Last night, Nov. 6, I turned on channel 4 and saw what looked like a debate between candidates for election to the US senate, which is just a year away. Then I looked more closely and saw that one of the "candidates" was Alan Alda PLAYING a candidate. Although I came in in the middle of it and so can't comment on its entirety, I heard probably half, and can truly say Alan Alda (playing the Republican) delivered possibly the best libertarian candidate material I've ever heard broadcast. He had the better lines, and more of them, than the "Democrat", and of course as a pro actor giving rehearsed material Alda delivered it excellently. I could tell where the sympathy of the writer lies, because his "opponent" appeared to be grandstanding, less substantial, and less effective than Alda's character. (That is, it seemed Alda was playing the good guy.)
Some of you think the entire function of LP should be an educational one, the purpose of its candidates for public office being to get, and reach, an audience for libertarian ideas. Last night I saw that done more effectively and for probably as large an audience (I think the show was over the network) as LP nominees ever get (possibly rivaled by Howard Stern in audience size) -- and the campaign was fictional! But if you have no hope of being elected, how is a fictional campaign for election in any way inferior to a real one? And how could the ideas possibly be put in a more favorable light than was done by Alan Alda and his writers? Don't you think you'd do better to work on things like becoming a TV writer, or some other media job, than on purely educational campaigns "for election" that you won't even get paid for? Think of it -- the people who made that TV show were paid for their work! Bounty? Rely, Iris!, Robert _______________________________________________ Libnw mailing list Libnw@immosys.com List info and subscriber options: http://immosys.com/mailman/listinfo/libnw Archives: http://immosys.com/mailman//pipermail/libnw
