to a number
of more important subjects -- and I feel very good about what is
accomplished.

Other Thoughts

The demographic statistics indicate we're reaching about 300,000 new
people every week with talk radio. We hope to raise the money to step
up the bookings -- to get the total up to a million a week. It's a
wonderful medium. Imagine, having an hour to talk to people in some
detail about our ideas. Americans no longer get all their news and
viewpoints from Walter Cronkite; today, they learn from talk radio,
computer networks, newsletters, and other sources that are our natural
allies.

Now Pamela and I head for home -- for four days of talk radio, phone
calls to raise money and enlist support, articles I need to write, and
an on-line Q&A "conference" on America Online, sponsored by
Congressional Quarterly magazine.

It seems a long way to November, but time is passing too rapidly. It's
not just a race against other candidates and parties, it's a race
against time: Will we be able to do enough, soon enough?
          
-- 
Harry Browne for President - http://www.HarryBrowne96.org/
4094 Majestic Lane, Suite 240, Fairfax, VA 22033



% ====== Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) ======
% Received: from mail11.digital.com by us1rmc.bb.dec.com (5.65/rmc-22feb94) id AA21422; Fri, 2 Feb 96 14:40:17 -050
% Received: from nic.iii.net by mail11.digital.com (5.65v3.2/1.0/WV) id AA06799; Fri, 2 Feb 1996 14:17:25 -050
% Received: from knot.iii.net (knot.iii.net [199.232.40.135]) by nic.iii.net (8.6.8/8.6.6) with SMTP id OAA22905 for <keller@cuptay.enet.dec.com>; Fri, 2 Feb 1996 14:16:06 -0500
% Message-Id: <3112633D.7D29@knot.iii.net>
% Date: Fri, 02 Feb 1996 14:17:17 -0500
% From: Geoff Keller <gkeller@knot.iii.net>
% X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0b5 (Win95; I)
% Mime-Version: 1.0
% To: Geoff Keller <cuptay::keller>
% Subject: On the campaign trail 2/2/96
% Content-Type: message/rfc822
% Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
% Content-Disposition: inline
    

Received: from hustle.rahul.net (hustle.rahul.net [192.160.13.2]) by nic.iii.net (8.6.8/8.6.6) with SMTP id WAA18334 for <gkeller@knot.iii.net>; Tue, 6 Feb 1996 22:22:26 -0500
Received: by hustle.rahul.net with UUCP id AA00172
  (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for gkeller@knot.iii.net); Tue, 6 Feb 1996 19:03:53 -0800
Received: by dehnbase.fidonet.org (mailout1.26); Tue, 6 Feb 96 18:54:30 PST
X-UIDL: 823730100.000
Date: Tue, 06 Feb 96 18:50:15 PST
Message-Id: <29512.31181466.ann@HarryBrowne96.org>
From: CampaignNews@HarryBrowne96.org
Subject: Internet Campaign News #3
Sender: announce-request@HarryBrowne96.org
Reply-To: campaign@HarryBrowne96.org
To: announce@HarryBrowne96.org (Harry Browne for President announcements)
X-Mailer: mailout v1.26 released with lsendfix 1.5d
Status: U
X-Mozilla-Status: 0001


*******************  HARRY BROWNE FOR PRESIDENT  *******************

                       INTERNET CAMPAIGN NEWS

                       Issue #3        2/6/96
********************************************************************
          An electronic newsletter published periodically
        by the Harry Browne for President Campaign Committee



     IN THIS ISSUE OF ICN:
      o CAMPAIGN WWW SITE TO JOIN INTERNET CENSORSHIP PROTEST
      o BROWNE AMONG LEADERS IN ONLINE POLLS
      o E-MAIL ANNOUNCEMENTS NOW REACHING OVER 1,000 SUBSCRIBERS
      o CYBERLETTERS
      o HOW YOU CAN CONTRIBUTE TO THE CAMPAIGN


_____________________________________________________
CAMPAIGN WWW SITE TO JOIN INTERNET CENSORSHIP PROTEST

The Harry Browne for President WWW site will be "turned black" for 48
hours as part of a demonstration against legislation passed by Congress
last week which will impose new restrictions on Internet content. The
48-hour period will begin when President Clinton signs the legislation,
currently expected to be some time on Thursday, February 8th.  This
action is being coordinated by Voters Telecommunications Watch on
behalf of the Coalition to Stop Net Censorship, of which the
Libertarian Party is a member.

To find out more about this legislation and for information on how your
WWW site can join in this demonstration, see the page at
"http://www.vtw.org/speech/".

____________________________________
BROWNE AMONG LEADERS IN ONLINE POLLS

Harry Browne's name has been appearing at or near the top of the list
in several online polls recently.  In the just-completed "Survey Net
Presidential Poll #2", Browne received the highest number of votes,
with Republican Phil Gramm a very close second.  In the "RTIS
Cyberpoll", which was restarted two weeks ago and in which voting
continues, Browne is now in 4th place.  And in the "Stardot Strawpoll",
which restarts each month, the January totals showed Browne once again
leading all other candidates by a wide margin.

These polls are, of course, not "scientific", but taken together they
demonstrate an awareness of the Harry Browne campaign on the Net that
goes far beyond that of any other third party candidate.

The leading vote-getters in the polls mentioned:

   Survey Net #2         RTIS Cyberpoll        Stardot Strawpoll
   (ended Feb. 5)        (as of Feb. 6)         (month of Jan.)

    BROWNE  22.5%        Gramm    21.9%         BROWNE   30.4%
    Gramm   21.2%        Buchanan 18.7%         Keyes    12.9%
    Clinton 12.2%        Forbes   17.4%         Forbes   10.5%
    Keyes   11.9%        BROWNE   11.2%         Clinton  10.0%
    Powell   7.2%        Clinton  10.6%         Buchanan  9.1%

Note: Even though Survey Net Poll #2 is over, you can still cast your
vote for Harry Browne -- "Poll #3" started today.  Links to this and to
the RTIS and Stardot polls can be found on the Harry Browne WWW site.

________________________________________________________
E-MAIL ANNOUNCEMENTS NOW REACHING OVER 1,000 SUBSCRIBERS

As of the end of January, the number of subscribers to the Harry Browne
for President announcement mailing list (announce@HarryBrowne96.org)
had passed 1000.   The more supporters we can reach with this list, the
faster we can get campaign news out and take advantage quickly of
opportunities that arise during the campaign.

If you know somebody who would like to keep up with the campaign and
has an e-mail address, please let them know about this list and suggest
that they subscribe.  Subscribing is easy:  just send a message to
"announce-request@HarryBrowne96.org" with the word "subscribe" in the
subject line.

_______________________________________________________
CYBERLETTERS TO THE HARRY BROWNE FOR PRESIDENT CAMPAIGN

Following is a sampling of messages we've received recently from our 
online subscribers.  If you have a comment, please send it to:
<cyberletters@HarryBrowne96.org>. Please note that we cannot publish 
all comments received, and that your letter may be edited for reasons 
of length or clarity.


FEEDBACK ON HARRY BROWNE'S FIRST 'ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL' POSTING:

***
This e-mail you sent gave a more "human" face to a Presidential Candidate
than I have ever read, seen, or heard. Please, please, please, continue
writing and sending this journal to me and anyone with a checkbook. 
        YOU WORK and WE'LL PAY.
        I have already bought 6 copies of your book and passed them around.
I have donated and will again. And I'll even renew my LP membership early
like they want to help build the ballot access fund. I'm not rich or I'd
do more.
        Keep up the GOOD fight.  Wishing you peace love and freedom . . . .
        -- Scott A. Wilson

***
I love your comments, Harry. Keep the faith!!!!
     -- James King

***
I thoroughly enjoyed reading your latest CampaignNews item, especially 
since you actually wrote it yourself (neat!).
        I want you to know that I received my copy of "Why Government
Doesn't Work" (thank you so much for autographing it--I'll treasure it),
and thought it was terrific. I ordered five more copies from Barnes & Noble
here in Colorado Springs and am passing them on to people who I think might
be receptive.
        Please have your finance folks send me another pledge form--I want
to send another check. 
        You're the best thing to happen to this country in many years.  Good
luck!
        -- Leah Cadore

***
This is a great feature;  please continue!
        -- F. Wilson Myers



AND HERE ARE SOME RECENT COMMENTS ON HARRY'S BOOK . . . .

***
I purchased "Why Government Doesn't Work" yesterday and finished it
today. It has one great weakness: it makes too much sense; it is based
on provable fact. 
        In a society of daytime Oprah/Geraldo/Phil/Sally, sitcom and 
game show addicts, it may fail in its mission. Of course, such shows 
are a product of the marketplace and that represents the very problem 
with America in the first place.
        Good luck in your bid for the presidency! Although I have long 
held your views, it never dawned on me until reading your book just how
IDENTICAL the democrats and republicans are. Democrats say, "We shall
gain 650 pounds!" Republicans say, "No! We must cut! Cut! Cut! We shall
gain only 500 pounds!"
        Neither Democrats nor Republicans believe that I am truly smart
enough to make decisions for myself and my family. This hurts, Harry.
However, unlike many hurtful things, this belief, shared by the Big Two,
is extremely dangerous to OUR FREEDOM. Bob Dole, my Kansas senator,
doesn't have a clue, I'm afraid. Newt does have a clue. But, I wonder
to what degree his understanding extends beyond the clue stage?
        -- Bill Chennault

***
I recently read your book "Why Government Doesn't Work" and I think 
it's fantastic!
        -- Joel Cannon

***
Congratulations on an excellent campaign and a fine book by Mr. Browne.
        -- Emily Salvette, State Chair, Libertarian Party of Michigan

***
In case you weren't aware, Netscape has included a link to "Why 
Government Doesn't Work" in its "What's New" button on its title page.
Also, I'm seeing the book show up in better locations in local bookstores.
At first it was hidden in the general storage area in "History" in one 
example. Now I'm finding it out in the "New Books" sections.
        -- Robert Creager

***
I read your book and support almost everything in it.  Especially when
you said that the Libertarian Party stand for principles, not people;
which means that Libertarians will not support a policy just because
it is POPULAR.  It is these principles that will keep government small 
and confined to the limits of the constitution.
        Finally there is a candidate that stands for what I have been
saying for years, only I worded it: "Government is not efficient".
        Thanks for your time and I support you.
        -- Matthew J. Stropes

***
I enjoyed reading "Why Government Doesn't Work" and have bought some 
copies for friends, including a Republican one who is running for the 
first time for state representative.  I look forward to hearing more 
from the campaign in national media. Momentum does seem to be in our 
favor, and it is good to have a presentable candidate.
        -- Dave Conatser


AND HERE ARE SOME GENERAL COMMENTS:


***
I just thought I'd let you know I saw your Web page and was impressed 
with the viewpoint you express.  I liked it so much I've put in a link 
on my Web server to your home page. Good luck with your campaign!     
        -- Tim Adams

***
You're lookin' good, Mr. Browne!  Looking forward to reading your book.    
        -- Donald M. Cook

***
I am an average citizen that happens to be well known in my community. 
I have never read anything about libertarian beliefs before (seeing your)
home page, but I have been a libertarian all my life and didn't even know
it. 
        I can bring you votes in this area and I will. Keep me posted and
I will do the same. I will start a Web campaign in Southern Illinois for 
you right now.
        -- John Scrivner

***
Hey Harry . . . good luck on your bid. If you're on the November Florida
ballot, I'll be sure to vote for you.
        -- Johnny Teixido, Jr.

***
Harry you have my vote for president.  I read your article and it
was excellent.  God is with you.  You can do it.
        -- Roberta A. Earll

***
I found your WWW site and profile on Project VoteSmart.  I have voted for 
you in all the online polls I have found.  Congrats on having MSN feature 
your name so prominently in their political forum!
        Good luck in the campaign, and if I don't see you on your swing 
through Utah perhaps I will see you in Washington, D.C.
        -- Rob Latham, State Legal Counsel for the Libertarian Party of Utah



AND HERE'S ONE FINAL INTRIGUING MESSAGE that came to us just before 
Christmas . . . and we really didn't know quite what to do with it (ah, 
the wonders and joys of campaigning!).  
        Does this mean that Santa is a closet Libertarian . . . ?

***
Congratulations!  Your web site will be the SantaClaus.com site of the 
day for 12/22/95.  The page is located at <http://www.santaclaus.com> 
and usually can be counted on to generate many thousands---or tens 
of thousands---of hits per day.  :-)
        After its spotlight presentation on the date above, your site 
will be permanently listed in Santa's archives, which generate a
steady but lower level of hits.  If you'd like to create a backlink 
(Santa would be grateful!), or to tell the rest of your audience 
about being selected as the Santa Site of the Day, please feel free 
to do so.  Again, congratulations on having such a nice site and 
doing such good work!  Hope you get a ton of new visitors!
-- Happy Holidays, Santa, Mrs. Claus, the reindeer, and Santa's Elves
        Elves@santaclaus.com  -- for an elf
        santa@santaclaus.com  -- for a reply from Santa in English
        papanoel@santaclaus.com -- for a reply from Santa in Spanish
        perenoel@santaclaus.com -- for a reply from Santa in French

<INFORMATION ABOUT CONTRIBUTIONS REMOVED>

THE HARRY BROWNE FOR PRESIDENT INTERNET CAMPAIGN NEWS 

. . . is published periodically by the Harry Browne for President 
Committee and distributed to his friends and supporters across 
the United States and around the world via the Internet.  

Permission is hereby granted to re-post any information contained 
herein as long as attribution is given to The Harry Browne for 
President Internet Campaign News along with subscription information.

TO SUBSCRIBE, send e-mail to: <announce-request@HarryBrowne96.org>,
with only the word "subscribe" in the subject line. To cancel 
a subscription, send e-mail to: <announce-request@HarryBrowne96.org>,
with only the word "unsubscribe" in the subject line.

*************************************************************************
Harry Browne for President  | email> Campaign@HarryBrowne96.org
4094 Majestic Lane          | voice> (714) 437-7911 / fax> (714) 432-1468
Suite 240                   | url>   http://www.HarryBrowne96.org/
Fairfax, Virginia 22033     | anon. ftp at /pub/browne on ftp.rahul.net
*************************************************************************
       Paid for by the Harry Browne for President Committee, Inc.




% ====== Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) ======
% Received: from mail11.digital.com by us1rmc.bb.dec.com (5.65/rmc-22feb94) id AA10741; Wed, 7 Feb 96 17:14:29 -050
% Received: from nic.iii.net by mail11.digital.com (5.65v3.2/1.0/WV) id AA26486; Wed, 7 Feb 1996 17:03:06 -050
% Received: from knot.iii.net (knot.iii.net [199.232.40.135]) by nic.iii.net (8.6.8/8.6.6) with SMTP id RAA12492 for <keller@cuptay.enet.dec.com>; Wed, 7 Feb 1996 17:01:42 -0500
% Message-Id: <31192191.7920@knot.iii.net>
% Date: Wed, 07 Feb 1996 17:02:57 -0500
% From: Geoff Keller <gkeller@knot.iii.net>
% X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0b6a (Win95; I)
% Mime-Version: 1.0
% To: Geoff Keller <cuptay::keller>
% Subject: [Fwd: Internet Campaign News #3]
% Content-Type: message/rfc822
% Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
% Content-Disposition: inline
    

Received: from hustle.rahul.net (hustle.rahul.net [192.160.13.2]) by nic.iii.net (8.6.8/8.6.6) with SMTP id RAA00762 for <gkeller@knot.iii.net>; Mon, 29 Jan 1996 17:56:09 -0500
Received: by hustle.rahul.net with UUCP id AA19496
  (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for gkeller@knot.iii.net); Mon, 29 Jan 1996 14:54:31 -0800
Received: by dehnbase.fidonet.org (mailout1.26); Mon, 29 Jan 96 14:19:57 PST
X-UIDL: 823014354.000
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 96 14:09:33 PST
Message-Id: <28513.310D480D.ann@HarryBrowne96.org>
From: CampaignNews@HarryBrowne96.org
Subject: Phil Donahue show
Sender: announce-request@HarryBrowne96.org
Reply-To: campaign@HarryBrowne96.org
To: announce@HarryBrowne96.org (Harry Browne for President announcements)
X-Mailer: mailout v1.26 released with lsendfix 1.5d
Status: U
X-Mozilla-Status: 0001


   HARRY BROWNE BECOMES THE FIRST LIBERTARIAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE
                EVER TO APPEAR ON THE PHIL DONAHUE SHOW  

Last Thursday, Phil Donahue taped an interview with Harry Browne about
his Libertarian Presidential campaign.

This Phil Donahue show featured `Dark Horse' Presidential candidates.
The tone was thoughtful and respectful.

Donahue quizzed Harry Browne about his Libertarian Presidential
Campaign, the Libertarian philosophy, and WHY GOVERNMENT DOESN'T WORK.

"I was able to talk about our main campaign themes and our Libertarian
principles," said Browne. "Although Phil Donahue is a liberal, his
studio audience applauded our Libertarian Message."

The Phil Donahue show has 2,300,000 viewers. This is the Donahue show's
29th year -- and its final season.

The Harry Browne Campaign does NOT know the date this videotaped
Donahue will be broadcast. The Donahue staff said that it should air in
the first half of February.

Browne campaign liason Ms. Terry Bronson is in touch with the Donahue
show. The Harry Browne Libertarian Presidential Campaign will post
the show's broadcast date as soon as it's announced.

-- 
Harry Browne for President - http://www.HarryBrowne96.org/
4094 Majestic Lane, Suite 240, Fairfax, VA 22033



% ====== Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) ======
% Received: from mail11.digital.com by us1rmc.bb.dec.com (5.65/rmc-22feb94) id AA06948; Wed, 31 Jan 96 07:55:03 -050
% Received: from nic.iii.net by mail11.digital.com (5.65v3.2/1.0/WV) id AA17353; Wed, 31 Jan 1996 07:48:32 -050
% Received: from knot.iii.net (knot.iii.net [199.232.40.135]) by nic.iii.net (8.6.8/8.6.6) with SMTP id HAA09947 for <keller@cuptay.enet.dec.com>; Wed, 31 Jan 1996 07:47:15 -0500
% Message-Id: <310F6519.2F47@knot.iii.net>
% Date: Wed, 31 Jan 1996 07:48:25 -0500
% From: Geoff Keller <gkeller@knot.iii.net>
% X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0b5 (Win95; I)
% Mime-Version: 1.0
% To: Geoff Keller <cuptay::keller>
% Subject: Harry Browne on Phil Donahue
% Content-Type: message/rfc822
% Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
% Content-Disposition: inline
    

Has Harry mentioned what percentage of the popular vote he realistically
expects to receive in November?

    
    
    I don't know, Jack, but it would be nice if this guy caught fire and
    got the attention he deserves.  I think if the ideas were put forth, he
    would become very appealing for many.
    
    
    Mike

      He blows away anyone I have seen.
    
      Imo, anyone against Harry Brown (for his ideologies) is against
      Constitutional government and is a flaming socialist.
    
      I really wish these socialists would be candid enough to 
      acknowledge that they are all for repudiation of the Constitution
      in favor of the adoption of Marxist principles.
    
    							Tony

See 641.

>    I don't know, Jack, but it would be nice if this guy caught fire and
>    got the attention he deserves.

If he caught fire, he'd probably get the attention of the fire department.

 Kinda like those people who spontaneously combust?

> but it would be nice if 

I agree totally.

Now, what are the odds of that happening?

    Browne would be a good choice for Pres., IMO.  Unfortunately, he's got
    a snowball's chance in hell of winning (and this is a damn shame, too).
    
    Let me make a prediction, based on how I perceive reality in American
    politics today.  Browne will be given *some* media attention (like
    the Donahue show), but not enough to do more than take enough votes
    away from the GOP to put Clinton back in the white house.  I expect to 
    see him more and more before the election, espousing his views strongly.  
    Then, before the election, he will be demonized as a radical who wants to 
    destroy government and toss welfare recipients/elderly out into the 
    streets (don't get me wrong, he will be demonized all along, just not
    much until the election draws closer). 
    
    Let's face it.  The big two (one) party system is only two sides of the
    same coin.  NO ONE from EITHER side will do anything other than give
    lip service to streamlining government back to an appropriate side (and
    those who actually try have a tough road to hoe, and are likely to quit
    Congress in aggrivation).
    
    I think Browne would really try to shrink government down to size. 
    Problem is, so do those who have a vested interest in big government. 
    Another problem is that those who like big government are in power (why
    do you think there is no balanced budget amendment?  lip service abouds
    from both sides of the isle, but no amendment).
    
    Browne is finished before he starts, simply because most people fall
    within one or more of the following categories:
    
    * apathetic- they don't bother with politics
    * lazy- they believe what the media tells them and vote accordingly
      without checking into anything
    * party line - they will vote for their party regardless of what the
      stands for and has shown by his actions
    * ignorant - a) have no idea of what our current indebtedness means,
      nor to whom we actually owe this money and why 
    	         b) are unlearned regarding the Constitution, and get their
      "knowledge" of it from the news
    
    
    The only way for someone like Browne to be elected is if folks woke up
    to the current realities in the political, financial, and legislative
    arenas (and become learned in the Constitution).  I do not see this 
    happening to any degree that would make Browne's chances of winning a real
    possibility.  
    
    The party lines are already drawn- Repub or Dem, two sides of the same 
    coin, yet always pitted against each other to keep the masses minds'
    occupied away from anything else.  Each will continue business as usual
    (the Freshman critters have found out how little power they actually
    have), and the few who actually try to do anything will be stifled by
    those holding the power.
    
    I wish Browne had an honest chance of winning.  My prediction is that
    he will get on the ballot, but will only take votes away from the GOP. 
    Clinton will get re-elected, and will finish what he has intended all
    along- bankrupting this nation (sorry, but this was my original opinion
    of his politics, which I hoped would have been wrong...he has done
    nothing yet to convince me that this is not his intent).  
    
    FWIW, I believe the current peak on Wall Street is an illusion that 
    cannot sustain itself under current economic realities.  It favors
    Clinton, as folks will see the ever-increasing highs and will credit
    the standing Pres. with what most equate with a healthy economy. 
    
    Trouble is, our economy is nowhere near healthy, leading me to believe 
    that the Dow is artificially high.  If/when the market goes this time, it 
    will make the Great Depression look like a cake walk.  It will also usher 
    in some interesting new policies, I'm sure.  I imagine that the insiders
    are already positioned to make a killing, while Joe investor loses
    everything.  I don't expect this within the next 4 years, but if
    nothing changes on the economic and political scene, it WILL
    happen...sooner or later.  The debt WILL catch up to us (it already
    costs us over $200 billion/year to finance, so don't think we are
    getting by today without any bad side-effects).
    
    
    
    -steve 

    You don't seem to have a category for smart, well educated, travelled
    polically savvy, intelligent people who still vote democrat.  I seem
    to meet a lot of Americans like this every day.  Oversight?
    

    
    
    >Oversight?
    
    Oxymoron
    

    re: .15
    
    Why do you bring up Democrats?  Party affiliation makes no difference. 
    What matters is what that person stands for, and how thier views line
    up with the law of the land (the Constitution).
    
    If you are ignorant on Constitutional basics, it is easy to vote in
    socialist Dims or Gops whether you are politically savvy or not-
    educated or not.  Therefore, I think I've covered the basics in my
    categories when I included 'constitutional ignorance'.
    
    
    -steve

    Yeah, yeah, here we go again.  Any alternative interpretation to yours
    is ignorance.  The law of the land is not *equal* to the constitution.
    Even an ignorant furriner like me has read your constitution and the
    viewpoints of various jurists.  
    
    Being able to draw one's own conclusions on the matter does not equate
    to ignorance.  Except in a monochrome world.
    
    
     

    
      No Libertarian has ever gotten 1% of the presidential vote, nor
     will any Libertarian do that well this year.  For example, here in
     Massachusetts in 1988, it was 1,401,415 Democratic, 1,194,635
     Republican, 24,251 Libertarian.  They do slightly better on a
     percentage basis in Live-Free-Or-Die.  In 1988, NH went Republican
     281,537, Democratic 163,696, Libertarian 4,502.  No Libertarian
     ever won an electoral vote.  No Libertarian ever got enough votes
     to have been a theoretical spoiler, as Perot did last time.  As a
     practical matter, Libertarianism remains a very long term project
     even to its most fervent devotees.
    
      bb

    re:  .18
    
    No, any alternative interpretation that contradicts the original
    documnet is WRONG, pure and simple.  Unfortunately, our public schools
    don't seem to bother educating our youth on the Constitutional basics,
    nor the historical writings that back up original intent (and why it
    was written this way).
    
    It matters not who makes a new interpretation, it is still wrong-
    whether it is me, you or the Supreme Court.  The only effective way to
    run this nation, without variable rights and such that change with
    current politics/opinions, is to know the original intent and follow
    it.  Your varying interpretations scenario doesn't work, and can't
    work, because there is no basis in which to conform government and/or
    rights.  You end up grasping at straws (like we are today).
    
    But let's try and stick to the topic, eh?  If you want to argue the
    Constitution with me, let's take it to another topic.  
    
    
    -steve

    re: .19
    
    Maybe not a factor yet, but it could happen.  If he gets enough
    attention in the media, he could be a small political force- simply
    because his message will appeal to many Americans.  He makes sense.
    
    Browne's only problem is that he is an unknown to most Americans.
    
    
    -steve

    Ah well, suffice it to say that I'm eternally grateful for the blissful
    "ignorance" of the masses.

>    Browne's only problem is that he is an unknown to most Americans.

Then he should have done like a lot of other unknowns who aren't particularly
political, and cast his hat into the ring as a Republican candidate.

Half of the idiots trying to get the GOP nomination this year aren't
particularly Republican by nature. Thankfully, though, they've had the
good sense not to try to pull the Perot 3rd-party politico-gaffe. They
could just as well be Libertarians. Likewise, Browne could just as well
run as a Repub.

    The Libertarian party needs to make end roads locally before trying to
    put a WH contender in there.

   .24 or some cul-de-sacs.

    re: .22
    
    That comes as no surprise to me...

>    You don't seem to have a category for smart, well educated, travelled
>    polically savvy, intelligent people who still vote democrat.

I know a couple of well educated, travelled, intelligent people, to whom I
wouldn't apply the rest, who vote party line politically correct Democrat. I
wouldn't call people who swallow everything they see on TV particularly smart
or politically savvy.
    
I'm speaking of specific people here, so no junk about generalizing.

We also need a catagory for well educated, intelligent people who pick a
single issue that's, shall we say, not exactly shaking the foundations of our
republic, and vote for those who would implement their own little vision of
utopia, regardless of the horrible effects this might have on every other
aspect of our government and lives.

    Yep, I'm sure you'd like everyone in their little compartment.  After
    all, any opposing thought must be indentified and classified.  Carry
    on.

Seems like you missed the obvious category of those who are just educated and
savvy enough to know who best represents their own particular special interest
and vote for their respective free ride. This is a large group, IMO.

Then, at least this year, there's the category that only have one concern in
mind.

    ><<< Note 644.19 by GAAS::BRAUCHER "Welcome to Paradise" >>>
    >                               -< not a factor >-
    > 
    >No Libertarian has ever gotten 1% of the presidential vote, nor
    >will any Libertarian do that well this year.  
    
    This may be true and it may not be.  I think that alot of people are
    starting to wake up to the fact that there is absolutely not difference
    between the Democians and the Republicrats.
    
    In 1992 there was a "major" message sent to Washington (supposedly)
    when the house and the senate became controlled by the republicans. 
    They have had two years to make changes and while there have been some
    baby steps made there is nothing that is earth shaking enough to make
    the general populous stand up and say "By heaven the Republicans saved
    us from the socoialist evils".  Granted, two years isn't a very long
    time but in these days of 3 minute MTV super glitz and 30 second
    election sound bites two years is an eternity.
    
    We haven't heard much from Mr. Browne yet but he is getting some
    background publicity.  He is speaking on radio talk shows accross the
    nation (in fact he will be on the David Brudnoy show tonight on WBZ
    1030 AM in Boston) and his book sales are doing well and are growing.
    He has said and I completely agree that it would be utterly useless to
    spend lots of advertising dollars so early in the election season. 
    Everything spent would be useless because all eyes are on the
    Republican primary.  Mr. Browne's campaign is biding their time and
    planning to do the "media blitz" when it will be the most effective.
    
    He already has a commitment to appear in three of the nationally
    televised presidential debates taking place later this year.  If I'm
    not mistaken this has never happened before.
    
    On a final note (for now), I would like to suggest that if you live in
    Massachusetts ( or any other state where they have the "unenrolled"
    voter) and are an unenrolled/independent voter and you really
    want to send a message during the primary pick up a Libertarian ballot
    on March 5th and vote libertarian in the primary.  Also if you are a
    member of the libertarian party please be sure to vote on March 5th for
    the libertarian candidate of your choosing.
    
    --Geoff 

All that being said, the BEST that can possibly happen for Browne and
the Libertarian party this year is that they may grab an insufficient
percentage of the vote that should go to the Republican candidate
(ala Perot in '92).

The primary need, come November, for anyone disagreeing with the Slick
ideology, is to remove him from the White House permanently, regardless
of what other ideals you may espouse and would like to see brought
forth by the candidate of your choice. If Slick is NOT removed from
the White House in Novemeber, none of your concerns regarding any of your
ideals will matter anyway.

The Libertarians have some nice ideas, but not a snowball's chance in hell,
as Steve already noted, of taking the White House this year. If you oppose
Slick, and fail to vote for the Republican nominee this year, regardless
of who he is, Slick will be sure to thank you for your actions, I'm sure.

    >         <<< Note 644.32 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)">>>
    >                -< The goal - get Slick out of the White House >-
    
    
    Unfortunately, it is thoughts like this that make it definite that no
    one besides a repub or a dem will ever be in the whitehouse.
    
    The only way that anyone reasonable (i.e. a good third party candidate)
    has any chance of being elected president is if people stop voting for
    what they perceive to be the lesser of two evils and start voting for who
    they think would actually do the best job in the whitehouse.
    
    I stopped voting for the lesser of two evils years ago and decided I,
    in good conscience, must vote for who I think is best.
    
    --Geoff
    
    P.S. unfortunately this means that nobody I vote for ever gets
    elected:-| 

    I found this while cleaning up my VMS account and thought people might
    be interested in it...
    
> Why I Am Running for President
> by Harry Browne
> 
> For a century and a half, government has grown ever larger and more
> powerful. But the tide may be about to turn. Public opinion is moving
> in a new direction -- toward less government, and toward more freedom
> for each person to control his own life.
> 
> We hear a lot about the widespread anti-Clinton, anti-Congress, and
> anti-Washington feelings. But I believe the underlying sentiment is
> simply anti-government. The complaint isn't against the way things are
> being done or the politicians who are doing them. The issue is
> government itself. Government doesn't work.
> 
> If you ask people -- store clerks, barbers, taxi drivers, anyone --
> whether they want more government, less govenment, or what we have now
> -- at least 7 out of 10 will say they want less. Their reasons and
> hopes may be different from ours in some ways, but they want to move
> in the same direction.
> 
> WHY THE TIDE IS TURNING
> 
> The desire for less government isn't a passing fad -- prompted by
> revelations of Bill Clinton's philandering or his shady dealings in
> Arkansas -- nor by the Congressional scandals of the past few years.
> Anti-government feeling has been building for a long time. I believe
> two factors have encouraged it.
> 
> One is the educational campaign of the past 20 years or so. The
> Libertarian Party, the Cato Institute, the National Taxpayers Union,
> the Heartland Institute, and hundreds of other organizations have
> pointed out the failures in government programs and explained
> free-market alternatives. Magazines such as Reason and Liberty have
> exposed the many ways in which government isn't working, and much of
> this has been finding its way into the mainstream press. And today
> more libertarian books are published in a single year than were
> published in the entire 1950s and 1960s.
> 
> These educational activities are bearing fruit -- as more Americans
> join the movements toward term limits, school choice, and privatizing
> government services; as voters turn down bond referendums and tax
> increases; as millions of Americans begin to realize that government
> isn't the way to get what they want.
> 
> Another reason for the changing sentiment is that government has
> become too large and oppressive to help one group without visibly
> harming several others. Until recently, the harm was diffuse and easy
> to hide. A government program typically would provide a large benefit
> to a small group of people -- say, a million or so -- while spreading
> most of the cost thinly over 200 million others. The beneficiaries
> would lobby for the special privilege -- while those paying the bill
> barely noticed the program or its cost.
> 
> Now government is so big that it runs into itself coming and going. It
> has reached the point where new programs provide relatively little
> benefit while the costs are conspicuous and the impositions
> intolerable. Health care "reform" is an obvious example. Every
> proposal benefits only a small group, while it jeopardizes existing
> health-care arrangements for tens of millions of Americans who, on the
> whole, want to keep what they have. Not surprisingly, resistance is
> widespread.
> 
> Government has lost the latitude to promise benefits while hiding
> costs. As government has become bigger and further extended, it has
> become more self-evident that it doesn't deliver on any of its
> promises.
> 
> And so the simple statement "Government doesn't work" strikes a
> responsive chord. Ten years ago it required philosophical abstractions
> to explain the problems and dangers of government. Today it's
> necessary only to point to the obvious -- that government can't keep
> the streets safe, can't educate our children, can't deliver on
> anything it promises. Its War on Poverty is a recruitment program for
> welfare. Its War on Drugs fosters gang wars, drive-by shootings, and a
> growing criminal class -- even as drug use continues unabated.
> 
> Most people can see for themselves that government doesn't work.
> 
> Taking Advantage of the Trend
> 
> In short, our time has arrived -- if we take advantage of it.
> 
> We need to provide a campaign on which the rising tide of
> anti-government sentiment can focus -- something to which the average
> person can point and say, "I want that because it will reduce
> government." The political issues in the news -- health care, welfare
> reform, crime control, and the like -- are all framed in ways that
> ignore less-government alternatives. And even "fiscally responsible"
> politicians speak only of "holding the line" on taxes or resisting
> Clinton programs -- never of reducing government.
> 
> A presidential campaign can overcome this. The right candidate could
> be a lightning rod for all the anti-government feelings. He could
> offer a clear-cut choice by standing for less government on every
> political issue. He could refuse to concede the merit in any
> government program, and promise to veto any bill that would increase
> the size and power of the federal government. He could pledge to "just
> say no" to Congress, to force Congress to forgo any new government
> program that couldn't muster a two-thirds majority to override his
> veto. Even more, he could use his veto as leverage to compel Congress
> to reduce or eliminate many taxes and abolish government programs.
> 
> The presidency is the single place where one person can make a
> difference -- where one person can rally all the anti-government
> sentiment, and where one person can actually reverse the direction of
> government.
> 
> THE CANDIDACY
> 
> Over the past two years my wife Pamela and I discussed whether I could
> achieve anything by running for president as the Libertarian Party's
> candidate. On August 14, 1994, I decided to run. This is what I intend
> to accomplish:
> 
> 1. Victory:
>      I want to win the presidency. Of course, this is a long-shot,
>      with odds of perhaps 100 to 1 against. But it isn't impossible.
>      In fact, I wouldn't run if I thought there were no chance of
>      winning. Most people are on our side; the challenge isn't so much
>      to persuade them that our alternative is right as it is to let
>      them know our alternative exists.
> 
> Whether or not I win, I have three other goals.
> 
> 2. Change the political lineup:
>      I want the Libertarian Party to be the third major party, rather
>      than the first minor party. The Democrats will continue to
>      propose new programs to reduce our freedom, and the Republicans
>      will continue to make their wimpy responses. But I want the press
>      to be obligated to report the Libertarian view -- that, whatever
>      the social or political problem, it was caused by government and
>      that only a reduction in government will cure it.
> 3. Change how people think about government:
>      After this campaign, I want millions of Americans to see
>      government in a new light. When a politician says they have a
>      right to some benefit, they'll know immediately that he's
>      planning to take more of their freedom and more of their money --
>      and that the benefits are only a come-on. And I want future
>      political discussions to be over how much government to cut --
>      not whether new programs are needed.
> 4. Have a good time:
>      I want the campaign to be fun and exciting -- for myself and for
>      everyone who joins me. Libertarians are the party of prosperity
>      and joy -- not of sacrifice. So I don't want anyone participating
>      out of duty -- but, rather, because we'll enjoy discussing our
>      ideas for a change, instead of getting bogged down in arguments
>      over whether a new government program should take two pounds of
>      flesh or only one.
> 
> This last objective is important. Collectivist organizations are the
> least efficient way to achieve anything complicated. And it's the
> essence of collectivism to say that "If we all sacrifice for the
> cause, we'll all be better off someday." I want you to participate for
> the joy and satisfaction you will get now -- no matter whether the
> national goals are achieved -- because that's the only way the
> national goals will be achieved.
> 
> One reason for satisfaction is that, at last, we'll be on the
> offensive -- talking about reducing government -- instead of trying to
> head off new government programs. Finally, you'll see someone on TV
> saying the things you've been shouting at your set for the past
> decade. When an interviewer like Larry King says, "Doesn't it bother
> you that America is the only country in the world that doesn't
> guarantee health care for all its citizens?," I will say:
> 
>      Not at all. Apparently it bothers you that America is the
>      most productive country in the world, because you seem to
>      want us to be like less prosperous countries. Let's talk
>      about the ways government has run up the price of medical
>      care and made health insurance unaffordable for so many
>      people, and how reducing government could improve health
>      care and make America even more productive and prosperous .
>      . .
> 
> CAMPAIGN THEMES
> 
> Every campaign theme should strike a responsive chord with the public:
> 
>      Government doesn't work. You know it, I know it, everyone knows
>      it. So I promise to get rid of as much government as practical --
>      to transfer as many of its functions as possible to realistic
>      private agencies that do work -- so you can have your life back,
>      so you can use the money you've earned.
>      Politicians and bureaucrats think they know how to run your life
>      better than you do. They think they can spend your money better
>      than you can. They think they can run your business better than
>      you can. They fail over and over -- but you have to pay the bill.
>      If we don't stop the politicians now, how much more of your money
>      will they take in the next four years? How much bigger will
>      government be at the end of the next presidential term? How many
>      more of your freedoms will they take away?
>      Let's make this a free country again.
> 
> The last theme is an important one:
> 
>      In a free country, the government doesn't go rifling through your
>      bank account looking for evidence with which to hang you;
>      In a free country, the government doesn't keep life-saving
>      medicines off the market for years while bureaucrats pose as your
>      protectors;
>      In a free country, the government doesn't pile costs on the
>      producers and sellers of goods and services -- running up the
>      price of everything we buy;
>      In a free country, the government doesn't load costs and mandates
>      on your employer -- preventing you from getting the raises and
>      benefits you've earned;
>      In a free country, government at all levels doesn't take 45% of
>      national income and parcel it back to us as though we were
>      children.
> 
> The Income Tax
> 
> The income tax should be a key issue in the campaign.
> 
> We must get rid of hundreds of federal programs, but we can't remove
> them one at a time because each program has beneficiaries that will
> fight us. We can overcome that resistance only by combining all the
> spending cuts in a single package that includes the largest tax cut in
> American history. That way most people will save far more in taxes
> than they might give up in lost subsidies.
> 
> The income tax is the biggest single intrusion suffered by the
> American people. It forces every worker to open his records to the
> government, to explain his expenses, to fear conviction for a harmless
> accounting error. It wastes billions of dollars in compliance costs.
> It penalizes savings and creates an enormous drag on the U.S. economy.
> It is totally incompatible with a free society, and we aren't
> libertarians if we ignore it.
> 
> Early in 1995 I will introduce a plan that will reduce the federal
> government to about a third its present size. The plan will include a
> low single, flat-tax rate -- such as 10%. Any employed person can have
> the tax deducted from his paycheck each week, and he won't even have
> to file an income tax return. He will never again have to deal with
> the IRS. But if it's to his advantage, he can choose to file a return
> using today's tax system -- so that no one will be worse off because
> of our program.
> 
> This can be a dramatic issue. Every voter will know that the cost of
> retaining today's federal programs is a bigger, more intrusive income
> tax. Every voter can measure for himself exactly how much he pays each
> week to support the package of programs we intend to eliminate. With
> adequate publicity, the plan can put the Democratic and Republican
> candidates on the defensive -- requiring them to justify making the
> average person pay through the nose to support wasteful programs.
> 
> This is a powerful issue. And it is a big first step leading to the
> eventual abolition of the income tax entirely.
> 
> DIRECTION, NOT DESTINATION
> 
> Each of us has his own idea about how much government is needed or
> justified. But we would all welcome a government only a third the size
> of what we have today.
> 
> And until we accomplish that, it would be foolish to throw away this
> precious opportunity by debating irrelevancies. I doubt that Bill
> Clinton, Al Gore, and George Mitchell argue over the limit at which
> they'll stop adding to the size and power of government. So why should
> we waste our time and strength arguing now about the point at which we
> should stop cutting government? It's not only irrelevant now, it could
> cost us the chance to achieve what we all agree we want.
> 
> Once government is a third of today's size, we can rent the SuperDome
> for six months to argue over how far we want to go from there. Until
> then, let's focus on the direction we want to go -- not the
> destination.
> 
> The Public Will Respond
> 
> If we focus on the direction, and if we keep pointing to the obvious
> -- that government doesn't work -- there's no issue that isn't ours
> for the taking and no question we can't answer. No one should feel
> threatened by our message. We're not taking anything away from people,
> we're just giving back to them their own lives and money.
> 
> Even the most hostile questions will be opportunities to take the
> offensive and tell our story our way. For example, suppose an
> interviewer says, "Libertarians are extremists. I understand you
> people want to do away with the police and the army":
> 
>      Like any group, Libertarians have many different opinions.
>      But none of us wants to live in an unsafe neighborhood or in
>      a country that can be overrun by foreign marauders.
> 
>      Unfortunately, most of us do live in unsafe neighborhoods,
>      because government doesn't deliver on its promises to keep
>      our communities and schools safe. Plus it taxes us to death
>      so that we can't afford to protect ourselves.
> 
>      We need to find better ways. We need to get rid of the
>      welfare programs that breed crime; we need to stop filling
>      up the prisons with non-violent people who pose no threat to
>      society; we have to put an end to the Drug War that makes
>      the drug trade lucrative for criminals, fosters gang
>      violence, and drives addicts to steal to support their
>      habits.
> 
>      Government isn't working -- so, wherever feasible, we need
>      voluntary arrangements that do work, that allow people to
>      choose for themselves how to participate -- replacing
>      government programs that are subverted by political pork and
>      bureaucratic nonsense.
> 
>      The extremists are those who refuse to change the system --
>      who will let innocent people die to protect their political
>      programs.
> 
> "Don't you think the government should protect children from
> pornography?"
> 
>      That's a worthy ideal, but the fact is that government
>      doesn't protect children. For as long as I've been alive,
>      government has had laws against pornography, prostitution,
>      gambling, drug use, and myriad other activities. And yet
>      these activities have thrived. Government doesn't work; it
>      makes big promises, but it never delivers. If you want your
>      child protected from pornography, it's up to you -- the
>      government won't do it for you, with or without a law.
>      Unfortunately, the government subverts family values with
>      welfare programs, with anti-family textbooks, and with an
>      income tax that forces both parents to work. So we need to
>      get rid of the ways in which the government prevents us from
>      raising our children properly.
> 
> "I understand you want to take Social Security away from people."
> 
>      No, I want to make Social Security secure for a change. I
>      want to transfer it to private companies that will guarantee
>      their contracts permanently. Today, every retiree is afraid
>      each year that Congress will take away some of his benefits
>      or destroy the system by overpromising. And every young
>      person must fear another hike in Social Security taxes and
>      the addition of new benefits that could bankrupt the system
>      before he retires. I want to transform the system into one
>      in which everyone knows what he is paying and getting -- and
>      can count on it.
> 
> "Shouldn't government protect us from unsafe products and unscrupulous
> businessmen?"
> 
>      Government doesn't protect us from these things. The savings
>      and loan crisis, every financial scandal, every class-action
>      law suit is a testament to the failure of government
>      regulation.
> 
>      Government's war on drugs, its war on insider traders, its
>      promises to clean up the environment or reduce crime always
>      have the same result -- the innocent lose more of their
>      freedoms and the guilty slip through the net.
> 
>      Government doesn't work, and the money government has taken
>      from us to provide this "protection" is money we could have
>      used to take care of ourselves. So let's get the money back
>      into the hands of the people.
> 
> Philosophical arguments are no longer necessary. Now that government
> has created such a mess, we are the ones who can use the one-liners,
> and they must take minutes to explain how they will somehow improve
> their failed programs.
> 
> People can see for themselves that government doesn't work, and we're
> the only credible party that recognizes this. Most people are on our
> side, because they want more control over their own lives and they
> want to escape the chaos and misery the government has inflicted upon
> them.
> 
> There is no reason to compromise what we believe, and no reason to
> threaten anyone. All we have to do is tell our story honestly.
> 
> SPOILER?
> 
> A major challenge will be to convince voters that they will achieve
> more by voting for me -- even if they think that would help reelect
> Bill Clinton -- than to vote for the Republican candidate.
> 
> We need to point out that electing the lesser of two evils merely
> assures that you will have to choose between two evils again the next
> time.
> 
> We need to tell the American people:
> 
> If the Democrat or the Republican wins the election, the next four
> years will bring bigger, more intrusive government, more crime, and
> continued deterioration of schools. The winner will help expand the
> government, and it will be eight more years before his party can
> nominate someone who could turn the tide toward less government. The
> most you can hope for is that one of these two candidates will
> increase government control over your life at only 95% of the speed of
> the other.
> 
> But if the Libertarian wins, we will move in the other direction --
> actually reducing government, giving you back control over your life,
> increasing your take-home pay, and finally doing something positive to
> reduce crime. We will end a 60-year trend and change the course of
> history.
> 
> And if the Libertarian loses but gets a large vote, this probably will
> pave the way for the next Libertarian presidential candidate to be
> elected -- just four years from now -- and he will change the course
> of history.
> 
> So you have to decide how you want to use your vote. Will you use it
> to slow the growth of government by maybe 5%, or do you want to change
> the course of history forever?
> 
> CAMPAIGN STRATEGY
> 
> The Libertarian Party's nominating convention will be held July 4,
> 1996 -- just four months before the general election.
> 
> Obviously, a third party can't mount an effective campaign in only
> four months. So I hope that by the spring of 1995 my nomination will
> be a foregone conclusion and I will be the party's de facto candidate.
> I can then direct 95% of the campaign toward the general public
> throughout 1995 and 1996.
> 
> I will give radio and TV interviews and in-person speeches. We plan to
> produce one or more TV shows that local libertarian groups can air on
> stations around the country or show to people in living rooms.
> 
> We will build support at first through the many social groups that are
> on our side -- small businessmen suffering from government regulation,
> gun owners appalled by the loss of their rights, property owners
> chafing under high taxes and environmental regulations.
> 
> We have started with investment newsletter writers -- whose readers
> are strongly anti-government. These newsletters are already publishing
> enthusiastic endorsements -- urging readers to get involved and to
> contribute money. For example, Mark Skousen told his 50,000 readers:
> 
>      We already have a good man who has decided to run for
>      president on the Libertarian ticket: Harry Browne! He's
>      articulate, a great writer, and an intelligent thinker. I
>      suggest you contribute to his campaign by sending a donation
>      (up to $1,000 per person).
> 
> From these groups, we can work outward to the entire public. I plan to
> have a new book, The Breakdown of Government, published in September
> 1995. That will bring about further national and local TV/radio
> interviews -- talking about the campaign and the book. At the same
> time, we'll start an energetic campaign in New Hampshire to attract
> the attention of the 2,000 journalists covering the primary there.
> 
> I hope that by the time the primary season is well under way in early
> 1996, I will have sufficient name recognition that poll-takers will
> list me along with the Democratic and Republican candidates.
> 
> By the spring of 1996, we need to have at least triple the present
> membership of the Libertarian Party, so that our videos are being
> shown everywhere and the campaign is being talked about. And we need
> to have raised at least $8 million by then, so that we can buy enough
> TV time to have an impact. That can be the leverage that gets me into
> the campaign debates in the fall of 1996 -- so that our message will
> reach millions of people.
> 
> We can't expect to raise enough money to compete toe-to-toe with the
> two old parties, so we will rely on originality and media events to
> let people know there's an alternative to more government. Some very
> creative people are already helping plan these activities.
> 
> Dealing with Surprises
> 
> There will be many surprises between now and November 1996. New
> parties will spring up to exploit the public's disgust with the two
> major parties. Famous people may decide to run as independents.
> 
> President Clinton could resign, stripping his opponents of their
> favorite issue. President Gore would have a fresh start and would
> command more respect -- even if it isn't merited.
> 
> We can't foresee these things. So we must be ready to take advantage
> of whatever comes.
> 
> To capitalize on the unknown future, we must establish ourselves early
> with the press and the public as the only authentic, credible party
> that can speak for those who want less government.
> 
> To do this, we need to get off to a fast start early in 1995. So we
> need support and money right away. We can't wait for 1996.
> 
> AM I THE CANDIDATE?
> 
> I believe I'm uniquely qualified to be the Libertarian candidate.
> 
> My philosophical and political views gelled about 35 years ago, and I
> have lived most of my adult life as a libertarian. I have been writing
> and speaking about government and individual liberty for over three
> decades. Unlike most candidates, I don't need to be "prepped" for a
> debate or public appearance; I know what to say, and I can answer any
> question. No one will maneuver me into a position of conceding the
> need for any government program.
> 
> I've made hundreds of radio and TV appearances -- on national networks
> and local stations. I focus on winning over the audience, not on
> scoring debating points. I can think on my feet, and I know how to
> deal with hostility, ignorance, or honest disagreements.
> 
> Compromise?
> 
> Most of all, my libertarian beliefs are unshakable.
> 
> I've discussed libertarian ideas for over a quarter of a century --
> and never felt the need to soft-pedal anything. Each of my books --
> investment or otherwise -- has been a libertarian tract. The
> philosophy is so deeply a part of me that there's no question for
> which I don't have an effective, persuasive answer.
> 
> A political candidate often softens his views as his prospects for
> winning improve -- trying not to offend any voter or contributor. Even
> if he is running to further some principle, he may believe he can do
> so only if he wins -- and that he can't win without compromising.
> 
> Once in office, seemingly libertarian candidates often go over to the
> other side. First, they make deals -- giving large concessions to
> obtain small victories for their principles. Then they make bigger
> concessions merely to stay in office. Always the rationale is, "I
> can't do any good if I lose the next election."
> 
> But I know that such temptations are disastrous. As a third-party
> candidate, my greatest strength is that I'm the only candidate with a
> consistent, less-government message. If I compromise that in any way,
> my message is meaningless, my strongest asset is lost, and the whole
> enterprise is a waste of my time. If I stand for more government on
> even one issue, no one can know for sure how I stand on other issues
> -- and the campaign will collapse.
> 
> We don't have to compromise. We are the mainstream now -- the only
> credible group offering ways to reduce the cost and impact of
> government. We must recognize the opportunity we have. Our chance has
> finally come, but to make the most of it we must be like no other
> political party -- we must be 100% consistent. Only if we run the
> campaign on clear principles can the Libertarian Party overcome the
> two old parties.
> 
> I understand this, and so I will never be tempted to compromise or
> trade a principle for a bloc of support. Neither will I be tempted to
> shade my beliefs to make them palatable; I have never been afraid to
> speak honestly, because honesty always brings me more than it costs.
> 
> Lastly, I have a wife whom I love very much, and who loves me for what
> I am. If I became a glad-handing, compromising politician, I would
> lose the most important things in my life -- her love and respect.
> That's the greatest possible incentive to remain as I am.
> 
> SHOULD YOU PARTICIPATE?
> 
> I've undertaken this project because I wouldn't be happy not doing it.
> I believe I have a unique opportunity to tell a wide audience what I
> believe about government and about living freely in a civil society --
> and perhaps to change the course of American history. The next two
> years will be an exciting time for me.
> 
> Should you become involved?
> 
> Only if you want to. You have no duty to do anything but what you
> believe is best for you and your family.
> 
> I hope you do decide to participate. Here are some ways you can
> provide valuable help:
> 
>      You can mention the campaign whenever you find yourself talking
>      politics. This allows you to transform abstract principles into a
>      concrete issue on which people can take action.
>      You can feed ideas to me by writing or faxing the campaign
>      office.
>      You can use the coupon below to join the campaign. If you're not
>      already in the Libertarian Party, we'll send you an application.
>      From time to time you'll receive material from the campaign or
>      the party -- policy papers, campaign news, and other items.
>      You can arrange meetings to view the first videotape when it's
>      ready. Or, you could arrange for me to speak before an
>      organization. Either way this will get your views to people who
>      mean something to you. Let me be your voice.
>      You can contribute money to the campaign. It's an easy way to get
>      the satisfaction that comes from acting on what you believe. By
>      1996, we may be dealing with millions of dollars in campaign
>      funds. But at this stage every $


% ====== Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) ======
% Received: from inet-gw-3.pa.dec.com by us4rmc.pko.dec.com (5.65/rmc-22feb94) id AA04075; Wed, 25 Jan 95 22:16:23 -050
% Received: from nic.iii.net by inet-gw-3.pa.dec.com (5.65/10Aug94) id AA28731; Wed, 25 Jan 95 19:07:00 -080
% Received: from gkeller@knot.iii.net (knot.iii.net [199.232.40.135]) by nic.iii.net (8.6.8/8.6.6) with SMTP id WAA18611; Wed, 25 Jan 1995 22:02:33 -0500
% Date: Wed, 25 Jan 1995 22:02:33 -0500
% Message-Id: <199501260302.WAA18611@nic.iii.net>
% From: "gkeller@knot.iii.net" <Geoffrey.Keller@nic.iii.net>
% To: stanley.david@zko.MTS.dec.com, aoxoa::stanley, sales::gkeller
% Mime-Version: 1.0
% X-Mailer: Mozilla/0.9 Beta (Windows)
% Content-Type: text/plain;  charset=iso-8859-1
% Subject: Libertarian Party Presidential Candidate -- Neat Stuff
    

>    The only way that anyone reasonable (i.e. a good third party candidate)
>    has any chance of being elected president is if people stop voting for
>    what they perceive to be the lesser of two evils and start voting for who
>    they think would actually do the best job in the whitehouse.

If you'll recall the presidential election of 1992, a record number of voters
DID vote their conscience, DIDN'T vote for the lesser of two evils, DID
cast their votes for Perot, and what did it get us? The past four years of
Slick in the presidency. I don't know about you, but I only need to learn a 
lesson once.

   How does anyone know that the people who voted for Perot would have
   otherwise voted Republican?  This has always puzzled me.

Well, I can't speak for them all, but I know of several who would have voted
for Bush in a two party race, and know none who would have voted for Clinton.

In almost any other election I would agree with you. The November '96
election is no laughing matter, however. The travesties that have taken
place in the past four years that the Arkansas Airhole has occupied the
Oval Office are a disgrace to the nation and all of its people. My
conscience means very little in the grand scheme of things if we end up
having to face domestic ruin at the hands of this idiot for another
four years. This is not a year in which to stand up for principles -
it is a year in which to get rid of the Chief Executive.

Yes - your Libertarian candidate hasn't a chance. You, too, will effectively
be casting your ballot for Slick by failing to displace him with an electable
Republican candidate. Where will your conscience sit then?

    Lemme see...
    
    If one candidate wants to increase the size of government by X, another
    wants to increase the size of government by a lesser amount Y, and 
    another wants to DECREASE the size of government by Z.
    
    Why is it "wasting your vote" by voting for the third... just because
    he may not win?
    
    By voting for the second candidate, you are still voting for increasing
    the size of government. If you happen to want smaller government...
    isn't that really wasting your vote?
    
    By the way... Harry Browne suggests that if a Liberterian doesn't win
    in this election, it might be better for the Democrat to win. In that
    case... the troops will continue to get restless since the Republicans
    don't have what it takes to actually cut government. He may have a
    point.
    

<------ re: #1 goal - get Slick out - amen!

Under the current system, voting your conscience (i.e., not voting the lesser
of two evils) does amount to a vote FOR the more powerful of the two evils,
in this case the incumbent.

What would it take to get a change in the electoral process in place which 
would require a > 50.00% vote for a president to get elected? This would 
allow true choice, and runoff elections could ensure no more of this 42%
president business.

>    By the way... Harry Browne suggests that if a Liberterian doesn't win
>    in this election, it might be better for the Democrat to win. In that
>    case... the troops will continue to get restless since the Republicans
>    don't have what it takes to actually cut government.

Oh. I see.

Then, presumably you won't be concerned if we refer to Mr. Browne henceforth
as Mr. Bite-off-your-nose-to-spite-your-face.

Ol' Harry will be lucky to have a country he cares to be a citizen of if
the Democrat wins again this year.

    It would take a change to a proportional representation system
    which is used in many European countries.  The drawback is that
    proportional representation generally results in greater political
    fragmentation (cBlondell, "Comparative Government") and a multiplicity
    of parties.  France has system of proportional representation with a
    single transferable vote which is generally considered to be one of the
    fairest systems although cumbersome to operate.  
    
    However, if the motivation to tinker with the US system is because some
    of you are not getting the result that you like all of the time. The PR
    is probably not what you are looking for.
    
    Colin
    

re:                    -< The old "wasting your vote" agument >-

No. That's not what's being said here. It isn't a question of "wasting
one's vote" - it's a matter of indirectly aiding the re-election of
the incumbent, as Bruce said. Hardly a waste from Slick's perspective,
I'm sure.

To answer your question, if one candidate wants to increase government
by X, and the other wants to increase it by only X-Y, while the third
wants to decrease it by Z, but the third is virtually blowing smoke
since he isn't even a serious contender, I'll be satisfied with the
lower increase (X-Y). You, apparently, are more willing to stomach
the likelihood that the increase of X will actually occur. So who's
actually voting their conscience? I, who have some reasonable expectation
of curbing government waste over the potential worst case, or you who
follows an impossible dream?

    re: .37
    
    I can only speak for myself, but my vote would have been for Bush, had
    Perot not been an alternative.  I really don't think I'm alone on
    this one, not by a longshot. 
    
    Bush may have ticked me off, but Clinton was never an option.  I lived 
    under his Governorship in Arkansas...enough said.
    
    
    -steve   

We're not going down this stupid rathole again, are we?

Since Dole can't win, all those 'publicans who vote for him are
doing THEIR part to put Clinton back in office.

'Least that's Jack's "logic."

What if it's Clinton and Forbes, eh Jack?  Are you going to tell
Doug he should vote for Forbes?

Blame the people who voted FOR Clinton for his election.
Blame yourself for not running a candidate that could beat him.
But don't blame people who couldn't stomach either.

I thank you.
\john

    Thought you were talking to me!  
    
    

  .45  <thunderous applause>

>What if it's Clinton and Forbes, eh Jack?  Are you going to tell
>Doug he should vote for Forbes?

So what are you going to do, \john? Vote for Browne?

What a great US of A we'll have with Slick in Washington for another 4 years.

You can have it. I don't want it.

Not to mention which, why should I try to tell Doug anything?

Doug knows as well as I do what happened in '92. I learned a valuable
lesson. I don't know whether Doug had the same experience. We've never
discussed the matter that I can recall.

re: .47

I'll see if you're still clapping on November 6th.

>>I'll see if you're still clapping on November 6th.

	You don't need to wait.  I can tell you right now
	I will be, regardless of the outcome of the election, because
	I believe that every American's duty is to vote for
	the candidate of his or her choice.  Period.  End of story.

>	I believe that every American's duty is to vote for
>	the candidate of his or her choice.  Period.  End of story.

What about an American's duty to remove scumbag political officials from 
office before they drag the country into ruin? Do Americans get the
option of ignoring that responsibility for the luxury of voting for
the candidate of their choice? Do we get to sit there and say "I'm voting
for Harry Browne [or insert any other candidate of your choice] because 
I believe in him even though he's unelectable and we'll probably go to 
hell in a handbasket with Slick at the wheel instead"? You're certainly 
free to do so, if you like. I wouldn't feel very much at ease with MYSELF
for taking that approach, though.

Look, folks - this isn't about principles, or lessers of multiple evils,
or stomaching the opposition. I stated it about as clearly as I could in 
18.2420 last month. I've been stressing it again in my reply titles in 
the political topics the past few days. I will continue to state it in 
political reply titles until after the November election.

	Getting Slick out of the White House is the most important thing
	that can be done in this election. All of your principles, good
	intentions, best wishes and positive energies notwithstanding,
	if Slick ends up getting re-elected in Novemeber, they won't
	amount to a hill of beans.

Now, if you DON'T think that getting Slick out of the White House is more
important than anything else, please tell us how the importance of your
other goals matters when he gets re-elected, because chure as chite, you
ain't gonna see anything else you were lookin' for, either.

So what if we get Slick out of the whitehouse, if he is replaced by any 
of the clowns the republicans are ramming down our throats?

    
      Well, I think I agree with Lady Di.  Under the peculiar system
     which we have adopted, our votes often do not matter, while on
     other occassions, they are crucial.  For many years, I have voted
     for candidates I knew very well would lose miserably.  Yet I still
     voted for them.
    
      I'm not a Libertarian, as you know.  I oppose their whole theory
     on intellectual grounds.  But if I WERE a libertarian, or a socialist,
     or any other kind of tiny minority fruitcake, that's how I'd vote.
     No, I wouldn't stay home and pout.  I'd get out and do my duty and
     waste my time publicly.  I've done this often.  It has the same
     political effect as staying home, but it has a good effect on me.
    
      Here in Massachusetts, it's over.  These electoral votes are
     Clinton's, period.  If you want to have an effect, choose carefully
     between Weld and Kerry.  Your vote will have much more effect there.
    
      bb

Anything is an improvement, Tom. No matter how small. Just think - we
lose Slick, we lose Janet Reno, we lose Hillary, we lose etc.....

Regardless of what ends up in the White House instead, it'll be like a
breath of fresh air. I'm so fed up with Slick & Co., I'm about ready
to emigrate. And I just may do that if he gets re-elected. It's a pretty
sad state of affairs when a Chief Executive influences that sort of
mindset on the citizenry.

  .52  If you feel it's your duty to get Bill Clinton out of the
       WH, then you should go for it.  Your conscience will be clear,
       as will mine for voting for the candidate I'd like to see
       running the country.

    re: .55
    
    If you think for one minute I'd prefer 4 years of
    Pat Buchanan to 4 more years of Bill Clinton, then
    perhaps you'd be interested in the fine piece of
    Florida swamp...uh property....I'm trying to unload...
    uh sell.
    
    Mary-Michael
    

>  .52  If you feel it's your duty to get Bill Clinton out of the WH

Er, perhaps you missed it somewhere -

	-< The goal - get Slick out of the White House >-

This is my goal above all else for 1996. Nothing else matters if this goal
isn't attained.

    re: .58
    
    Not really, I'm not thrilled with the job he's done.
    If there was a good alternate candidate who was pro-choice
    and didn't believe that people who do not have conservative
    Christian beliefs are simply misguided, I would most likely
    vote for them.  I just don't see any.
    
    Mary-Michael
    

Yes, Mary-Michael, but you are one of Slick's chosen folks who hasn't
a problem with his policies/lifestyle/beliefs/values/etc.

My issue is with those who oppose him who are complacently willing to
see him re-elected, not those who are campaigning for him.

And, if you missed it, I ain't any too crazy about Buchanan myself as a
devout atheist, but, yes, he's clearly preferable to another four years
of Clinton in my opinion. NOTHING is more important that removing Slick
from office, to me.

    .60  really.  the removal/replacement procedure must be
         warranted.

>    Not really, I'm not thrilled with the job he's done.

Come, come, now, Mary-Michael. This conference is rife with your
praises and defenses of Slick and his policies.

     Z   If you think for one minute I'd prefer 4 years of
     Z   Pat Buchanan to 4 more years of Bill Clinton,
    
    Maybe you should consider not voting this coming election!  If I were
    to put myself in your shoes, I couldn't vote either with a clear
    conscience.
    
    -Jack

    .63
    
    Consider the state of politics today when deciding how to cast your
    vote.
    
    My vote, although the lettering on the ballot says it's for someone,
    is actually cast such that it will exert the most negative effect
    possible toward the election of the candidate I dislike the most.

    re: .62
    
    I may like some of what he's done, I may not think he's
    been treated entirely even-handedly by the Republicans, 
    however, that doesn't mean I wouldn't vote for someone 
    else if I thought they could do a better job.  While I 
    will admit I might have to physically force my hand 
    across the page to vote for a Republican :-), it isn't 
    totally outside the realm of possibility, if there was 
    someone I believed in.
    
    It's rather disheartening to walk into a election
    booth thinking, "Hmmm, who will lie less?"
    
    Mary-Michael

>    It's rather disheartening to walk into a election
>    booth thinking, "Hmmm, who will lie less?"

I couldn't agree with you more. And I haven't any doubt that I'll end up
come November casting a vote for someone that I don't particularly want
in the office, whom I know will lie just as much as Slick.

But, nevertheless, Slick must go. I make a big deal out of it the
Libertarian topic only to cast a bright light on the outcome of the
Libertarian ballots.

    
    	Jack, is it your goal to get Slick out of the White House?
    
    	Just wondering.
    

    I think you may be on to something...

.54 is correct.  The presidential election is not "majority wins" but
"winner-takes-all" state by state, with an electoral college vote of
the state votes.  Therefore, if one party or the other has an almost
certain lockup on your state, you cannot "waste" your vote by voting
for a third party candidate, even if polls show the popular vote is
dead even nationwide.

I voted for Perot.  I feel no qualms whatsoever by "helping" to elect
Clinton by doing so.  It was well known that Clinton had the PRM locked
up, and I live in the PRM.  It's winner-takes-all for each state, so as
long as Bush had no chance to win the PRM I could not possibly help
Clinton by voting for Perot.

In '96, if Clinton (or the Republican candidate, somehow) has the PRM
locked up, I will have no qualms about voting for a third party.
Even though I absolutely do not want to see Clinton elected again.
If the race is close in Mass. that's another story.

Jack, if you want to see if voting for Perot possibly helped elect
Clinton, you have to look at the voting results on a state-by-state
basis, and try to figure out what the electoral college votes could
be if Perot didn't run.

Throw out all states Bush won.  Bush won despite Perot, and he would
win them without Perot (unless Perot stole some of the Clinton vote,
in which case Perot could actually have "saved" the state for Bush)

Throw out all the states Clinton won by more than 50% of the popular
vote.  Perot+Bush together didn't outpoll Clinton, there is no way
Bush by himself could have carried these states.

Perot carried no states, no need to consider this case.

The only states to consider are those that Clinton carried, by less
than 50%.  On a state-by-state basis you'd have to figure out how
the vote would have gone without Perot, then see if with the new
electoral college votes Bush would have gotten (if any) would be
enough to reelect him.

    
    	The Clinton haters will say that Perot absorbed what could have
    	been Bush's votes, and Bush might've won.
    
    	The Bush haters will say that Perot absorbed what could have
    	been Clinton's votes, and Clinton would have won by a land-
    	slide.
    
    	Who's to know?
    

re: Madman

>The only states to consider are those that Clinton carried, by less
>than 50%.  On a state-by-state basis you'd have to figure out how
>the vote would have gone without Perot, then see if with the new
>electoral college votes Bush would have gotten (if any) would be
>enough to reelect him.

Exactly. And in 96, with a third party candidate of any strength, the
same situation will exist again. Without a strong 3rd party candidate, and with
sufficient determination on the part of the voters to get Slick out at any
cost, the states that Clinton carries by less than 50% _WILL_ go to the
Republican candidate (assuming that that means the Repub takes more than 50%
of the popular vote.)

Assuming Clinton's _real_ popularity among voters is no better than it was in
92 (which I believe to be the case), and assuming sufficient people opposed to 
him nationwide concentrate on the importance of removing him, rather than
opposing the Repub, or supporting a 3rd party candidate, there is every 
possibility in the world that Clinton _CAN_ be removed in November. Votes
for 3rd party candidates _COULD_ make a difference in a great number of states.

Now, you can claim that it's a moot point in the PRM, but it's no more
unreasonable for me to expect that there's a chance that the PRM could swing
the other way in November than it is for the Libertarians to expect that
Harry Browne has a chance of sitting at 1600 PA Ave. And, it's a significantly 
better chance that I could be right. How many Independents in the PRM? 

re .72:

>  -< The goal - get Slick out of the White House >-

The problem with this logic is that it's "the lesser of 2 evils" defeatist
mentality.  Go along with this logic and vote in a bozo Republican just because
he's a Republican and bypassing a perfectly good 3rd party candidate just
because he isn't, and we'll be right back here in the year 2000, with you
signing all your notes: 

>  -< The goal - get [President's unflattering nickname] out of the White House >-

We just don't know the nickname yet.

MY goal is to get someone worth voting FOR to run, regardless of party.

>Exactly. And in 96, with a third party candidate of any strength, the
>same situation will exist again. Without a strong 3rd party candidate, and with
>sufficient determination on the part of the voters to get Slick out at any
>cost, the states that Clinton carries by less than 50% _WILL_ go to the
>Republican candidate

You must remember, of the states that CLinton carried with less than 50%
of the vote, he would have carried many of them with 50+ percent
without Perot.  The same would happen with another third party
candidate in 96.

>Votes for 3rd party candidates _COULD_ make a difference in a great number of
>states. 

And votes for 3rd party candidates will make no difference in other states,
except, perhaps, by showing enough support, will show people they don't
HAVE to choose the lesser of 2 evils every 4 years.

>Now, you can claim that it's a moot point in the PRM, but it's no more
>unreasonable for me to expect that there's a chance that the PRM could swing
>the other way in November than it is for the Libertarians to expect that
>Harry Browne has a chance of sitting at 1600 PA Ave.

The only way you'll see Mass. go Republican is when the Republican wins by such
a huge landslide that it doesn't matter.  And not even always then (1972
election).  Remember this is the state that reelects Fatboy every 6 years. 

> And, it's a significantly
>better chance that I could be right. How many Independents in the PRM? 

There are more 'unenrolled' voters in Mass. than there are registered
Republicans. (there is a minor party in Mass. that called itself the
"Independent Party" to fool independents into registering with them, so
non-party affiliated people are listed as 'unenrolled') 

JackD, the reason I ask about Doug is that he wrote a note saying,
"There's no way I'd vote for Forbes for president."  You're sitting
there saying if Forbes wins the primary, you expect Doug to vote for
Forbes, just to get Clinton out.  Any other vote of his is a vote for
Clinton.

Go on.  Tell him.

\john

>         <<< Note 644.59 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>
>
>Er, perhaps you missed it somewhere -

>	-< The goal - get Slick out of the White House >-


	It would have been impossible for me to have "missed it", thank you.

>The problem with this logic is that it's "the lesser of 2 evils" defeatist
>mentality.

That's because the problem we're faced with this year (the potential of 
domestic ruin at the hands of Slick) is a far more serious issue than
we are normally faced with, where it's just "some other do-nothing idiot."

> Go along with this logic and vote in a bozo Republican just because
> he's a Republican and bypassing a perfectly good 3rd party candidate 

Name me one 3rd party candidate who has even a ghost of a chance of
getting more than 15% of the popular vote this year, Mike. Better yet,
name me one who has a ghost of a chance of getting better than 10%. How
'bout 5%? Those number aren't sufficient to make a serious contender,
but they could be sufficient enough to push Slick out if properly applied.

But it appears that removing Slick isn't as high on the priority list
for most folks as it is for me.

> Go on.  Tell him.

????

Why the hell should you single Doug out rather than anyone else?

????

He's capable of reading what I wrote, is he not?

I am voting for Browne. I stick by my opinion that the good of the country
isn't served by having Slick or any of the Republican offerings. If the
chosen Repub or Slick win this election, status quo is the outcome. My 
conscience will be clear regardless of who the next president will be. 

    Even if Clinton does get reelected he will probably be impeached for
    one reason or another (it looks as though there are plenty of reasons
    to go around).  Even if he were not to be impeached I must vote for
    whom I believe would do the best job.  That is why we vote.  I will not
    vote for the lesser of two evils, if everyone running is evil I will
    write in a candidate whom I think would do a good job, even if I write
    in myself.
    
    Just my $.02
    
    --Geoff

Received: from hustle.rahul.net (hustle.rahul.net [192.160.13.2]) by nic.iii.net (8.6.8/8.6.6) with SMTP id WAA12686 for <gkeller@knot.iii.net>; Fri, 9 Feb 1996 22:25:35 -0500
Received: by hustle.rahul.net with UUCP id AA20935
  (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for gkeller@knot.iii.net); Fri, 9 Feb 1996 19:24:28 -0800
Received: by dehnbase.fidonet.org (mailout1.26); Fri, 9 Feb 96 19:00:08 PST
X-UIDL: 823964084.001
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 96 18:52:25 PST
Message-Id: <29882.311C0A37.ann@HarryBrowne96.org>
From: radio-schedule@HarryBrowne96.org
Subject: Donahue RESCHEDULED
Sender: announce-request@HarryBrowne96.org
Reply-To: campaign@HarryBrowne96.org
To: announce@HarryBrowne96.org (Harry Browne for President announcements)
X-Mailer: mailout v1.26 released with lsendfix 1.5d
Status: U
X-Mozilla-Status: 0001


Harry Browne's appearance on the Phil Donahue TV show, previously
scheduled for Monday, February 12th, has been rescheduled for
FRIDAY, February 16th.

Check local listings for time and channel.

-- 
Harry Browne for President - http://www.HarryBrowne96.org/
4094 Majestic Lane, Suite 240, Fairfax, VA 22033



% ====== Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) ======
% Received: from mail11.digital.com by us1rmc.bb.dec.com (5.65/rmc-22feb94) id AA28898; Sat, 10 Feb 96 10:09:33 -050
% Received: from nic.iii.net by mail11.digital.com (5.65v3.2/1.0/WV) id AA10015; Sat, 10 Feb 1996 09:59:41 -050
% Received: from knot.iii.net (knot.iii.net [199.232.40.135]) by nic.iii.net (8.6.8/8.6.6) with SMTP id JAA29534 for <keller@cuptay.enet.dec.com>; Sat, 10 Feb 1996 09:58:22 -0500
% Message-Id: <311CB2DA.21DD@knot.iii.net>
% Date: Sat, 10 Feb 1996 09:59:38 -0500
% From: Geoff Keller <gkeller@knot.iii.net>
% X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (Win95; I)
% Mime-Version: 1.0
% To: Geoff Keller <cuptay::keller>
% Subject: [Fwd: Donahue RESCHEDULED]
% Content-Type: message/rfc822
% Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
% Content-Disposition: inline
    

Received: from hustle.rahul.net (hustle.rahul.net [192.160.13.2]) by nic.iii.net (8.6.8/8.6.6) with SMTP id WAA12304 for <gkeller@knot.iii.net>; Thu, 8 Feb 1996 22:42:31 -0500
Received: by hustle.rahul.net with UUCP id AA09746
  (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for gkeller@knot.iii.net); Thu, 8 Feb 1996 19:41:59 -0800
Received: by dehnbase.fidonet.org (mailout1.26); Thu, 8 Feb 96 19:35:05 PST
X-UIDL: 823899239.001
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 96 19:30:38 PST
Message-Id: <29720.311AC0E9.ann@HarryBrowne96.org>
From: CampaignNews@HarryBrowne96.org
Subject: Internet censorship protest
Sender: announce-request@HarryBrowne96.org
Reply-To: campaign@HarryBrowne96.org
To: announce@HarryBrowne96.org (Harry Browne for President announcements)
X-Mailer: mailout v1.26 released with lsendfix 1.5d
Status: U
X-Mozilla-Status: 0001


BROWNE CAMPAIGN DEMONSTRATES SUPPORT FOR INTERNET FREEDOM

The Harry Browne for President Campaign today joined thousands of other
organizations across the country in demonstrating for freedom of
expression on the Internet by becoming the first presidential campaign
to turn its World Wide Web pages black.

The demonstration, organized by Voters Telecommunications Watch,
began shortly after 11:00am Eastern time as President Clinton signed
the new telecommunications bill that includes provisions which would
bring censorship to the Internet.

The Libertarian Party platform has long called for full application of
the concepts of freedom of speech and of the press to new technologies,
including computer networks, and opposes censorship in any form.

And Browne's book, _Why Government Doesn't Work_, specifically addresses
the question of censorship:

   Government doesn't work, and so censorship doesn't work. 

   It may seem simple to ban just the bad things.  But someone else
   -- not you -- will decide what is bad and what is good. And his
   values most likely will differ considerably from yours.

   If gratuitous violence is bad, next year's censor may decide the
   Bible or heroic tales contain too much of it.  If sexual
   promiscuity isn't fit for sensitive eyes, maybe the adulterous
   story of David and Bathsheba will be excised from Scripture.

A review of presidential campaign WWW sites at about 9:00pm Eastern
found that no other campaign had yet expressed support for Internet
freedom by having its site join in the protest.

Support for Libertarian ideas is strong among the developers and users
of computer network technology, and Libertarian candidates have been
pioneers in using the Internet for political communication.  The Harry
Browne WWW site, which went into operation in October 1994, was the
first official WWW site established by any presidential campaign, of
any party.

-- 
Harry Browne for President - http://www.HarryBrowne96.org/
4094 Majestic Lane, Suite 240, Fairfax, VA 22033



% ====== Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) ======
% Received: from mail11.digital.com by us1rmc.bb.dec.com (5.65/rmc-22feb94) id AA16177; Fri, 9 Feb 96 16:06:56 -050
% Received: from nic.iii.net by mail11.digital.com (5.65v3.2/1.0/WV) id AA10508; Fri, 9 Feb 1996 15:57:49 -050
% Received: from knot.iii.net (knot.iii.net [199.232.40.135]) by nic.iii.net (8.6.8/8.6.6) with SMTP id PAA21916 for <keller@cuptay.enet.dec.com>; Fri, 9 Feb 1996 15:56:32 -0500
% Message-Id: <311BB549.30FE@knot.iii.net>
% Date: Fri, 09 Feb 1996 15:57:45 -0500
% From: Geoff Keller <gkeller@knot.iii.net>
% X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0b6a (Win95; I)
% Mime-Version: 1.0
% To: Geoff Keller <cuptay::keller>
% Subject: [Fwd: Internet censorship protest]
% Content-Type: message/rfc822
% Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
% Content-Disposition: inline
    

   re: .56
    
    
    
  >.52  If you feel it's your duty to get Bill Clinton out of the
  >     WH, then you should go for it.  Your conscience will be clear,
  >     as will mine for voting for the candidate I'd like to see
  >     running the country.
    
    
     Di...
    
      I fear that Slick will win again in '96... but, I am also confident
    that we have a chance to elect a veto-proof Congress...
     
    
      So... I don't think it matters (to me) which "candidate" thinks he's
    "running" the country...
    
    
      The point is moot
    

    
>      So... I don't think it matters (to me) which "candidate" thinks he's
>    "running" the country...
    
>      The point is moot

    so we don't need to vote at all then? ;>
    

RE: 644.82 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Less politicians, more warriors"

> we have a chance to elect a veto-proof Congress...

A Democratic veto-proof Congress.

    <--- Which, at this point into our economic woes, would make bankruptcy
    an unavoidable and quick reality, rather than the current slow path to
    financial armageddon.

> A Democratic veto-proof Congress.

Phil,

Is this your  prediction or your idea of a desireable result of the 
1996 elections?

Doug.

Sounds like he's predicting a Republican president.

    re: .84
    
    >A Democratic veto-proof Congress.
    
    In your dreams, Phil...
    
    The grass-roots stirrings are all for less gov.
    
    The needle is stuck on the Dem's spend-spend-spend record...
    
    There has to be a break... No, it's not complete, and it's not
    pleasant, and it's not totally what any of us want... but now it's like
    a house of mirrors, and it needs to be shattered so that what's left
    has no place to hide and is fully accountable to all of America's
    citizens...

    
      Phil is being obtuse.  Why would Slick NEED a "veto-proof" Congress
     of Democrats ?  And anyways, the so-called veto-proof Congress has
     been a great rarity in America (LBJ briefly, Andrew Johnson, etc),
     and, generally speaking, a disaster for the party that had one.
    
      For that matter, Clinton's first two years - same party in the
     White House and both chambers, is not very common, and is usually
     active - but with Slick, NOTHING will be active, no matter who is
     elected.  He's a wonk, not a doer.
    
      As a practical matter, the House is a tossup this election, but there
     is no chance whatever that either party will get near 2/3.  And as
     to the Senate, the Republicans aren't going to get 2/3 in 1996, and,
     considering the mix of seats, a Democratic majority is remote.  There
     are Democrats retiring in major Republican strongholds - Georgia,
     Alabama, etc.  And Clinton doesn't care about those states anyways.
     He's after California, which already has 2 Democratic senators.
    
      Suppose somebody upsets Clinton, and the Republicans retained both
     houses.  That's about the only scenario I can see that would change
     anything, that has any real chance of happening.  And it's surely
     odds against.  The smart money is on continued gridlock.
    
      bb

RE: 644.86 by BRITE::FYFE "Use it up, wear it out, make it do, or do witho

> Is this your  prediction 

More like a play on Andy's ranting.

Seriously,  I think there is a very good chance that the House will revert
to Democratic majority in the next election.  The Republicans will mostly
look like Newt and Rush to the voters,  and the majority of the voters
can't stand Newt and Rush.  Republicans should have little trouble
maintaining control of the Senate.


Phil

    
    
    Yeah, but bb.... who woulda thunk what happened in 1994??
    
    Anomaly??
    
    I'm ever the optimist... I'm hoping the American people are coming out
    of sheep-mode and starting to actually think..
    

    
    >More like a play on Andy's ranting.
    
    You call that ranting?
    
    I suggest you look in a dictionary once in awhile, rather than
    depending soley on scientific journals for your discourses...
    
    Hope this helps...
    

    
    
    RE: Newt and Rush-Yup, only cuz your comrade's in the media are doing
    their damndest to paint the repubs that way.  Too bad there are very
    few outlets for reporting the news on the tube, instead of all the
    editrialization......

    re: .93
    
    There is.  Get yourself a short wave radio and listen to
    the BBC.  You will be surprised by:
    
    a.) all the things that go on in world in the course of
    	a day which we never hear about; and
    
    b.) how unimportant US news is on a daily basis.
    
    Quite refreshing actually.
    
    Mary-Michael
    

You get TV news on your shortwave radio?

BTW, BBC is available on some public radio stations in the U.S.  They're far
from unbiased.

The BBC sessions I have heard sound like summary packages produced 
specifically for the US market. If they didn't pass the US medias' muster,
they would not get on the air.

WBUR in Boston broadcasts World Ah.

re: .77 (JackD)
>                -< The goal - get Slick out of the White House >-
>
>> Go on.  Tell him.
>
>????
>
>Why the hell should you single Doug out rather than anyone else?
>
>
>????
>
>He's capable of reading what I wrote, is he not?

Of course he is.  The point is that you're insisting he HAS to vote
for Forbes (in the context of the discussion).   I was pointing out
who your decree affected, and how it's really unreasonable, when you
look at it.

I'm surprised you need this spelled out for you.
\john

Received: from hustle.rahul.net (hustle.rahul.net [192.160.13.2]) by nic.iii.net (8.6.8/8.6.6) with SMTP id EAA03774 for <gkeller@knot.iii.net>; Mon, 12 Feb 1996 04:42:56 -0500
Received: by hustle.rahul.net with UUCP id AA00613
  (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for gkeller@knot.iii.net); Mon, 12 Feb 1996 01:40:23 -0800
Received: by dehnbase.fidonet.org (mailout1.26); Mon, 12 Feb 96 01:29:07 PST
X-UIDL: 824164851.001
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 96 01:24:35 PST
Message-Id: <30109.311F0863.ann@HarryBrowne96.org>
From: radio-schedule@HarryBrowne96.org
Subject: schedule update
Sender: announce-request@HarryBrowne96.org
Reply-To: campaign@HarryBrowne96.org
To: announce@HarryBrowne96.org (Harry Browne for President announcements)
X-Mailer: mailout v1.26 released with lsendfix 1.5d
X-Mozilla-Status: 0001


Upcoming events:

   Monday, February 12, 1996 - Boston, MA
      The Jerry Williams Show on WRKO 680AM
      Time: 10am-12noon Eastern
      Call-in: 617-266-6868
          
   Tuesday, February 13, 1996 - Worcester, MA
      The George Brown Show on WTAG 580AM
      Time: 4:10-4:30pm Eastern
          
   Wednesday, February 14, 1996 - Manchester, NH
      The Dan Pierce Show on WGIR 610AM
      Time: 11:00-11:20am Eastern
      Call-in: 603-645-6161
          
   Wednesday, February 14, 1996 - Nashua, NH
      Presidential Forum, New England Community Action Association
      Location: Sheraton Tara Hotel
      Time: 3:30-4:30pm
      Contact: 203-623-3926
          
   Wednesday, February 14, 1996 - New London, NH
      "More Than the Two of Us" on WNTK 99.7FM
       with Alf Jacobson (Republican) and Peter Burling (Democrat)
      Time: 7:00-8:00pm Eastern
      Call-in: 603-526-9494
          
   Thursday, February 15, 1996 - Fairbanks, AK
      The Hot Line with Perry Wally and Hal Hume on KFAR 660AM
      Time: 5:30-7:00pm Pacific
      Call-in: 907-458-TALK (907-458-8255)
          
   Friday, February 16, 1996 - national TV
      Phil Donahue show (taped January 25)
      Check local listings for time and channel.
          
   Friday, February 16, 1996 - Los Angeles, CA
      The Dennis Prager Show on KABC 790 AM
      Time: 3:00pm Eastern, noon Pacific
      Call-in: 800-222-KABC
          
   Saturday, February 17, 1996 - Long Beach, CA
      Reception, LP of California convention
      Location: Hyatt Regency, Long Beach
      Time: 5:00-7:30pm
      Contact: Sharon Ayres 714-437-7911
          
   Monday, February 19, 1996 - Long Beach, CA
      Speech, LP of California convention
      Location: Hyatt Regency, Long Beach
      Time: Sam Adams Luncheon, 1:00pm
      Contact: Convention Solutions 310-428-8113
          
-- 
Harry Browne for President - http://www.HarryBrowne96.org/
4094 Majestic Lane, Suite 240, Fairfax, VA 22033



% ====== Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) ======
% Received: from mail11.digital.com by us1rmc.bb.dec.com (5.65/rmc-22feb94) id AA24171; Mon, 12 Feb 96 18:06:48 -050
% Received: from nic.iii.net by mail11.digital.com (5.65v3.2/1.0/WV) id AA30812; Mon, 12 Feb 1996 17:55:17 -050
% Received: from knot.iii.net (knot.iii.net [199.232.40.135]) by nic.iii.net (8.6.8/8.6.6) with SMTP id RAA09763 for <keller@cuptay.enet.dec.com>; Mon, 12 Feb 1996 17:53:54 -0500
% Message-Id: <311FC548.D8@knot.iii.net>
% Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 17:55:04 -0500
% From: Geoff Keller <gkeller@knot.iii.net>
% X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (Win95; I)
% Mime-Version: 1.0
% To: Geoff Keller <cuptay::keller>
% Subject: [Fwd: schedule update]
% Content-Type: message/rfc822
% Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
% Content-Disposition: inline
    

Received: from hustle.rahul.net (hustle.rahul.net [192.160.13.2]) by nic.iii.net (8.6.8/8.6.6) with SMTP id DAA02497 for <gkeller@knot.iii.net>; Mon, 12 Feb 1996 03:15:21 -0500
Received: by hustle.rahul.net with UUCP id AA24299
  (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for gkeller@knot.iii.net); Mon, 12 Feb 1996 00:10:38 -0800
Received: by dehnbase.fidonet.org (mailout1.26); Mon, 12 Feb 96 00:05:00 PST
X-UIDL: 824164851.000
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 96 00:00:48 PST
Message-Id: <30082.311EF4AB.ann@HarryBrowne96.org>
From: CampaignNews@HarryBrowne96.org
Subject: On the Campaign Trail
Sender: announce-request@HarryBrowne96.org
Reply-To: campaign@HarryBrowne96.org
To: announce@HarryBrowne96.org (Harry Browne for President announcements)
X-Mailer: mailout v1.26 released with lsendfix 1.5d
X-Mozilla-Status: 0001


                 On the Campaign Trail with Harry Browne

Nashville, Saturday, January 28 - Wednesday, January 31

Pamela and I are home for four full days. I have a terrific online
"chat" conference, sponsored by Congressional Quarterly magazine on
America Online. People at their computers type in questions, which I
answer immediately from my computer. The attendance is good, there's a
steady stream of questions, and I'm feeling in good voice -- or rather,
in good typing. It's a good thing I'm a fast typist, or I'd have to
limit my answers to just yes or no.

I answer written questions for an interview in MoneyWorld magazine.
Plus answers to questions from a number of organizations that survey
the Presidential candidates. Many phone calls to make. And I put the
finishing touches on an issue of my financial newsletter that I've been
writing off and on while on the road -- and is now several days behind
schedule.

And, as always, plenty of radio shows. One, in Rochester New York, is
like entering the past through the Twilight Zone. It's the most liberal
audience I can remember confronting. Not just differences of opinion,
but differences over what planet we live on. The host keeps telling me
people starved in the streets of America until the New Deal. How does
he know this? Well, he's read Upton Sinclair and John Steinbeck. I
almost scream in amazement, "These men were novelists who made up
stories -- not historians or statisticians!" Every caller is on his
side; I wonder whether there's an Americans for Democratic Action
convention in town. I'm caught off guard and handle the whole thing
poorly.

After spending bitterly cold days in Memphis, Vermont, New Hampshire,
New York, and Washington, I had looked forward to coming home to
Nashville. But it's cold here as well -- even snowing most of the time
we're home. I wish Global Warming would hurry up and get here.

West Palm Beach, Florida, Wednesday night, January 31

1am: Pamela and I arrive in the land of sunshine. Yes, Virginia, there
is a Santa Claus. While Republicans Steve Forbes, Phil Gramm, Pat
Buchanan, and Robert Dole are slogging through the snows of Iowa or New
Hampshire, Libertarian Harry Browne will be basking in 75-degree
weather in Florida. Is there any doubt which one is smart enough to be
President?

West Palm Beach, Thursday, February 1

10am: Up for a phone interview with a radio talk show in Chattanooga.
Before the show, the host says, "I become more libertarian every year;
Chattanooga is fertile ground for you, because people hate both the
Republicans and the Democrats." The show starts, but it's Liberal City
all over again. Not one friendly call. Did I forget to use mouthwash
this morning? Do you folks have relatives in Rochester?

11:45am: The rest of the day is a lot more positive. Jim Alsis and Don
Fenton, who have done so much to resurrect the local party, have set up
two solid days of events. It starts with a good talk at the Boynton
Beach Rotary Club. Rob Martin is with us, as on most trips, to make
sure everything goes smoothly.

1:30pm: Then a great 90-minute, radio/TV-simulcast talk show with Cliff
Dunn. A lot of joking back and forth, a lot of good subjects covered,
and some good calls. Cliff is hung up on the U.S. military roaming the
world, defending our "national interests." I point out that he doesn't
get to decide what the "national interest" is, someone else does, and
that's why troops are in Bosnia. He concedes the point and goes on to
the next of 32 reasons the U.S. military should be roaming the world.
But it's a terrific show.

4pm: There's an interview by phone with the political writer at the St.
Petersburg Times, who has no trouble comprehending the message. His
article will appear Monday; I'll have to keep my fingers crossed for
four days.

7pm: Dinner with local LP movers Pam and Scott Rodgers, Paula and Mike
Shubert, and Tom Regnier. The LP groups in Central Florida have come a
long way in the past few years. Their membership is booming, they're
reaching out to non-Libertarians, they've recruited some big-money
people, and they're thriving.

9pm: Back to the room for the last interview of the day: Mike Palmer in
Chino, California. It's an f.m. station in a small town, and I know the
audience can't be very large. But you never know what any show might
lead to. On book tours in bygone years, I frequently landed a big
interview because someone important happened to hear me on some tiny
program somewhere. And if Ted Koppel doesn't want to talk to me
tonight, why shouldn't I talk to Mike Palmer? I do, and I'm glad. It's
a warm interview with an obviously good-hearted man.

Friday, February 2

8:15am: Another small-town show -- this one with Laura Ware in Sebring,
Florida. She answers the phone herself, plays the music, and interviews
me. She's very friendly, and we have a good 25-minute chat.

Noon: The rest of the day is devoted to signing books at bookstores.
The first two are in the afternoon -- at Waldenbooks and Brentanos in a
mall. The traffic is very slow, and it reminds me why I never did
book-signings with previous books.

7:30pm: Another book-signing, this one at the Book Stop in Boca Raton.
A number of people show up. I give a short speech, with two or three
hecklers maintaining that government ---- and only government -- works.
These aren't just people who are skeptical or have different opinions;
they're living in a 1930s time warp. Learning from the Rochester show,
I have a lively dialogue with them, and the rest of the audience is
happy to see someone refuting their arguments.

Plantation, Florida, Saturday, February 3

11am: Three more book-signings -- at Borders and two Barnes & Noble
stores -- in Boynton Beach, Coral Springs, and Plantation. Because it's
Saturday, the crowds are good and I feel a little warmer toward
book-signings.

7pm: At the Plantation Sheraton, where Pam Rogers stages the best
fund-raiser we've seen so far. Beautiful invitations have been mailed
out, and over a hundred people are here -- paying $35 apiece for the
Florida ballot-access drive. The room is elegantly decorated in black &
silver -- including "Harry Browne in '96" balloons. After dinner, I
give a speech, and the audience is generous with applause. Then Doug
Anderson entertains the crowd with his customary first-class job of
fund-raising. The whole evening is a text-book example of how such
events should be staged.

Orlando, Sunday, February 4

8:30am: We drive back to West Palm Beach.

10am: I appear on "South Florida Sunday," an Orlando TV show that
follows "Meet the Press" and emulates it. Host Jim Broesmer and
reporters from the Orlando Sun-Sentinel and the Jupiter Courier
question me for half an hour. A terrific show.

2:00pm: After driving back to West Palm Beach, we fly to Orlando, and
drive straight to the hotel for a reception, staged by Ralph Swanson --
State Coordinator for the campaign. I give a speech, and the crowd is
enthusiastic.

7pm: After another book-signing, there's a $100-a-plate dinner for
ballot access and our campaign. Those in attendance think $100 is the
total cost, but Doug Anderson raises more money after my speech.

Tampa, Monday, February 5

6:30am: On a 2-hour drive to Tampa with Pamela, Doug, and Rob, I use my
laptop computer to catch up on correspondence and other work.

9:30am: A wonderful in-studio radio show with Mark Larson, who seems to
be completely libertarian. He gives me free rein for 2-1/2 hours.
Plenty of enthusiastic callers.

The St. Petersburg Times article appears. It's lengthy, and it presents
my views with almost 100% accuracy. The paper is considered a liberal
rag by local Libertarians, but I obviously have no complaints. I can
uncross my fingers.

1:00pm: We race to State LP Chairman Nick Dunbar's office to speak by
phone with Paul Gonzales, on a 1-hour nationally syndicated radio show.
Although Gonzales is on a conservative network, he has no argument with
any facet of the libertarian philosophy. I'm finding this with so many
talk-show hosts: they call themselves conservatives, but they're at
least 90% libertarian.

2:30pm: Over an hour with the editorial board of the Tampa Tribune. Two
of the four members are eager questioners, and seem to be sympathetic.
The other two are relatively quiet, and seem scornful. Toward the end,
one of the eager ones -- a well-read, thoughtful black columnist --
asks whether I think it was wrong for the federal government to
overrule the states on segregation. I say that government never limits
itself to what you want, and so the federal government doing what you
wanted led to what you don't want -- affirmative action, quotas, drug
addicts suing employers for disability benefits, animosity among races,
judges running school districts, forced associations, and the like. He
nods his head, but I don't know whether he agrees.

4:00pm: We race across town to do "Voices of Freedom," a cable-access
TV show. The hosts are both libertarians, and the show is easy and
effective.

7:00pm: The last -- and best -- book-signing of the trip. A big crowd
is already at the store when I get there. Many of the people come
because of yesterday's Mark Larson show; he's obviously very popular.

St. Petersburg, Tuesday, February 6:

8:00am: Telephone interview with Ray Brown in Fort Walton Beach,
Florida. He says before the show that he doesn't want to flaunt his
libertarianism, but he makes no attempt to hide it once we're on the
air.

10:30am: I speak to more than a hundred 11-to-13-year-olds at
Wellington Middle School. I ask what you call someone who takes your
allowance from you, and they call out, "A bully!" I ask, "Suppose
another boy promises to protect you from the bully but demands 50% of
your money in return, you turn him down but he forces you to agree;
what do you call him?" They call out, "Bully #2!" I say that this is
what their parents are faced with -- a government that forces them to
give up half their income for protection they may not want or even
receive. They ask dozens of intelligent, thoughtful questions, and -- a
new phenomenon for me -- they swarm around me for autographs. If only
they were voters.

12 noon: An 8-minute interview on a Christian TV station. I quickly lay
out specific proposals to make government smaller. My interview is
followed by a taped interview the same host did with Phil Gramm. He
speaks in platitudes about wanting smaller government -- not bothering
to mention that his economic platform calls only to reduce the rate of
federal growth to the rate of inflation, and not even until his second
term. Needless to say, the host never pinned him down for specifics.

1pm: We're late for lunch and a tour of the Scientology Center in
Clearwater. The host is sympathetic to libertarian ideas. We have to
rush off. The schedule is too tight, and we seem to be running behind
for almost everything.

2:30pm: We're half an hour late for a meeting with a wealthy supporter
in his beautiful waterfront home, but he is understanding. He agrees to
organize a fund-raiser for corporate CEOs in Tampa.

7pm: A fund-raiser for the campaign and the Florida ballot-access drive
at the St. Petersburg Pier. An enthusiastic group of libertarians, and
a nice way to end our Florida trip. The Florida Libertarians are
hard-working, enthusiastic, and unconquerable. A few years ago, it may
have seemed that the state party had little future, but a handful of
determined people turned it into a thriving enterprise -- with new
members flowing in, good relations with the press, and a glowing
future.

Now it's home for 36 hours, and then off to Massachusetts, New
Hampshire, and California.
          
-- 
Harry Browne for President - http://www.HarryBrowne96.org/
4094 Majestic Lane, Suite 240, Fairfax, VA 22033



% ====== Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) ======
% Received: from mail11.digital.com by us1rmc.bb.dec.com (5.65/rmc-22feb94) id AA27322; Mon, 12 Feb 96 18:32:24 -050
% Received: from nic.iii.net by mail11.digital.com (5.65v3.2/1.0/WV) id AA01404; Mon, 12 Feb 1996 18:24:17 -050
% Received: from knot.iii.net (knot.iii.net [199.232.40.135]) by nic.iii.net (8.6.8/8.6.6) with SMTP id RAA09666 for <keller@cuptay.enet.dec.com>; Mon, 12 Feb 1996 17:52:12 -0500
% Message-Id: <311FC4D6.2286@knot.iii.net>
% Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 17:53:10 -0500
% From: Geoff Keller <gkeller@knot.iii.net>
% X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (Win95; I)
% Mime-Version: 1.0
% To: Geoff Keller <cuptay::keller>
% Subject: [Fwd: On the Campaign Trail]
% Content-Type: message/rfc822
% Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
% Content-Disposition: inline
    

>Of course he is.  The point is that you're insisting he HAS to vote
>for Forbes (in the context of the discussion).

My point is that for anyone who truly wishes to see Slick out of the White 
House, they'd be well advised to cast their vote for _WHOMEVER_ gets the
GOP nomination, because a vote for Harry Browne or whomever isn't going
to accomplish the goal.

Is this difficult to see? Do you truly believe that sufficient voters,
come November, will cast votes for Browne or whomever in numbers great
enough to defeat both the GOP nominee _and_ Slick? Do you not see that
if Slick is the front-runner, the GOP candidate _will_ be the second
place contender? Do you not see that if the margin between them is slim, 
the chance exists that the votes thrown to Browne or whomever could be
sufficient to swing it the other way and displace Slick?

Now, if your goal, unlike mine, is _not_ to displace Slick at all costs,
then so be it.

re: Jack

    Look, it's the shades of grey I'm talking about.  Yes Clinton sucks.
    Yes I'd like him out.  "At All Cost" has the potential for being
    way too expensive.  I don't think he's the anti-christ, though; I'm
    not willing to vote for Hitler because he's the GOP nominee against
    Clinton.

    Your simple view of "at all cost" is plain old unreasonable.

    And no, I don't expect Browne to win.  Why do you keep bringing him
    up?  I haven't mentioned him at all.

    \joh

    Well. looks to me like Clinton won't be out any time soon.

>    Your simple view of "at all cost" is plain old unreasonable.

Well, I don't happen to think so (as you've probably already guessed :^).

As a pro-choice atheist, Buchanan, for example, is not my cup of tea by
any stretch of the imagination, but if he can displace Slick, it's my
opinion that the country as a whole would be a lot better off with him
in the White House for the next four years.

I've gone over all of the scenarios with each of the Republican candidates.
With very few exceptions, I don't really like any of them. But in each
case, the worst probable situation is far better than the prospect of
another four years of Slick. That's why I'm taking the stand that I am.
And that's why I feel an urgency in supporting the Republican nominee,
no matter who it turns out to be.

>    And no, I don't expect Browne to win.  Why do you keep bringing him
>    up?  I haven't mentioned him at all.

Only because this is the Libertarian topic.

re .101:

>My point is that for anyone who truly wishes to see Slick out of the White 
>House, they'd be well advised to cast their vote for _WHOMEVER_ gets the
>GOP nomination, because a vote for Harry Browne or whomever isn't going
>to accomplish the goal.

Again I'd like to point out this is 'useful' only if your state of residence
is close and could go either way.  If your state is solidly on one side or the
other, you'll have a larger effect by voting your conscience.  As long as
politics in Mass. remain as they are, and Slick remains popular here, no need
to vote for one minority candidate with no hope of winning (the Republican) 
instead of another minority candidate with no hope of winning (J. Random
Third-Party).  Similarly, no need for someone in Utah to vote for the
Republican, the state is certain to select the Republican.  Remember, the
Presidential election is not really a true national election with whoever
gets the most votes wins, it is 50 statewide elections, with winner-takes-all
in each, and the president is chosen by an algorithm from these 50 elections.

>Is this difficult to see?

I guess so, if you're still harping for everyone not to vote for Browne or
whoever to meet "The goal - get Slick out of the White House"

    The Rebublican candidates are not very good politicians. Slick is a
    good one.

re:<<< Note 644.106 by EVMS::MORONEY "Never underestimate the power of human stupidity" >>>

We've been through that, Mike. In the states where it will make a difference 
it makes sense, does it not?

Now, if it were possible to predict, right now, which states will go Repub
and which ones will go Slick, then we wouldn't even need to bother to hold
the election, would we?

I still don't know whether the folks _not_ registered Democrat in the PRM 
outnumber those who _are_ registered Democrat. I also don't know how happy
the registered PRM Dem's will be with Slick come November. Hell, I heard
Dornin (sp?) talking to Howie Carr yesterday afternoon predicting that
Slick will actually pull an LBJ just before the convention! Will the PRM
Dem's support Algore?

re .108:

>We've been through that, Mike. In the states where it will make a difference 
>it makes sense, does it not?

If your goal is to see the Republican in the white house, AND IFF the state
race is close enough where a vote for a third party MIGHT be a vote for
Slick, yes.

>Now, if it were possible to predict, right now, which states will go Repub
>and which ones will go Slick, then we wouldn't even need to bother to hold
>the election, would we?

We don't have to predict right now.  The election isn't until November.
At that time, the Republican will have been selected, issues raised,
mud thrown etc.  And there are always states that could go either way
in a close election.  And we should always hold proper elections.

>I still don't know whether the folks _not_ registered Democrat in the PRM 
>outnumber those who _are_ registered Democrat.

Well as I mentioned folks not registered with either party outnumber
Republicans.  Theoretically if they united the Republicans would be
the third party.  Of course this is almost as easy as herding cats.

> I also don't know how happy the registered PRM Dem's will be with Slick
> come November.

Have no worry. If the election is such that the PRM could go either way,
the Republicans are about to win a laugher of an election.

If the race is close nationwide, Mass. is firmly in the Democratic
camp, a Republican vote isn't going to help defeat Slick.

      Geoff,
    
        Thanks for your inputs.  I read as far as just past the 
        500+ line reply.
    
        I understand the rationale for voting for the lesser of
        two evils, but this time I'm going to vote for the right
        guy and let the chips fall where they may.
    
        So, I'm going to vote for Clinton!
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
        Just kidding!
    
        I'm voting for the Libertarian Harry Browne unless something
        totally unforeseen crops up.
    
    					Thanks Again,
    
    					Tony

    You're welcome, I'll keep posting information...
    
    I listened to Harry yesterday on WTAG AM580 out of Worcester, MA and I
    was impressed.  It was a fairly short interview (just under 20 minutes)
    but what I heard I liked.  And no I'm not talking about the ideals.  It
    was the first time I have actually heard him speak and I like the way
    he presented himself.
    
    He answered every question asked in a straight forward manner.  he
    didn't try to beat around the bush and he realizes that it is
    definitely an uphill struggle.
    
    I'm planning on going to hear him speak today at the Sheraton up in
    Nashua.  Will anyone else from this conference be there?  It would be
    neat to put some faces with the names and I rarely (read never) get a
    chance to make it to the box bashes.
    
    --Geoff

What time will he be there?

    3:30 pm -- 4:30 pm
    
    His schedule is in one of my earlier notes (somewhere around .95).
    
    --Geoff
    
    P.S. No I'm not skipping out of work early:-)  I get in at 6:00 so I
         can leave at 3:00

    the schedule is in .99
    
    He will also be in New London, NH tonight @7:00pm
    
    --Geoff

Received: from hustle.rahul.net (hustle.rahul.net [192.160.13.2]) by nic.iii.net (8.6.8/8.6.6) with SMTP id NAA16916 for <gkeller@knot.iii.net>; Fri, 23 Feb 1996 13:59:44 -0500
Received: by hustle.rahul.net with UUCP id AA06532
  (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for gkeller@knot.iii.net); Fri, 23 Feb 1996 10:55:57 -0800
Received: by dehnbase.fidonet.org (mailout1.26); Fri, 23 Feb 96 10:46:13 PST
X-UIDL: 825376106.002
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 96 10:40:10 PST
Message-Id: <31056.312E0B75.ann@HarryBrowne96.org>
From: CampaignNews@HarryBrowne96.org
Subject: On the Campaign Trail
Sender: announce-request@HarryBrowne96.org
Reply-To: campaign@HarryBrowne96.org
To: announce@HarryBrowne96.org (Harry Browne for President announcements)
X-Mailer: mailout v1.26 released with lsendfix 1.5d
Status: U
X-Mozilla-Status: 0000


                 On the Campaign Trail with Harry Browne

                               (Episode #4)

Boston, Friday, February 9, 1996

8pm: After 36 hours at home to renew acquaintances with the animals and
clean up my desk, Pamela and I arrive in Boston. The plane is very late
and we have to hurry to get to the David Brudnoy show, but we make it
on time. David is a long-time libertarian, and one of Boston's most
popular talk-show hosts. I first appeared on his show sometime in the
1970s, and he has always been very good to me. Now he has AIDS (not
just the HIV virus), and he broadcasts from his luxurious apartment. He
looks good, however, and his great sense of humor is very much in
evidence. We have a terrific hour together. But, as sometimes happens,
after almost an hour of solid support from David and the callers, the
last two callers pose "lifeboat" cases -- such as whether I favor
private citizens' owning nuclear weapons. (Issue #1 in this year's
campaign.)

Saturday, February 10

The Massachusetts LP convention. Interviews with the local press and a
forum with other Presidential candidates. A good crowd and good
questions. Economist and author Walter Block is the banquet speaker;
afterward, he agrees to serve on my Campaign Committee.

Monday, February 12

10am: After spending Sunday catching up on a mountain of campaign
paperwork -- questionnaires from political organizations,
correspondence, articles to write, and so on -- I now have two hours
"in-studio" on the Jerry Williams show, another big Boston talk show.
He says he should have taken my advice to buy gold when I was on his
show in 1970. Am I really that old? He used to be a somewhat famous
liberal. He doesn't apply a label to himself now, but he appears to
agree with us; in fact, he sounds as though he hopes I'll be in the
thick of the national debate this year. Afterward, we drive through the
snow to Nashua, New Hampshire.

Concord, NH, Tuesday, February 13

9am: At the State Capitol, we meet Don Gorman, the Libertarian NH state
representative. We're here to listen to an address to the State
Legislature by Robert Dole (Oops!, I mean "Bob Dole"). Pamela, Rob
Martin, and I are seated in the front row of the balcony, to be
introduced to the assembled multitude before Dole's speech, so I can
wave to the crowd -- a singular honor, I am told.

The legislature is called into session at 10am. After the prayer and
flag salute, all the legislators start talking to each other --
creating more noise than the trading floor of the New York Stock
Exchange. In the middle of that din, someone on the dais mumbles the
names of today's 15 distinguished guests. Through the cacophony, I
catch a word here and there: ". . . Browne . . . wife Pamela . . .
Libertarian . . . "

Dole arrives 90 minutes later and gives his speech to standing
ovations. He talks very gravely about getting rid of federal
regulations, taxes, and programs -- and restoring the 10th Amendment.
The audience eats it up as though he meant it. At one point during the
speech, a news camera in the balcony pans over the front row of rapt
listeners. The man sitting next to me happens to be asleep.

Afterward, we roam the halls of the legislature -- meeting Governor
Merrill, the Speaker of the House, the President of the Senate, and
even Elizabeth Dole. I present each of them with a copy of my book. I
just know they can't wait to get home, curl up in an easy chair, and
dive into the book. (Please excuse this attack of irony.)

Actually, I have a nice conversation with the President of the Senate.
I launch into a campaign speech -- including my standard offer to every
American: "Give up your favorite federal program and you'll never again
have to pay income tax." He's intrigued and entertained. He seems
genuinely interested in my approach. We get along well, and Rob takes a
picture of him, me, Pamela, and Don Gorman.

A reporter from National Public Radio interviews me, asking what I
thought of the Dole speech. I say, "I thought it was a great act of
courage for Mr. Dole to say that he's now willing to get rid of all the
programs, taxes, and regulations he has voted for." She loves it, and
asks several more questions. How do I differ from Forbes? And so on. A
good interview. Don says she's sure to run it because she probably
doesn't like Dole (or any Republican).

After Donn Tibbetts of the Manchester Union-Leader interviews me, I ask
him what Dole meant when he said we have to restore the 10th Amendment.
He doesn't understand the question. I say, "If he really means it, he'd
have to adopt my program -- and get the federal government completely
out of welfare, education, health care, housing, transportation, crime
control, and regulation. Do you think he will?" Tibbetts says the
speech was just political hyperbole. He says a third-party candidate
has to be sincere, but a Republican doesn't. Now it is I who doesn't
understand.

Nashua, Wednesday, February 14

2pm: More radio shows, and then an interview with Hugh Gregg, former
governor of New Hampshire, who is writing a history of the New
Hampshire primary. Since the LP primary isn't binding on delegates, it
isn't our top priority, so I launch into my political program -- but
all he wants is for me to say how important the New Hampshire "first in
the nation" primary is.

4pm: I speak to the Presidential Forum of the New England Community
Action Association. We were told there would be about 500 people at the
forum, but there are only about 50 in the room. I have been preceded by
Steve Forbes, Billie Jo Clegg, Irwin Schiff, and Lyndon LaRouche, to be
followed by John Hurd. Am I rising in the world -- or sinking?

When introducing me, the host says he figures the previous speakers had
about 12 years' prison time among them, and he hopes I won't add to the
total. I say, "No, I haven't spent any time in prison. But I wonder
whether you folks might have committed some crime that sentenced you to
be locked in here all day with politicians." The audience is by no
means libertarian or conservative, but they are very attentive and they
find it hard to dispute my program in the question period.

7pm: It has been snowing for 24 hours, and the roads are a mess. Just
driving back to the hotel from the forum was chancy. And now we have a
radio show scheduled in-studio in New London 90 minutes away. Rob calls
the station to say we can't risk driving in the snow with a rented car
and no snow tires, and that I'd like to do the interview by phone. The
host is insulted, says a phone interview is technically impossible, and
hangs up. Later, we discover he replaced me with a phone interview with
Alan Dershowitz.

Thursday, February 15

11am: We drive to Boston to depart the land of snow for California, the
land of sunshine. On the airplane, I develop a cold. By the time we
arrive in California, it's a major problem. This is the first time in
18 months of running that I've been sick enough to be uncomfortable.
But I can still talk, and so on arrival I do a phone interview with a
couple of friendly talk-show hosts in Fairbanks, Alaska.

Southern California, Friday, February 16

9am: National Review magazine wants to run a letter by me, praising
their stand against the War on Drugs. I'm all for it, provided they
identify me as a Presidential candidate and the letter can mention "Why
Government Doesn't Work." They agree and the letter is scheduled for
the next issue. My cold is worse, but after taking anti-histamines and
cough medicine, I'm ready for a busy day.

12 noon: An in-studio interview with Dennis Prager on KABC -- L.A.'s
biggest talk-show station. Mr. Prager thinks we have a moral
responsibility to protect Europe and Asia, and I forget to ask him what
Europe's responsibility is. But, on the whole, the show goes very well
-- and he invites me back. He's a classical music lover, and even an
amateur conductor, and in that area we have a lot to talk about (off
the air).

Long Beach, California, Saturday, February 17

5pm: We have a cocktail reception at the California LP convention. The
room is set up for 100 people, but it overflows with standees all
around the walls. The audience is enthusiastic, and contributes more to
the campaign than any LP audience has before.

Sunday, February 18

All day: The campaign staff descends on California for a strategy
meeting. Sharon Ayres, Michael Cloud, Jack Dean, Terry Bronson, Rob
Martin, Pamela, I, and even Lisa Paley on a speaker phone. We map out
strategy to increase name recognition over the next three months and
elevate fund-raising.

When the Republican primaries are over, the noise level will subside --
and we must be in position by then to make my candidacy and our issues
a part of the national debate. Among other things, we decide to step up
the frequency and distribution of our press releases. We also will need
the help of hundreds and thousands of supporters -- writing letters to
the editor, calling into talk shows, posting messages on the computer
forums, contacting any influential people they know.

And we will need to raise money in much larger amounts than we have so
far -- by setting up fund-raisers with businessmen and corporate
officers. We've already raised well over a half-million dollars, with
about 60% of that coming from outside the LP. That's excellent for a
campaign with little name recognition (and better than some well-known
Republican candidates have done), but now we have to move much faster.
So we lay out a detailed plan to test a CEO fund-raising program.

Monday, February 19

1pm: The Sam Adams luncheon that closes the California convention. I'm
honored to be the featured speaker. I talk about "The Marriage of
Politics and Principle" -- how we can be politically effective without
compromising principle. I discuss the need to close ranks, to stop
judging other libertarians, to welcome to our movement anyone who wants
to be a part of it. Once on our side, each newcomer will continue to
grow -- just as I have grown over the past 35 years, and just as other
libertarians learn something more every day. The message is well
received. Many people tell me they haven't seen Libertarians this
motivated in years.

Tuesday, February 20

9am: My cold has finally subsided. By phone I do the Mike Rosen show in
Denver. He apparently has me on as a courtesy to Libertarians in the
area, because he thinks the future lies with Republican attempts to
"reduce government as a percentage of GNP" -- even though he's never
figured out that fulfilling every Republican promise would reduce the
overall tax load by no more than 1% or so. The argument gets furious,
but at the end he graciously allows me two uninterrupted minutes to sum
up my case.

It's primary day in New Hampshire, and people are stunned by Pat
Buchanan's narrow victory. The LP also has a primary. I'm entered as a
publicity weapon and I get 67% of the vote. But I have done practically
no campaigning, so we don't expect a large turnout and we don't get
one.

In retrospect, it's obvious we were right to change strategies last
fall -- deciding against trying to make a splash in New Hampshire. We
had no chance to draw attention away from the very noisy Republican
crowd there. Instead, we spent time in places where it was much easier
to get local and national coverage -- on radio and TV, and in print --
laying the groundwork for an intense name-recognition campaign over the
next several months.

Every vote we get in any state primary is very helpful. A good turnout
adds credibility to the party and the campaign. But it isn't
cost-effective for me to seek primary votes actively. Our limited time
and money must be used to build name recognition throughout America --
using talk shows and press releases -- and to build new sources of
campaign funding. We have to rely on Libertarians to recognize for
themselves the value of voting Libertarian in a primary.

Wednesday, February 21

6am: Up early for a Nashville radio show that's broadcasting from New
Hampshire. The host, Phil Valentine, is very receptive and all the
calls are supportive.

Noon: I'm on with Ken Hamblin, a popular national radio host. The
interview is only 25 minutes, but it's a tremendous success. He is
completely with us -- and he reads paragraphs from the campaign book on
the air.

2:30pm: At the Orange County airport, I'm on the phone for 35 minutes
with Greg Anderson's show in Atlanta, my second "appearance." He's very
enthusiastic about our campaign.

3:45pm: We take off for Nashville, via Dallas, and five days at home --
doing talk shows by phone, making phone calls to raise money and
support, writing articles, and such. In many ways, it's easier to be on
the road. There I just follow the schedule; at home, there seem to be a
thousand things to do and not enough time to cover all the bases. But
Pamela and I agree it will be nice to sleep in our own bed, eat our own
(low-fat) food, try to lose some of the pounds we've put on, and be
among the animals we love.
          
-- 
Harry Browne for President - http://www.HarryBrowne96.org/
4094 Majestic Lane, Suite 240, Fairfax, VA 22033



% ====== Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) ======
% Received: from mail11.digital.com by us1rmc.bb.dec.com (5.65/rmc-22feb94) id AA22061; Thu, 29 Feb 96 17:37:10 -050
% Received: from nic.iii.net by mail11.digital.com (5.65v3.2/1.0/WV) id AA23475; Thu, 29 Feb 1996 17:28:27 -050
% Received: from knot.iii.net (knot.iii.net [199.232.40.135]) by nic.iii.net (8.6.8/8.6.6) with SMTP id RAA27653 for <keller@cuptay.enet.dec.com>; Thu, 29 Feb 1996 17:27:05 -0500
% Message-Id: <31362884.47FB@knot.iii.net>
% Date: Thu, 29 Feb 1996 17:28:20 -0500
% From: Geoff Keller <gkeller@knot.iii.net>
% X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (Win95; I)
% Mime-Version: 1.0
% To: Geoff Keller <cuptay::keller>
% Subject: [Fwd: On the Campaign Trail]
% Content-Type: message/rfc822
% Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
% Content-Disposition: inline
    

The following letter from Harry Browne appeared on page 2 of the March
25, 1996, issue of National Review:

   Congratulations on your call to end the War on Drugs ["The War on Drugs
   Is Lost, Feb. 12]. You have struck a blow for children and adults,
   crime reduction, and civil rights.

   Before 1914, any child could walk into a drugstore and legally buy
   heroin, which was sold over the counter as a sedative and pain
   reliever. There was no "drug problem" -- no pushers selling to
   children, no drive-by shootings, no gang wars, no junkies stealing to
   support their habits, no serious crime problem in America.

   Those kinds of problems arose with alcohol Prohibition in the 1920s,
   disappeared when Prohibition was repealed, and then reappeared with the
   War on Drugs in the 1960s. The War has brought no victory, only
   terrors: harsher laws, asset seizure, suspension of civil liberties --
   all of which have hurt the innocent far more than the guilty. This is
   not the way to fight crime.

   In my book _Why Government Doesn't Work_, I offer serious proposals to
   reduce crime: (1) empty the prisons of non-violent criminals so the
   thugs who terrorize society can no longer plea-bargain or get early
   release; (2) end gun-control laws that help criminals to prey on
   defenseless Americans; and, above all, (3) end the War on Drugs.

   Since I am the only known Presidential candidate who wants to reduce
   crime and drug use by ending the War on Drugs, I may seem out of step
   with the public. Yet in campaigning, I have found that most Americans
   know that government can't solve these problems. They recognize that
   government doesn't work: its schools do more damage than good; its War
   on Poverty has expanded poverty; and its War on Drugs has created the
   war zones in our inner cities.

   America is ready for the bold step you are proposing.

                Harry Browne
                Libertarian candidate for President
                Costa Mesa, California

    
    Hey, we have notes for Dole, Slickster, and a slew of other
    Prez-wannabees.
    
    This one's for Harry Browne, the leading Libertarian candidate.
    He's credible and takes unambiguous positions.  He has raised enough
    money to qualify for federal matching funds, and is the first
    candidate ever to refuse such welfare for politicians.  
    
    Harry Browne will be on the ballot in every state and will have
    behind him the third larget party in the U.S.
    
    Watch this space.
     

#644

Harry Browne for President                                        NEWS

FOR RELEASE:  March 21, 1996


                      Harry Browne Steps Forward
                  As the 3rd Presidential Candidate

Now that the Republicans and Democrats each have a lifetime politician
for a candidate, it's time to look at 1996's third alternative:  Harry
Browne, Libertarian candidate for President.  Browne's platform can be
summed up in three simple phrases:

"Huge spending cuts now, huge tax cuts now, a balanced budget now." 

While the Republican primaries have held the spotlight, Browne has been
raising money, setting up a nationwide campaign organization,
campaigning in 34 states, and appearing on 3-4 radio talk shows a day.

He has qualified to receive federal matching campaign funds, but is the
first Presidential candidate in history to refuse them -- saying, "I
don't believe in welfare for politicians, any more than for individuals
or corporations."

His program for America is laid out in his book, Why Government Doesn't
Work (245 pages, St. Martin's, $19.95), available in any bookstore.  In
it he says, "Government doesn't work.  It doesn't deliver the mail on
time, it doesn't keep our cities safe, it doesn't educate our children
properly.  The answer isn't to reform government, but to reduce it to
the absolute minimum."

His platform calls for:

- Reducing federal spending by half the first year (real reductions,
  not cuts in the growth rate).

- Repealing the income tax the first year and replacing it with nothing
  -- no flat tax, no sales tax.  (He would finance national defense and
  the few other Constitutional functions of the federal government with
  the present levels of tariffs and excise taxes.)

- Ending the 15% Social Security tax the first year without leaving
  anyone holding the bag -- by selling unneeded federal assets (Western
  lands, power companies, pipelines, etc.) and using the proceeds to buy
  private annuities for everyone dependent on Social Security today.

- Ending the War on Drugs and reducing crime by releasing non-violent
  criminals from prison -- to provide space for the murderers, rapists,
  and child molesters who now get out on plea bargains and early
  releases.  (He says, "We don't need tougher laws, more prisons, or
  higher taxes to fight crime; we need to confine law-enforcement to
  dealing with the thugs who are terrorizing us.")

The Libertarian Party is America's third largest party.  It will be on
the ballot in all 50 states in November, having already qualified in 30
states.  It will choose its Presidential candidate at its convention in
Washington, D.C., July 3-5.  Harry Browne is expected to win the
nomination with very little opposition.

Browne is a well-known financial advisor and the author of ten books,
three of which were on The New York Times best-seller list.  His 1974
book, You Can Profit from a Monetary Crisis, was a #1 best-seller.  He
first achieved prominence in 1970 when he predicted the devaluation of
the U.S. dollar and skyrocketing prices for gold, silver, and foreign
currencies.

Since 60% of Americans want a third party in the Presidential race and
56% want someone other than Dole or Clinton [Gallup Poll], and since
73% believe "the federal government is much too large and has too much
power" [Luntz], Harry Browne speaks for a large segment of the
population.  And he is the natural counterpoint to two career
politicians who claim they can make government work.  He promises to
make the national debate much more interesting by raising issues the
other candidates don't want to touch.

Subsequent press releases will provide details of Browne's platform.
His presence in the campaign will inject fresh ideas and pressure the
other candidates to address real questions -- such as how far and how
quickly we can shrink government, how we can rescue Social Security
before it goes broke, and whether Americans should be free of the
income tax.  He will compel the other candidates to provide specifics,
instead of generalities and slogans.

As he says, "The American people are hungry for changes that don't
involve more government, shuffling federal functions into different
departments, or further restrictions on their freedom.  They want much
smaller government, much lower taxes, and a balanced budget now.  They
want someone to show them how these things can come about.  So let's
start talking about them."

                            - end -

-- 
Harry Browne for President - http://www.HarryBrowne96.org/
4094 Majestic Lane, Suite 240, Fairfax, VA 22033

    Re .1:
    
    Note 644 is for Libertarians in general, not Harry Browne specifically.
    
    Had we grouped all the pubs and dims by party I'd say, yeah, keep
    loading up 644, but I wanted to focus on this particular candidate.
    
    -Jerry

Well, whatever floats yer boat, Jerry, but I sort of figured that since
Harry is really the only thing being discussed in 644, it was kind of
redundant.  Why discuss him in two different places?

    Harry has my vote.

    Harry hasn't been nominated yet by the LP.

    I'm just wild about Harry!
    

Received: from hustle.rahul.net (hustle.rahul.net [192.160.13.2]) by mailserver3.tiac.net (8.6.12/8.7.4) with SMTP id GAA07977; Fri, 5 Apr 1996 06:04:22 -0500
Received: by hustle.rahul.net with UUCP id AA18829
  (5.67b8/IDA-1.5); Fri, 5 Apr 1996 03:00:40 -0800
Received: by dehnbase.fidonet.org (mailout1.26); Fri, 5 Apr 96 02:46:32 PST
Date: Fri, 05 Apr 96 02:35:46 PST
Message-Id: <36348.3164FA08.ann@HarryBrowne96.org>
X-UIDL: 828705841.000
From: CampaignNews@HarryBrowne96.org
Subject: On the Campaign Trail
Sender: announce-request@HarryBrowne96.org
Reply-To: campaign@HarryBrowne96.org
To: announce@HarryBrowne96.org (Harry Browne for President announcements)
X-Mailer: mailout v1.26 released with lsendfix 1.5e
Status: U
X-Mozilla-Status: 0001


                 On the Campaign Trail with Harry Browne

                               (Episode #6)


Nashville, Monday-Tuesday, March 11-12

At home for two days of catching up. Unsolicited requests for radio
shows are pouring in now. On Monday, 11 new shows are booked. On
Tuesday I have four shows to do -- including Al Mamberg's show on 160
stations. We had been reaching at least 300,000 people a week by radio,
and we wanted to raise that to a million a week. Now we have done so,
and the reception at this broader level is no less favorable.

With radio and TV combined, I must have spoken to at least 10 million
people since January 1. And these have been 30-60 minute interviews,
not 15-second soundbites. In terms of presenting one's case in detail,
I have undoubtedly talked to more people than Clinton, Dole, Buchanan,
or Perot. No, we don't have the attention of the mainstream press yet,
but our full case is reaching more people than anyone else's is. Of
course, none of the others has a case.

I continue to be impressed by how respectfully most talk-show hosts
treat me, the Libertarian Party, and the concept of libertarianism. Pat
McMahon in Phoenix is very respectful, and he raves about the
gubernatorial campaign John Buttrick ran in 1994.

New York City, Thursday, March 14

8am: Four big in-studio shows today. The first is "Lionel" (his
nickname, I don't know his real name), a star host on New York's ABC
radio station. He's a character, but a libertarian through and through.
He says to a caller, "You think we need a third party? We HAVE a third
party, you putz -- the Libertarian Party."

Then it's an hour on the public radio station. A decidedly different
host and a different audience, but it still goes well. On to Alan
Colmes, syndicated nationwide -- a liberal, but he agrees with much of
what I say. It's my second time on his show. Finally, a half-hour
taping with Larry Jacobs -- to be cut into soundbites and fed to ABC
radio stations all over America. He's very supportive, and he asks me
to sign a second book for his cousin.

Friday, March 15

1pm: A 15-minute interview on the new CNN financial TV network. Before
escorting me to the set, the producer says I don't need to take my book
with me -- as the host has it and will mention it. But he just did an
interview with another author, in which he never showed or mentioned
the book. And I've been burned before. So I tell the producer I may
need to refer to the book -- and I do. Whenever I mention it, I hold it
up to the camera. And I almost take over the interview. The host asks a
question, I answer it in one sentence, and then take off on something I
want to talk about. Years of practice is paying off, assuring that our
issues are covered.

New Jersey, Saturday, March 16

Noon: The New Jersey LP convention. Talk-show host "Lionel" is the
luncheon speaker, and he's a riot. A stream of consciousness comedian,
similar to Robin Williams, but everything he says relates to
libertarianism. We should have him at the national convention in July.

Talk-radio hosts not only are libertarian, they more and more are
identifying themselves with the Libertarian Party. This week it's
Lionel in New Jersey, last weekend talk-show host Cheryl Godfrey spoke
at our fund-raiser in Las Vegas, the week before Irv Homer came to the
LP convention in Philadelphia.

After the luncheon, a candidate forum -- in which I stress that we
should be seizing the opportunity we have this year, in which the
public is begging for a credible program to make government much
smaller.

Washington, D.C., Sunday, March 17

The campaign staff gathers for a strategy meeting. We talk with the
principals of the public relations firm that may get us some national
TV coverage.

Washington, D.C., Monday, March 18

3pm: On the Oliver North show -- syndicated across the country. He is a
gracious host and surprisingly supportive. I call for the repeal of the
income tax, getting government out of Social Security, and reducing the
federal government to just the functions specified in the Constitution.
Then I call for ending the War on Drugs -- and he says, "That's the
first thing you've said that I don't agree with." But he doesn't stop
to argue with me. When a caller suggests we need to get together with
the Buchananites and form a third party, North says, "We have a third
party already -- it's the Libertarian Party." (Two days later Michael
Reagan on his own show will say to forget Perot, that the Libertarian
Party is America's third party.) At the end of the North show, he says
on the air that he's going to "call my friend Larry King and get him to
have you on his show." He repeats the promise off the air. Whether or
not he succeeds, this show did a great deal of good.

Tuesday, March 19

8:40am: Up early for a radio show. I'm asked on which issues we agree
with conservatives and which with liberals. I say we are consistently
for individual liberty, but others borrow from us selectively. It is
important not to associate ourselves with liberal or conservative
politicians or leaders in any way. Too many libertarians say, in
effect, "We agree with conservatives on some things and liberals on
other things." In fact, we don't agree with either of them -- because
neither liberal nor conservative politicians are sincere.

We are not "fiscally conservative and socially liberal." We're for
individual liberty and self-responsibility on all issues at all times.
Sometimes the Republican politicians borrow from us on economic issues
when they think our words sound good -- saying government is too big
and taxes are too high -- but they never do anything to change these
things when they have the chance. Sometimes the Democrats borrow from
us on civil liberties when it suits their purpose, but they vote for
asset forfeiture, Internet censorship, and other dictatorial measures.

Individual conservatives or liberals are a different story. I'm
convinced that most people who call themselves "conservative" today are
closer to us than to their own leaders. They don't want to conserve a
$1.5 trillion government. They may not agree with us on everything, but
they do want much smaller government. Meanwhile, their leaders pat them
on the head and say all the right things, but have no intention of
making government any smaller -- no intention of giving up their own
power. It is our job to help these people realize that we -- not the
politicians and leaders -- are their ideological kin.

Host Frank Foley agrees, saying "You have my 100% support, because I've
given up on the two old parties."

11:30am: A series of short interviews videotaped and audiotaped at
Bloomberg News, to be released in various formats on their own network
of stations. In the afternoon, a visit to the Cato Institute to talk
with several of their resident scholars -- who are available to provide
valuable data and insights on a variety of campaign issues. Then Pamela
and I catch a plane for home.

Nashville, Wednesday, March 20

Just one radio show today. Otherwise, a day of catching up at my desk
-- but trying to relax and not treat anything as urgent.

Thursday, March 21

9am: My 20-hour vacation is over. What a day. Six radio shows by phone.
None is a national show, but most are in large cities -- Pueblo,
Wilmington, Salt Lake City, Cleveland, Seattle, and Birmingham. Keith
Pellegrini in Cleveland starts his show saying he doesn't know whom
he'll vote for -- he doesn't care much for Clinton, he doesn't trust
Dole, and he doesn't like Buchanan. After ten minutes of the interview,
he starts applauding and says, "I've found my man. I'm voting for Harry
Browne."

In addition, the first in our new series of faxed press releases went
out last night -- and Lisa Paley's phone is ringing off the hook. She
books 13 new radio shows today.

Friday, March 22

7:40am: Another big day. Four radio shows, plus taping a promotional ad
for a show that will air next week. One of the shows is on a public
radio station -- with the usual remarks that people died in the streets
until the New Deal saved the country. If Americans aren't generous, I
ask, how are churches financed, who's tipping waitresses, and why do
most people slow down to let you change lanes on a freeway?

3pm: Oh despair! Oh tragedy! I finally admit defeat and raise the white
flag. I go to the tailor and get my suits altered -- letting them out
to accommodate the pounds I've put on during the campaign. My weight
increased from around 195 to about 208. It isn't just the banquets, but
also the fast food in airports when there's no time for a regular meal.
In principle, I should lick this problem with disciplined diet -- and
in fact I've managed to get down to 205, but it's slow going. And in
the meantime my clothes are too tight, making me politically
vulnerable. Suppose I'm on television and a jacket button pops off,
hitting Larry King in the eye. Or what if I sit down on the Oprah show
and my pants split? So I put pragmatism ahead of principle, and get my
suits altered.

Saturday, March 23

The Tennessee state convention. A large crowd of good-looking people --
people who are working hard to expand the LP's reach. An enthusiastic
reception. Bill McGlamery (615-586-2342) introduces the "Browne for
President" T-shirt he's selling; it's beautifully done in red, white,
and blue.

Sunday-Wednesday, March 24-27

Two to six radio shows almost every day. It's exciting to hear people
call in to say they used to think they were conservatives or liberals,
but they realize now they're Libertarians. Our time has come. If we
relax this year, if we fail to take advantage of every opportunity
offered, we have only ourselves to blame for not building the LP into
the third major party.

In between shows, I get a chance to read letters that have come into
the campaign office. Those letters nourish me; it's inspiring to know
how much people care what we're doing and how much they're doing to
help. I wish I could reply to these letters. I read every one, but to
write back would mean passing up opportunities we all want to seize on.
I hope everyone knows I read the letters and appreciate them.

Thursday, March 28

Pamela and I are off to Buffalo and Maine . . . 
          
-- 
Harry Browne for President - http://www.HarryBrowne96.org/
4094 Majestic Lane, Suite 240, Fairfax, VA 22033



% ====== Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) ======
% Received: from mail11.digital.com by us1rmc.bb.dec.com (5.65/rmc-22feb94) id AA00997; Fri, 5 Apr 96 07:29:56 -050
% Received: from mailserver3.tiac.net by mail11.digital.com (5.65v3.2/1.0/WV) id AA26154; Fri, 5 Apr 1996 07:23:32 -050
% Received: from mailserver2.tiac.net (mailserver2.tiac.net [199.0.65.231]) by mailserver3.tiac.net (8.6.12/8.7.4) with ESMTP id HAA11383 for <keller@cuptay.enet.dec.com>; Fri, 5 Apr 1996 07:20:02 -0500
% Received: from gkeller.tiac.net (gkeller.tiac.net [207.60.57.127]) by mailserver2.tiac.net (8.6.12/8.7.4) with SMTP id HAA15703 for <keller@cuptay.enet.dec.com>; Fri, 5 Apr 1996 07:19:50 -0500
% Message-Id: <31651042.62F1@tiac.net>
% Date: Fri, 05 Apr 1996 07:21:22 -0500
% From: Geoff Keller <gkeller@tiac.net>
% X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (Win95; I)
% Mime-Version: 1.0
% To: Geoff Keller <cuptay::keller>
% Subject: [Fwd: On the Campaign Trail]
% Content-Type: message/rfc822
% Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
% Content-Disposition: inline
    

Received: from hustle.rahul.net (hustle.rahul.net [192.160.13.2]) by maildeliver1.tiac.net (8.6.12/8.7.4) with SMTP id HAA20003; Fri, 5 Apr 1996 07:09:45 -0500
Received: by hustle.rahul.net with UUCP id AA23079
  (5.67b8/IDA-1.5); Fri, 5 Apr 1996 04:04:14 -0800
Received: by dehnbase.fidonet.org (mailout1.26); Fri, 5 Apr 96 03:51:34 PST
Date: Fri, 05 Apr 96 03:40:20 PST
Message-Id: <36389.31650946.ann@HarryBrowne96.org>
X-UIDL: 828706355.000
From: radio-schedule@HarryBrowne96.org
Subject: schedule update
Sender: announce-request@HarryBrowne96.org
Reply-To: campaign@HarryBrowne96.org
To: announce@HarryBrowne96.org (Harry Browne for President announcements)
X-Mailer: mailout v1.26 released with lsendfix 1.5e
Status: U
X-Mozilla-Status: 0001


Upcoming events:
                                       
   Friday, April 5, 1996
     Newspaper interview with The Nashville Business in Review
     Time: 2:00-3:00pm Central
          
   Friday, April 5, 1996 - Toledo, OH
     WSPD Afternoon News with Carl Dettmar on WSPD 1370AM
     Time: 4:20-4:30pm Eastern
     Call-in: 419-240-1370
          
   Saturday, April 6, 1996 - Ft. Lauderdale, FL and national radio
     American Scene with Steve Crowley
     Syndicated - 40 stations nationwide
     Time: 10:00-10:30am Eastern
     Call-in: 800-821-7424
          
   Saturday, April 6, 1996 - Red Bluff, CA
     NorthTalk with Vince Carlton on KBLF 1490AM
     Time: 11:00am-12noon Pacific
          
   Monday, April 8, 1996 - Glens Falls, NY
     Speak up with Don Racette on WWSC 1450AM
     Time: 1:00-2:00pm Eastern
     Call-in: 518-793-4497
          
   Monday, April 8, 1996 - Chico, CA
     The Live Line with Bruce Sessions on KPAY 1060AM
     Time: 4:30-4:50pm Pacific
     Call-in: 800-281-5729 (or: 916-891-5729 local)
          
   Tuesday, April 9, 1996 - Washington, DC
     Talk of the Nation with Ray Suarez on National Public Radio
     Time: 3:00-4:00pm Eastern
     Call-in: 800-989-3031
          
   Wednesday, April 10, 1996 - San Francisco, CA
     The Geoff Metcalf Show on KSFO 560AM
     Time: 10:00-11:00am Pacific
          
-- 
Harry Browne for President - http://www.HarryBrowne96.org/
4094 Majestic Lane, Suite 240, Fairfax, VA 22033



% ====== Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) ======
% Received: from mail11.digital.com by us1rmc.bb.dec.com (5.65/rmc-22feb94) id AA00988; Fri, 5 Apr 96 07:29:22 -050
% Received: from maildeliver1.tiac.net by mail11.digital.com (5.65v3.2/1.0/WV) id AA31483; Fri, 5 Apr 1996 07:23:58 -050
% Received: from mailserver2.tiac.net (mailserver2.tiac.net [199.0.65.231]) by maildeliver1.tiac.net (8.6.12/8.7.4) with ESMTP id HAA20518 for <keller@cuptay.enet.dec.com>; Fri, 5 Apr 1996 07:20:24 -0500
% Received: from gkeller.tiac.net (gkeller.tiac.net [207.60.57.127]) by mailserver2.tiac.net (8.6.12/8.7.4) with SMTP id HAA15723 for <keller@cuptay.enet.dec.com>; Fri, 5 Apr 1996 07:20:21 -0500
% Message-Id: <31651062.51F1@tiac.net>
% Date: Fri, 05 Apr 1996 07:21:54 -0500
% From: Geoff Keller <gkeller@tiac.net>
% X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (Win95; I)
% Mime-Version: 1.0
% To: Geoff Keller <cuptay::keller>
% Subject: [Fwd: schedule update]
% Content-Type: message/rfc822
% Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
% Content-Disposition: inline
    

Received: from hustle.rahul.net (hustle.rahul.net [192.160.13.2]) by mailserver3.tiac.net (8.6.12/8.7.4) with SMTP id OAA02231; Fri, 5 Apr 1996 14:10:20 -0500
Received: by hustle.rahul.net with UUCP id AA02563
  (5.67b8/IDA-1.5); Fri, 5 Apr 1996 11:06:55 -0800
Received: by dehnbase.fidonet.org (mailout1.26); Fri, 5 Apr 96 10:37:47 PST
Date: Fri, 05 Apr 96 10:07:26 PST
Message-Id: <36469.3165687B.ann@HarryBrowne96.org>
X-UIDL: 828734979.000
From: CampaignNews@HarryBrowne96.org
Subject: release: FEC says take funds or be shut out
Sender: announce-request@HarryBrowne96.org
Reply-To: campaign@HarryBrowne96.org
To: announce@HarryBrowne96.org (Harry Browne for President announcements)
X-Mailer: mailout v1.26 released with lsendfix 1.5e
Status: U
X-Mozilla-Status: 0001


Harry Browne for President                                        NEWS

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
April 5, 1996

                        Federal Commission Says: 
                     Browne Must Accept Tax Subsidy
                  To Participate Fully in '96 Election

Libertarian Harry Browne could be the first presidential candidate ever
to qualify for federal campaign matching funds and refuse to take them.

But if he doesn't take the taxpayer subsidy from the federal Treasury,
he will be shut out of many aspects of the electoral process, based on
a recent ruling of the Federal Election Commission (FEC).

Browne was kept off the Delaware primary ballot because the state
listed only candidates certified by the FEC as qualifying for federal
matching funds. And Browne may be kept out of the presidential debates
this fall because matching funds qualification is one of the criteria
used to determine which candidates will be allowed to participate.

Although Browne qualified for matching funds last November, on March 28
the FEC ruled that it won't certify his qualification unless he agrees
to accept the subsidy. But Browne calls the matching funds program
"welfare for politicians." He says:

"I want to end all federal welfare for individuals, corporations, and
politicians, so how can I accept this subsidy? So far, primary
candidates will receive more than $40 million in matching funds, and
the Democratic and Republican nominees will each get a gift of $60
million from the Treasury to finance their general election campaigns.
But Libertarians finance their campaigns the old-fashioned way -- by
earning the trust and support of donors."

The Libertarian Party is America's third largest party. Its candidate
will be chosen at its convention in Washington, D.C., July 3- 7, and
will be on the ballot in all 50 states in November. Browne is expected
to win the nomination with little opposition.

His program calls for huge reductions in federal spending, the repeal
of the income tax, privatizing Social Security, and reducing crime by
ending the War on Drugs and releasing non-violent criminals to free up
prison space for those who are terrorizing society. And -- yes -- an
end to campaign subsidies. His program is presented in his book,  Why
Government Doesn't Work (245 pages, St. Martin's, $19.95), available in
any bookstore.

                                  ###

Editor:  To obtain a copy of the FEC ruling, ask for Advisory Opinion
#1996-7 from the FEC at (202) 219-4155. To obtain copies of the Browne
for President Committee's correspondence to the FEC, call Sharon Ayres
at (714) 437-7911.

-- 
Harry Browne for President - http://www.HarryBrowne96.org/
4094 Majestic Lane, Suite 240, Fairfax, VA 22033



% ====== Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) ======
% Received: from mail11.digital.com by us1rmc.bb.dec.com (5.65/rmc-22feb94) id AA02185; Fri, 5 Apr 96 15:21:31 -050
% Received: from maildeliver1.tiac.net by mail11.digital.com (5.65v3.2/1.0/WV) id AA15900; Fri, 5 Apr 1996 15:13:18 -050
% Received: from mailserver2.tiac.net (mailserver2.tiac.net [199.0.65.231]) by maildeliver1.tiac.net (8.6.12/8.7.4) with ESMTP id PAA15740 for <keller@cuptay.enet.dec.com>; Fri, 5 Apr 1996 15:09:51 -0500
% Received: from gkeller.tiac.net (gkeller.tiac.net [207.60.57.127]) by mailserver2.tiac.net (8.6.12/8.7.4) with SMTP id PAA06779 for <keller@cuptay.enet.dec.com>; Fri, 5 Apr 1996 15:09:48 -0500
% Message-Id: <31657E65.5AC4@tiac.net>
% Date: Fri, 05 Apr 1996 15:11:17 -0500
% From: Geoff Keller <gkeller@tiac.net>
% X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (Win95; I)
% Mime-Version: 1.0
% To: Geoff Keller <cuptay::keller>
% Subject: [Fwd: release: FEC says take funds or be shut out]
% Content-Type: message/rfc822
% Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
% Content-Disposition: inline
    

Received: from hustle.rahul.net (hustle.rahul.net [192.160.13.2]) by maildeliver1.tiac.net (8.6.12/8.7.4) with SMTP id MAA03959; Wed, 17 Apr 1996 12:50:30 -0400
Received: by hustle.rahul.net with UUCP id AA01559
  (5.67b8/IDA-1.5); Wed, 17 Apr 1996 09:46:32 -0700
Received: by dehnbase.fidonet.org (mailout1.26); Wed, 17 Apr 96 09:27:14 PDT
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 96 09:16:57 PDT
Message-Id: <37760.31751BE2.ann@HarryBrowne96.org>
X-UIDL: 829779834.000
From: CampaignNews@HarryBrowne96.org
Subject: On the Campaign Trail
Sender: announce-request@HarryBrowne96.org
Reply-To: campaign@HarryBrowne96.org
To: announce@HarryBrowne96.org (Harry Browne for President announcements)
X-Mailer: mailout v1.26 released with lsendfix 1.6
Status: U
X-Mozilla-Status: 0001


                 On the Campaign Trail with Harry Browne

                               (Episode #7)

Buffalo, New York, Thursday, March 28

3:30pm: We arrive in Buffalo, with the trip off to a bad start. The
plane is late, and we have an appointment at a newspaper. (I knew we
never should have lent the campaign 707 to Bob Dole.) As soon as we
check in at the hotel, we call a taxi. A man drives up to the hotel in
a Chevy Blazer with his three children in the back seat, announcing
that he's the taxi. His son has to ride in the back compartment to make
room for Pamela and me. But we make it to the newspaper.

4:30pm: At the Buffalo News for an interview with political editor Bob
McCarthy. He seems sympathetic, but you never know.

6pm: We have dinner with a group of local Libertarians, committed to
fighting the good fight in a state not known for small government.
Afterward, I speak to a small gathering of libertarians.

Friday, March 29

The Buffalo News article appears; it's lengthy and 100% favorable.

8:30am: A TV interview with Brian Kahle at Channel 7. He's enthusiastic
about libertarian ideas, and -- as with many interviewers -- we'll make
sure he gets our press releases by fax once or twice a week.

Lewiston, Maine

4pm: At Bates College for a speech to a small group of students.
Driving back to Portland, Pamela and I admire the scenery. This is my
first time ever in Maine, and it's a lovely state. It's the 35th state
(including D.C.) in which we've campaigned in person.

Portland, Saturday, March 30

An early-morning in-studio radio interview and two TV interviews at the
hotel. In the evening, I give the banquet speech at the LP state
convention. During dinner, Mark Cenci makes a lovely toast honoring
Pamela.

Nashville, Sunday, March 31

We fly home -- to take Monday off, and then do four radio shows a day
during the week.

Wednesday, April 3

The usual lineup of radio shows. A lot of encouragement from hosts and
callers. Host Scott Lonsberry in Albany says, "I'm so glad there's a
third alternative this year. You are raising issues that need to be
discussed." A man in Santa Cruz, California, says, "My friends and I
had just come to the conclusion we weren't going to vote this year, but
hearing you has changed my mind; you have my vote." Shortly afterward,
a woman says, "I'm a disaffected Democrat, and I can't join the
Republicans, but now I see I can vote Libertarian to bring about real
change."

Thursday, April 4

9am: Three big radio shows today. But it's one of those days when the
words don't trip lightly off my tongue -- they fall on the floor and I
have to pick them up and rearrange them. Still, the message gets
through and, as always, it affects people powerfully. Host Mark Scott
in Detroit mentions that he talks about "Why Government Doesn't Work" a
great deal on his show.

8pm: My tongue starts working again and the words flow as they should.
Host J.R. Gach, broadcasting from New Orleans to 40 states, says, "I
can only hope and dream that Harry Browne will be President. . . .
Please get his book, read it, and then get behind this guy. . . . I've
never put a bumper sticker on my car, but I'm putting Harry Browne's on
my car tonight."

Washington, D.C., Saturday, April 6


6pm: We arrive in NeverNeverLand for a few days of shows, meetings, and
a campaign staff conference. We had planned to take Easter Sunday off,
but the staff meetings start on Sunday, followed by a series of radio
shows on Monday.

Tuesday, April 9

10am: We meet with Ed Crane of the Cato Institute on Tuesday. Having
run several LP election campaigns (including Ed Clark's Presidential
run in 1980), he has a lot of helpful advice to offer. From Cato, we go
to the Heritage Foundation to have lunch with Joe Cobb. After lunch,
there's a televised seminar at Heritage on talk radio and the
Presidential campaign. I'm not a participant, but I meet a number of
influential talk-show hosts -- including Mary Matalan -- who invite me
to appear on their shows. One of them, Michael Harrison, wants me on
his show today at 4pm.

3pm: On a nationwide National Public Radio (NPR) show for an hour with
Ray Suarez. No one suggests that people starved in the streets prior to
the New Deal, but I get a number of calls about the environment. I
point out that 90% of the pollution they complain about has occurred on
government property -- on government land, in government lakes, rivers,
and streams, and so on. If the government merely protected its own
property, we wouldn't need an EPA or other draconian regulation.
Despite this, every caller seems to want to tell a story about some
(government) waterway that has been terribly polluted and thus needs
protection by -- guess who -- the government.

Callers are concerned about private discrimination as well. I mention
that segregation ended in Major League Baseball in 1947 -- 17 years
before the 1964 Civil Rights Act, but government takes credit for
integration. When the host complains that the free market hasn't solved
all problems, I reply, "The marketplace can't solve every problem; but
government hasn't solved even one problem yet, so why do you complain
about the marketplace?"

However, my favorite line of the show comes from the host. In the past
three months, I've appeared on over a hundred radio shows, broadcast on
thousands of stations. But the NPR host says, "I'll bet commercial
radio would never give you an hour to present your views to the
American people."

4:15pm: Back at the Heritage Foundation for the syndicated radio show
with Michael Harrison and two guest hosts. Surprisingly, although none
of the three could be called Libertarians, they all agree with my
desire to radically reduce government; but doubt that I can make it
happen.

Wednesday, April 10

1pm: On the radio with Geoff Metcalf of KSFO, one of the two big talk
stations in San Francisco. He's all for what I'm proposing (including
ending the War on Drugs), but he thinks it should be done more slowly.
I tell him the politicians have never stuck to any multi-year program
to reduce taxes or spending; as soon as we turn our backs, they'll be
back to business as usual. Congress passed a tax cut in 1981 that was
to be phased in over three years, but in 1982 they raised taxes, and in
1983 they raised taxes again.

3:30pm: An interview with Thomas G. Donlon, editorial writer for
Barron's. We obviously want exactly the same things, but he believes
the Republicans will bring it about. I may not get his vote, but I may
get a helpful editorial.

Madison, Wisconsin, Thursday, April 11

1pm: We arrive for a series of events. Today's Capital Times carries a
wonderful interview with John Nichols that we did on the telephone last
week. A perfect presentation of the differences between Libertarians
and the two old parties. I point out that everything is aimed at the
October debates; if we get in them, they don't stand a chance because
they have nothing to offer. Bill Clinton will say he has compassion and
government goodies to pass out, Bob Dole will talk about leadership and
his war record. We offer to give back to people their money, their
freedom, their lives. Who can out-promise repealing the income tax,
making Social Security safe by getting it out of the clutches of
government, and reducing crime by ending the insane War on Drugs?

2pm: At the University of Wisconsin campus we meet the MTV "Choose or
Lose" crew -- a bus traveling the country to register young people to
vote. I'm interviewed by an MTV announcer and by a local TV reporter. I
point out that young people start their adult lives with a heavy tax
burden imposed to pay for the promises of politicians past. If we act
soon, we can change that without widespread pain; if we delay, we can't
wipe the slate clean without enormous suffering -- as people who had
relied on political promises are left holding the bag. The MTV
interview probably will be run intact, but the local interview turns
out to be a 15-second soundbite that mentions nothing of my political
program -- further evidence that talk radio is a much more powerful
medium than TV news soundbites.

5pm: A one-hour interview on a religious station. I was warned in
advance to stay away from the social issues and keep to economics. But
we inevitably wind up on social issues and family values -- and the
host and callers find very little on which to argue with me. They
recognize that the War on Poverty has expanded poverty many times over,
and the War on Drugs has escalated drug use; any War on Sin would turn
into a promotion for sin as well. There are no issues we have to skirt
-- whether we're talking to liberals, conservatives, Christians, Jews,
atheists, the young, the old, or even government employees.

Friday, April 12

7am: A 2-hour radio show in the studio. Don't these people ever want to
sleep in the morning? The host intends to vote Republican, but he can't
find much to argue about with me. This isn't unusual; often a host or a
caller will say, "I agree with about 85% of what you say, but I don't
know whether I can support you on . . . " I ask him how much he agrees
with the Republicans or Democrats, and the answer usually is something
like, "Oh, not more than 50%." So I thank him for voting for me and go
on to the next question.

7pm: I speak at the University to a crowd that's about one half adults,
and one half Young Republicans and Young Libertarians. Most of the
Republicans join in the applause for my proposals to get the government
out of their lives, privatize Social Security, and even for ending the
War on Drugs. Afterward, I'm interviewed by a reporter for the campus
newspaper, who is obviously supportive.

Saturday, April 13

8am: A 5-minute interview on a local TV station -- arranged by the
show's hostess after she heard me on the radio the previous morning.
Pamela says I do better in these short interviews because I barrel
through all the important issues quickly -- knowing I don't have a
second to waste. Often in such situations, the host/hostess is content
to sit back and let me carry the ball -- so I do.

Pewaukee, Wisconsin, Saturday, April 13

12pm: Here in a suburb of Milwaukee for the state LP convention. A good
group of people in attendance, and a 3-hour candidate forum is
broadcast live to a radio station in Madison. The co-hosts are both
libertarian, and they do a good job of interviewing all the candidates.
Questions are posed as well by the Libertarians in attendance and by
radio listeners. One asks me for my stand on abortion. I say I'm
opposed to it, but I don't want the federal government involved in any
way. Seeing the government's sorry record with the War on Poverty and
the War on Drugs, we can expect a federal War on Abortion to lead
within ten years to men having abortions.

7pm: On a plane to Nashville for three days at home. We better enjoy
it, because we then have a campaign trip to Michigan, Illinois, Ohio,
Washington, and Florida.

-- 
Harry Browne for President - http://www.HarryBrowne96.org/
4094 Majestic Lane, Suite 240, Fairfax, VA 22033



% ====== Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) ======
% Received: from mail11.digital.com by us1rmc.bb.dec.com (5.65/rmc-22feb94) id AA26000; Thu, 18 Apr 96 03:38:12 -040
% Received: from web0.tiac.net by mail11.digital.com (5.65v3.2/1.0/WV) id AA32584; Thu, 18 Apr 1996 03:34:51 -040
% Received: from mailserver1.tiac.net (mailserver1.tiac.net [199.0.65.232]) by maildeliver3.tiac.net (8.6.12/8.7.4) with ESMTP id DAA22489 for <keller@cuptay.enet.dec.com>; Thu, 18 Apr 1996 03:34:53 -0400
% Received: from gkeller.tiac.net (gkeller.tiac.net [207.60.57.127]) by mailserver1.tiac.net (8.6.12/8.7.4) with SMTP id SAA21393 for <keller@cuptay.enet.dec.com>; Wed, 17 Apr 1996 18:38:59 -0400
% Message-Id: <317572F6.694D@tiac.net>
% Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 18:38:46 -0400
% From: Geoff Keller <gkeller@tiac.net>
% X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win95; I)
% Mime-Version: 1.0
% To: Geoff Keller <cuptay::keller>
% Subject: [Fwd: On the Campaign Trail]
% Content-Type: message/rfc822
% Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
% Content-Disposition: inline
    

    ADVISORY FROM THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY
    News from the National LP headquarters for 
    members & supporters of the Libertarian Party
    Watergate Office Building
    2600 Virginia Avenue, NW, Suite 100
    Washington DC 20037
    Phone: (202) 333-0008 Ext. 226
    E-mail: 73163.3063@CompuServe.com
    For information about the party: (800) 682-1776
    
    April 23, 1997
    
    
    20/20's Hugh Downs: Libertarians have all the "good ideas"
    
    WASHINGTON, DC-One of the country's most respected television newsmen
    says that America has become a "one-party country" -- and that all the
    good political "ideas belong to the Libertarians."
    
    Hugh Downs, co-host of the highly rated 20/20 news program, made those
    comments on the March 31st broadcast of Politically Incorrect, ABC-TV's
    sardonic, late-night look at current events.
    
    The program, hosted by comedian Bill Maher, features a panel of four
    generally non-political guests who discuss a wide range of
    controversial topics. Downs appeared on the show with actor Jeffrey
    Tambor, Internet talk show host Judy Tenuta, and Traditional Values
    Coalition spokesperson Andrea Sheldon.
    
    While the suggested theme of the March 31st show was the Heaven's Gate
    cult, a spirited four-way debate quickly developed about abortion,
    education, and politics.
    
    When Tambor made a comment about the Republican Party, Downs retorted:
    "I think it might be important to point out that this country is a
    one-party country. Half of that party is called Republican and half is
    called Democrat. It doesn't make any difference. All the really good
    ideas belong to the Libertarians."
    
    The discussion returned to politics again later when Andrea Sheldon
    tried to defend the Republican Party as the "party of freedom" because
    it abolished slavery.
    
    Downs responded: "They always point back to the party of Lincoln-you
    know, as though Lincoln would be a Republican [today].  He wouldn't.
    He'd be a Libertarian."
    
    Libertarian Party National Director Perry Willis said Downs' televised
    comments appeared to be part of a growing trend.
    "First it was John Laroquette, then Clint Eastwood, and now comes Hugh
    Downs. I believe we'll see more and more of this kind of statement as
    we grow larger and larger," he said.
    
    Interestingly, Downs' Politically Incorrect comments were not the first
    time the newsman has praised the Libertarian Party and criticized the
    Republicans and Democrats.
    
    In a July 7, 1996 radio commentary, Downs said, "It's more difficult to
    tell a Republican from a Democrat than it is to tell a Tutsi from a
    Hutu-millions of Americans can't tell them apart. The Democrats and the
    Republicans act like antipodes of a single entity."
    
    About the Libertarian Party, Downs said: "The Libertarian Party is, by
    far, the very largest political party after the Republicans and
    Democrats. Elected Libertarians serve in various offices all over the
    country. Every year, Libertarians gain more registered voters-
    defections from the two big parties. They also offer an alternative to
    (what many people see as) the tired twosome."
    

    
|   "First it was John Laroquette, then Clint Eastwood, and now comes Hugh
|   Downs. I believe we'll see more and more of this kind of statement as
|   we grow larger and larger," he said.
    
    What a record of success!
    
    								-mr. bill

    I prefer voting Green.  

    
    
    	I prefer voting for the best candidate, not for parties.
    
    

    FWIW:
    
    http://world.std.com/~mhuben/libindex.html

    Did someone say...?
    



    #######
     ###   ###                           #
     ###    ###                         ##
     ###   ###   #####     #### ####  ######  ####    ###
     #######    #    ###    ####  ###  ###     ###     #
     ###           #####    ###        ###      ###   #
     ###        ###  ###    ###        ###       ### #
     ###       ###   ###    ###        ###  #     ###
    #####        ####  ### #####        ####       #
                                                  #
                                                ##
                                              ###
    
    ?
    

    
    	No, he said    
    



    #######
     ###   ###                           #
     ###    ###                         ##
     ###   ###   #####     #### ####  ######              
     #######    #    ###    ####  ###  ###    
     ###           #####    ###        ###    ies
     ###        ###  ###    ###        ###      
     ###       ###   ###    ###        ###  #          
    #####        ####  ### #####        ####