Because of the financial crunch last week, our P.R. firm has no interviews scheduled for the first few days of this week. This gives me a chance to catch up on a number of writing chores — composing material for the website, writing op-ed articles, doing fund-raising, and answering candidate surveys from various groups.

F. Aaron Smith of Sonoma, California, lets us know that our 30-minute TV show, The Great Libertarian Offer will be shown on the Santa Rosa cable channel (72) four times — May 8, 10, 15, and 17. More details can be obtained from Mr. Smith at (707) 541-0615. You also can contact him to help arrange more showings.

I have one interview this evening — with Gary Nolan, syndicated on about 45 radio stations. Gary joined the LP a couple of years back and does an excellent job covering libertarian issues. The conversation goes well. There are no phone-ins.

I have an interview with Barry Smith, a reporter for the Freedom Newspapers. I don't realize at first that this is the Freedom Newspapers chain that owns the Orange County (CA) Register and a number of other dailies around the country — some of the most libertarian daily newspapers in America. The reporter asks questions about the issues, which is a refreshing change.

Later, we get into the Drug War and gun ownership — and the lovefest breaks down a bit. They are very polite and sincerely interested in knowing my positions. But they find it hard to imagine ending the Drug War, even though they acknowledge that it's a failure. And with guns, I point out that just one innocent person with access to a gun at Columbine High School would have saved the lives of several children, but it doesn't resonate. However, they are glad to have me on the show and say they want me to come back.

My one interview today is with Jim Garrity of Intellectual Capital, an Internet political publication (www.intellectualcapital.com). He tapes about 20 minutes of questions and answers — which will appear on the website as an audio file, with a written transcript as well.

He asks the usual questions about the challenges facing a 3rd-party candidate — ballot access, coverage, and so on. I point out that the party has slowly but surely grown to a point where we are approaching critical mass — the stage where the growth will explode. The LP is better off for the slow, steady growth we've enjoyed — as opposed to sudden fame from a celebrity or billionaire — because it means the party has an ideologically consistent program and a strong, committed base.

(As it turns out, the article appears on May 11 and is about several 3rd party candidates — providing little that would excite people about my candidacy.)

In the 1996 campaign, I spoke at several gun rights events. Naturally, my 2nd-amendment message was well received, but I doubt that it led to many votes. It was too easy for a gun rights activist to believe that Robert Dole would be at least a little less eager than President Clinton to sign new gun-control legislation — even if the eventual result would be more restrictive gun laws. The same is true in 2000. This has made it difficult for us to rally the gun rights people to our side.

So my article takes the approach that, for safety's sake, we must repeal the 20,000 federal gun laws and regulations now on the books — not enforce them. These laws put innocent citizens at a disadvantage to the violent criminals who will aren't affected by the laws. Criminals don't register their guns; only law-abiding citizens do. Criminals don't acquire their guns in ways that require background checks and waiting periods; only innocent citizens do — citizens who in some cases need a gun immediately for defense against a stalker or to undertake a job in a dangerous situation.

By calling for the repeal of the gun laws, we separate ourselves clearly from the Republican approach to gun control. We offer something meaningful to gun rights enthusiasts — something that Republican politicians will never have the courage to advocate. Voting Libertarian offers the only route by which they can make their sentiments known clearly and unequivocally.

Three interviews today — all in areas where I'll be speaking over the weekend.

The first is with Sandra Swain, a reporter for KAST in Portland, Oregon. She tapes about ten minutes of soundbites from me, of which a few minutes will run on the station's news broadcasts. A similar interview is with Eric Berman on WIBC in Indianapolis, who tapes about 15 minutes — also to extract some soundbites. In both cases, I'm able to get onto the issues, and I hope those come across in whatever material is used.

A fourth scheduled interview was scheduled with The Capitol Times in Madison, but the reporter and I never connect by phone — as sometimes happens.

I have three interviews today — all aimed at publicizing this weekend's Wisconsin LP convention, where I'll be appearing.

The next interview is an hour with Dave Anthony on WIBA in Madison. He is an excellent interviewer — asking good questions, making no long speeches (I wish I could say the same for myself), and encouraging the callers. The questions from listeners are all very relevant, giving me an opportunity to concentrate on the red meat of the campaign.

My normal (non-campaigning) routine is to arise around 1pm or so, work through the evening, and go to bed around 5am. For some reason, the political world doesn't seem to want to accommodate itself to that schedule. So too often I have to haul myself out of bed at some unholy hour — to do a radio interview or catch a plane. But if that's the worst thing I have to face, I have a very fortunate life.

However, I should mention that campaigning contains one other problem — bad eating habits. At home, my usual routine is to have my first meal at 6pm, dinner with Pamela. When I quit working around 3am, I fix myself a sandwich and a glass of wine and relax until going to bed around 5am. Although we don't have a strict regimen, we use a lot of "Lite" foods like fat-free mayonnaise or low-fat margarine. As a result, my weight normally remains stable.

But when I travel, everything changes. I find myself eating more meals — including hot dogs in airports or richer food at banquets. During the 1996 campaign, I had to let out the waistlines of my suit trousers, and I gained a few pounds that I still have with me. And this time around, my waistline is threatening to expand still further.

After my complaining about early rising in yesterday's journal, today I get to sleep in until about 10:30. I have lunch with Adam Meyer, the state chair, and his wife Chris at a lovely German restaurant near the airport. Although my flight leaves Portland about an hour late, I'm able to make my Nashville flight from Denver — just barely.

His article, however, is a complete hatchet job — as indicated by its title, "Goofy May Be a Libertarian" (a play on the fact that we're holding the LP national convention near Disneyland). All the nuances and subtleties of my positions are ignored as he tries to make my positions look as ridiculous as possible, using words like "loony," "impractical," and "delusional."

Of course, I much prefer to see positive articles. But I've had too much experience with journalists to take negative articles seriously or personally. During the 1970s my iconoclastic views toward the economy and investing brought out the worst in some reporters — as their dislike and determination to ridicule me blinded them to the real flaws in my presentation and caused them to resort to inventing mistakes and distorting what I said. By the end of the 1970s I had learned to live with the ridicule. (I must admit that gold rising to $800 and silver to $50 — vindicating my investment advice — helped make the criticism easier to handle.)

I see Feder's article as a desperate attempt to keep people from voting Libertarian this year — so that George W. Bush can win the White House and maintain the Republican tradition of bigger, more expensive, and more intrusive government. So I don't take it personally; I know my ideas aren't goofy, and I know how well my ideas are received when people hear them directly from me.

Thus the article also reminds us why radio and television appearances are far more valuable than press coverage. In interviews, I get to tell the story my way — not hope that our best ideas will somehow filter through the reporter's prejudices and get to the reader.

We will continue to grow and prosper so long as we keep telling people directly that we want them to be free — free to live their lives as they see fit, not as George Bush or Al Gore thinks is best for them — free to raise their children by their own values, not the values of the politicians and bureaucrats — free to keep every dollar they earn, to spend it, save it, give it away as they see fit.

I have two interviews today — both to promote the Michigan LP convention this weekend.

The first today is at 7:20am, with Dave Barber on WFDF in Flint, Michigan. As the interview progresses, it becomes apparent that he's a liberal. He finds my ideas to be new and intriguing. And everytime we seem to be headed into trouble, we find some kind of agreement. He's strongly pro-union and asks what I think the federal government should do about labor relations. I tell him the government should stay entirely out of the area, and let people work out their own agreements voluntarily — without force being imposed from above. He seems to find this to be sensible, but asks what should be done when an employer hires goons to beat up union members. I say that now you're talking about violence — which should be treated as such by local law enforcement (not a federal agency).

My second interview of the day is with Ron Dzwonkowski of the Detroit Free Press. He is well familiar with Tim O'Brien, Barb Goushaw, and other outstanding Michigan Libertarians — having interviewed them in the past. Although I doubt that he shares our ideas, he is very friendly and sympathetic.

An email arrives from Larry Stafford, a Volunteer Coordinator in Illinois, telling us about Jeremiah Beck, a talk host in Rockford. Jeremiah has seen our campaign video and today he mentioned it on the air — and he read an episode of the Campaign Journal and the article "For Safety Sake, Repeal the Gun Laws." It helps considerably to leverage the campaign if I'm talked about favorably when I'm not present.

I notice that Issues2000 has an extremely informative website covering issues and candidates. They have an extensive compilation of my views on various issues — culled from a number of sources, including quotes from Why Government Doesn't Work. They have similar coverage for the leading candidate of each of the other parties. There also are forums in which visitors can discuss each candidate.

My first interview is at 7am with Ben Merens on 14 stations of Wisconsin Public Radio. He is scrupulously neutral and quite friendly. The one-hour interview contains too much about the horse race, but I manage to cover a number of the issues — especially with the callers.

The interview is scheduled for 20 minutes, but the producer tells me off the air that they're inundated with callers — and he asks me to stay for a full hour, which I do.

Newman says the Libertarian message as I present it seems very appealing, but Americans haven't accepted it — indicating that they prefer dependence on government to self-government. I say that most Americans have heard very little of our message, and that we have to keep growing to acquire the resources and talent to get the message to people who will never tune in to C-SPAN, talk shows, or anything that smacks of politics. And I also point out that Americans have never been given a clear-cut choice (that they're aware of) between self-control and dependence on government — only between different shades of government growth.

That's why the Great Libertarian Offer is important — because it provides a well-defined choice: Would you give up your favorite federal programs if it meant you'd never have to pay income tax again? And your children would never have to pay income tax. And your grandchildren could go through life without the terrible burden of taxation you've had to face.

In the evening I have a one-hour interview with Stan Solomon on WZLW in Indianapolis. He is a Christian conservative. With him in the studio is Michael Gratison, an officer in the local ACLU, whom Solomon sometimes has on as a foil for his views. I find that I'm able to steer the conversation sometimes to issues that all three of us agree on — such as the futility of foreign adventures, the destructiveness of the insane War on Drugs, and the need to treat the Constitution seriously.

My last interview of the day is with "Lionel" whose new show is now on 21 stations — many of them in major cities (his station list is at http://lionelonline.com/affiliates.htm). He is an LP member, a very funny fellow, and a great advocate for liberty. He begins by saying, "I have endorsed Harry Browne for President," and then proceeds to ask his questions. We get some calls, which help to answer potential objections. The interview lasts only about 25 minutes, but I believe it does a lot of good.

Today the audio file appears on the web. Not one of my best interviews, but it will do. He asked a lot of questions about the challenges facing a 3rd-party candidate — ballot access, press coverage, and so on. But I was able to work the campaign themes into the conversation several times.

Today we begin transmitting a series of press releases. These releases will be faxed to radio, TV, and print media — as well as emailed to supporters via LibertyWire and posted on our website. Soon we will add a vast email transmission to organizations and writers. Today's release was entitled "The Non-Sense of the Senate" — chiding the U.S. Senate for passing non-binding "sense of the Senate" resolutions that commended the Million Mom March and advocated tightening the screws on gun owners.

There are about 180 people at the convention — a sign of another great state party continuing to grow. So many people have contributed to the growth and strength of the Michigan LP — people like Ben Bachrach, Diane Barnes, Mike Brinkman, Fred Collins, Jon Coon, Barbara Goushaw, David Littmann, Mike Miller, Tim O'Brien, Sheldon and Irving Rose, Emily Salvette, Bill Shotey, Stacy Van Oast, and many, many others.

We have raised and spent $1,350,000 so far. We will continue to raise money as fast as we can — and we'll spend it as though there's no tomorrow, because in fact there is no tomorrow. The money spent so far has brought us hundreds of interviews, articles, and mentions in the press, positions in one national and one state-wide poll, strong finishes in many Internet polls, nine national TV appearances, radio interviews heard by millions of listeners, articles by me published in newspapers around the country and on the Internet, 16 showings of our 30-minute video on commercial TV stations and many showings on cable-access channels, four new 1-minute TV ads that will begin airing next month, and much more. In short, the money has bought us visibility among the non-Libertarian public.

Apparently, the Michigan LP is well aware of the need for money to achieve our goals. At the banquet, Greg Dirisian raises $10,000 for the Ballot Access Retention Committee, a program to assure that the presidential candidate gets a big enough vote total to retain the state party's ballot status. I want to do what I can to help all local parties, but it is inspiring to see a state party take the initiative — instead of waiting for someone else to rescue them.

In the morning the two announced candidates for the LP vice-presidential nomination give short speeches. Ken Krawchuk of Pennsylvania and Art Olivier of California are both impressive candidates — either of whom would be a welcome addition to the national ticket.

Today it's a far different story. These four ads have been carefully conceived to entice, provoke, shock, inform, persuade, and entertain. They are being created with the most professional production values. In the studio are 27 people at work — the director and his assistant, the producer, a sound engineer, teleprompter operator, set designer, makeup artist, wardrobe specialist, cameraman and assistant, lighting specialists, stagehands, and more. And every one of them is needed to produce the right result — the kind of result that lets the general public know we're here, we mean business, and we're going to be heard.

Thank you, Nathan, I do hope to see us there as well. It occurs to me that young voters are less likely to be touched by the "wasted-vote syndrome" that infects older people. Young people have had less time to build the deep-seated prejudices that cause older people to vote against Bill Clinton or Al Gore, or against the Religious Right, even if they don't care for the candidate they're supposedly voting for. If young people want what we offer, they're more likely to vote for us — even if they don't believe we can win — because they see a vote for us as a way to let the world know what they want.

When responding to an attack, it is easy to be lured into defending yourself against every accusation and innuendo in the original article. But that's a mistake. That's playing on the opponent's home field — letting him set the agenda. The only reason for responding at all is to use the attack as justification for getting a platform to present the ideas you want to discuss.

1. By the time a response is published, few people will remember much of what was said in the original. And unless a reader of the original was already well aware of you, the article probably didn't have any lasting impact. So there may be no need to defend yourself at all.

2. Thus the only reason to respond is to use the attack as an excuse for a fresh article — a way of gaining the opportunity to say something you want to say. The purpose of a response isn't to clear your name, but to get new people interested — in the case of the campaign, possibly even getting them to go to the website or call us.

3. Since no one is likely to remember what the attacker said, it isn't necessary to refer to even the most damaging accusations made against you. Even if some reader was affected by them at time of publication, the particulars will have been forgotten by the time of the response. And if you make good points in your article, the reader may wonder why he had thought badly of you before.

"It's very simple. I want you to be free — free to live your life as you think it should be lived, not as George W. Bush, Al Gore, or even I think you should.

"I want you to be free to raise your children by your values — not those of educational bureaucrats who see your children as little soldiers in their plans to remake the world. I want you to keep every dollar you earn — and spend it, save it, give it away as you think best — instead of being allowed to keep only what the politicians don't have plans for.

"I want to repeal the income tax by forcing the federal government to give up every activity not authorized in the Constitution — the same Constitution Mr. Feder pretends to revere. I want to unlock the door and let you out of Social Security — so you can plan a truly safe, secure, prosperous retirement for yourself.

I mention this article at length here because I think it provides a formula you can use when writing letters to the editor or calling into talk shows. Don't be lured into feeling you have to answer every charge made against Libertarians. Don't try to show that we're not as bad as someone has charged. Always go on the offensive — trying to show the reader/listener how much better his life will be in a Libertarian America.

I have only one show today, which I do by phone at 5:30am from my hotel room in Hollywood. It is with Doug Stephan who is syndicated on the Radio America network. He has been very good to Libertarians, and today is no different. He says I present many valuable ideas that people should hear. He also says something I don't recall hearing from him before — that he voted for me in 1996 and intends to do so again this year. He says that earlier today the President of Hell's Angels was on the show and said he is a libertarian.

With the interview done, I go back to sleep — and awaken at mid-morning to catch a plane home to Nashville.

We release a press release on Congressional attempts to legalize "black bag" searches — searches of your home or other property without your knowledge. The provision has been introduced in a bill designed to overrule the 1st amendment by making it a crime to tell someone where to find marijuana paraphernalia on the Internet.

Jim Babka has done an outstanding job with the press release. He titled it "High on the Hill" — and used marijuana metaphors to show that the politicians have gotten so "high on power" that they now show no restraint whatsoever.

I am on for 45 minutes on "Saturdays with Ed and Lou" on KMAX in Spokane, Washington. Ed Schofeld is the host, and Lou is his sidekick. They seem a bit skeptical at the outset, but they become friendlier and friendlier as the show progresses. I try to treat any contentious assertion as though it is a friendly question — by calling attention to something in the premise that I agree with, and starting off with, "As you pointed out, . . ." and then going on to show a better way — a Libertarian way — of achieving the objective cited.

I reply (as best I remember), "We might argue endlessly about which functions a small government should perform, but that would be pointless and self-defeating. You know and I know and probably almost everyone listening to this broadcast knows that government is way, way too big and we have to reduce it dramatically. So that's where our attention should be. When we have finally reduced government a long way, you might decide that's enough and oppose any further reductions — while others might want to reduce it further. But at least we'll be arguing then within the context of a government that all of us would find a lot less oppressive. So I prefer to focus first of all on getting government reduced to the limits of the Constitution, before worrying about how much further it should go. Does that make sense?"

Of course, he says that it does. And this calls attention to a useful tool when answering questions or discussing libertarian ideas. When answering a question about an issue, I often state my position and then ask, "Does that make sense?" I believe this causes the questioner to acknowledge to himself that the answer does make sense — that we really want the same basic things he does — even if he still has some reservations about our way of achieving them. Occasionally (but only occasionally), someone says my answer doesn't make sense. If so, I ask what about it doesn't make sense to him — and we then can focus on the particular problem he has with our position. And, of course, the question, "Does that make sense?" reminds anyone else listening to the dialogue that, yes, the Libertarian answer does make sense.

He is a non-voter who sees no reason to bother trying to choose between evils. But near the end of the broadcast I tell him, "Look, I didn't vote from 1964 to 1994. But when I started voting Libertarian in 1994, it was a wonderful feeling to come out of the voting booth knowing I had voted for what I wanted. I know my one vote isn't going to swing the election, but it gives me a great emotional release — my symbolic way of getting back at those who want to run my life." He says, "You've just about got me convinced to register again."

After taking most of yesterday off, I have three shows today — the first at 8am. It is on "Dimitri Live and Dangerous" — with Dimitri Vassillaros on WWVA in Wheeling, West Virginia. He makes it clear he's a Libertarian. He's a good host — upbeat, well-informed, and a good questioner. At the end of the hour-long interview, he tells his listeners, "Listen to this man and please vote for him."

The lovefest dissolves, however, just before the end of the show — when we get into child pornography and drugs. I say that you really have only two choices: take responsibility for your children or expect the politicians to take care of them; there is no middle ground. If you rely on the law to protect your children, you're relying on politicians and bureaucrats to put the interests of your children ahead of their love of power. He can't see this at all.

As I'm leaving on an extended trip tomorrow, I need to run some errands in the afternoon. So I do my last show from my cell phone in the car. I recently bought a Motorola StarTac cell phone — a tiny, light weight, flip-top model. The clarity is amazing. The interview is as technologically successful as though I were on my phone at home — or even in the radio studio.

The interview is 15 minutes with Manno and Condon on WKDR in Winewski, Vermont. The two are very friendly and sympathetic. Condon even says he voted for me in 1996. They ask me to come back when there's more time — which I'll do.

I'll be heading out tomorrow for ten days on the road — to New York City, Missouri, West Virginia, Dallas, Houston, and Corpus Christi.

Previous Installment                                        Next Installment

Campaign Report Table of Contents