“One of my main goals [is] to try and undercut the GOP at every possible opportunity …… it’s the liar Republicans that hide behind libertarian rhetoric with NO INTENTION of implementing libertarian-friendly solutions once they are elected.”

Citizens For A Better Veterans Home could not agree more, via California GOP governators Pete Wilson and Der Ahnold!

Rocky, One of my main goals to to try and undercut the GOP at every possible opportunity. At least the democrats are openly hostile toward liberty, but it’s the liar Republicans that hide behind libertarian rhetoric with NO INTENTION of implementing libertarian-friendly solutions once they are elected. It doesn’t take a brain surgeon to realize that organizations such as FreedomWorks are basically a front for the GOP and their goal is to help recapture power in DC for Republicans and maintain control. It may sound cynical, but it’s the hard truth about politics.

Here in California, anti-Republican sentiment among average taxpayers is at a fever pitch because of recent record tax hikes. The LP has a responsibility to make itself heard, but we also know that many of those people have a bias against third parties in general. That’s why I formed the website CaliforniaRevolution.com. It will act as a means of organizing and disseminating information in California that is pro-liberty and undercuts the GOP message. By being non-partisan and organizing activities that will attract non Libertarians, it will allow us to mix and mingle with them, allowing a sort of cross pollination of ideas to people who are primed and ready for a principled message.

Me: Then I’d suggest you’re not too interested in rolling back the State, in effect. Perception is reality, so molding perceptions are the lynchpin to changing minds.

FWIW, I mentioned early in this thread I didn’t know too much about Keyes because I find him to be a flake. Others may be fascinated by his personal life; not me.

Based on Steve Gordon’s reaction, it appears he took it in the spirit it was offered: constructive criticism. Absolutists often don’t understand this concept, because they see the world as a polarized dualism: right/wrong; good/evil; etc. As a Randian/Rothbardian in recovery, I used to as well.

Now that I know the backstory about Maddow and Keyes’s daughter, that piece of the interview had more utility than was my gut reaction.

It’s all good.

Sure, I am a political junkie. I also grew up in Maryland in the 80s. So I remember needing to know who Alan Keyes for homework ( knowing all the local 1988 races),etc. I also watched all the 2000 GOP debates and have followed independent politics since then.

Most regular folks, the same ignorant people that cast most of the ballots in the country- they probably don’t know Alan Keyes. But I’m sure a high percentage of people who take the time to watch political coverage on niche cable news shows probably do.

It was a good move and I have more respect for Stephen Gordon because of it. Especially since he’s been associated a lot more with the Republican “libertarians” recently. He did a good job not being pigeonholed as an “extreme conservative” Republican-type.

Or did you mean Alan Keyes? If so, poor sentence structure; tisk, tisk. Regardless, as S.G. said, “the overwhelming majority” of Rachel Maddow’s audience know who he is and his story, RE: his daughter — just because you don’t, you shouldn’t assume that others don’t. What are you, three? Do you think if you close your eyes I can’t see you?

Regardless, S.G. floored Rachel Maddow with that comment, which she even admitted. So game-set-match, anyway.

I, for one, did not think Rachel Maddow was out to make S.G. or libertarians look bad. She was out to make Republican hijackers look bad, as well she should have. She said good things about Ron Paul and seems to get that people who call themselves libertarians are not Alan Keyes types (which is why she brought up his associate). She’s no good, don’t get me wrong, but if she’s willing to lend her platform for S.G. to blast Republican hijackery of libertarian themes, then that’s not a time to attack her for her feminazi communism. There are probably dozens of libertarian leaners who were reached by S.G.’s appearance and performance, regardless of Cappozi’s anal nitpickery.

It’s bad enough that Bergland used the word anarchist, which most don’t understand the way Ls do, but minarchist virtually NO ONE has even heard much less understands.

And I say that as a theoretical asymptotic anarchist/applied lessarchist.

But, at least you are consistent in your propensity to overstate wildly.

steve, maybe the keyes thing was a home run. the rest was a double, maybe a triple with better lighting, IMO. It maybe that I was unfamiliar with the lesbian subtext…I could easily be projecting here. regardless, keep up the good work.

“I’m glad to see citizens show they’re fed up with the high taxes, but I think a lot of these Republicans showing up are just hypocrites,” he said. “The Republican machine is trying to get in front of a parade. They probably feel like they have to.”

Here’s my take:

Of the 7 1/2 minutes, Maddow talked though the first half. Of the remaining portion, she had nominally 50% of the time — but also control over the microphone.

Based on the 5 or 6 phone calls I had before the program with members of her production staff, including a pre-interview, I was able to reasonably speculate about what was coming.

One key question she was going to ask was probably along these lines: Why are y’all protesting taxes when Obama just provided a tax cut for 95% of all Americans?

I expect that she would have eaten up time giving a speech along with the question, I used the tea bag gimmick to take a preemptive (makes me a bad libertarian?) strike.

I did have an answer on tap, but I prefer to control the media than to have the media control me.

The answer I would have provided is along these lines: “I’ll be happy to trade my miniscule tax decrease for repayment of my share, as well as that of my children and their children, of all deficit spending which has occurred since President Obama took office.”

However, this would have placed her on the defensive and changed the entire tone of the conversation.

I was hoping to include the fact that the Alabama Tea Party I was talking about with respect to the FreedomWorks/CSE issue was that the tax increase was pushed by another prominent southern Republican politician — but there wasn’t enough time.

I knew where she was going on the blue arrow issue, because the article she mentioned had links back and forth which quickly led to coverage by Dave Weigel and me about fringe elements showing at Tea Parties.

Of the options I had available, the Keyes line seemed the best.

Robert is correct in that a lot of people didn’t know the Keyes story in advance, but quite a few have felt compelled to look it up and e-mail their thanks to me afterwards. These seem to be mostly younger folks (college age and younger).

I suspect that the overwhelming majority of Maddow’s viewers do know the Keyes story, though.

As to Maddow herself not knowing the Keyes story…

…if Maddow had made it known that she didn’t understand what I was talking about, the fact that a liberal, openly-lesbian, major talk show host didn’t know would opened up quite a few additional media opportunities.

Looking at the interview after the fact, short of eliminating a few “uhms”, weird lighting effect on my goatee, and such, I don’t know much that could have been done to improve it.