Nick Gillespie has his thoughts on libertarian Democrats up at Cato Unbound now, but I also wanted to cover some reaction to Harold Meyerson.

Kudos to Nick Gillespie for mentioning both Freedom Democrats and Terry Michael. As for feeling like Trotsky during his Mexico City days, that's true when I have to argue with some of the folks that inhabit Daily Kos.

Gillespie identifies a key problem with the attempts by Democrats to reach out to libertarians. They always want to lecture us.

[I]t's telling that, even as Moulitsas is ostensibly trying to woo libertarians to vote for Democrats, he spends a good chunk of his essay lecturing his audience like a Hyde Park autodidact about the need for publicly financed roads and education, and railing against that great abstraction of "unaccountable corporations" that lead us into war, make us breathe dirty air, and steal our retirement savings.

Zen Politics also makes a similar complaint.

And here’s what I don’t understand–each seems to have one or two decent thoughts about why it’s useful for libertarians to vote Democrat this November, at which point Kos and Bruce and Harold are immediately struck with amnesia about why they are writing in this month’s Cato Unbound at all as they proceed to attack libertarianism and prop up Democrat proposals, principles (such as they are) and ideals. I’m just at a complete loss as to why any of these writers think this is a good idea. Isn’t it enough to make a simple, effective point and go home? Do any of them really believe that they are going to convert libertarians to Democrats at Cato Unbound? That we are going to see the miracle that is the Democratic Party? If so, pass a generous amount around of whatever we’re smoking, boys!

Republicans have down, or at least had down, how to appeal to libertarians. They were heavy on the rhetoric, would vote for freedom and liberty on key votes that attracted public attention, and then failed to live up to the majority of their campaign promises because of the reality of Washington. I think that most libertarian voters knew this; they knew they were in bed with theocons and neocons. On the campaign trail, the Republican wouldn't trash the libertarians, or the theocons, or the neocons. Once in office, he might not always deliver. But he wouldn't go out of his way to attack any group.

Are you listening Democrats?

Libertarian voters, at least the ones that can be talked into voting for one of the two major parties, understand that they are not going to get everything they want. That's true of Democratic activists too. This election cycle you have pro-choice feminists sticking by Casey in Pennsylvania and anti-war activists that are still going to vote for Hillary Clinton (at least this November). It's call politics.

You don't have to go out of your way to attack libertarians and tell them why they aren't going to get everything they want. They are smart enough to understand that they can't get everything just because of the political system; they don't need to be told that they aren't going to get your support on issue X because you think they are wrong. To win in politics, you don't want to offend likely voters. Maybe that was the problem with 2000, 2002, and 2004.

I was asked last night by a friend what I'm looking for in a presidential candidate in 2008. There are some non-issue traits I like, such as being a Governor or being from the West (at the very least, not the South). On the issues, I'm looking for someone who would not be out of the ordinary for the Democratic Party on the social issues of choice, separation of church and state, free speech, privacy, and civil liberties. I want someone who wants to get out of Iraq and perhaps is even so bold as to be weary of nation-building in general. Many peace activists on the left fit into this category, it's the "centrists" that always seem to want to get into the Middle East, or Africa, or the Balkans, or wherever. I recall that in 2004, one of the Democratic presidential hopefuls most opposed to intervention in Liberia was Al Sharpton.

The problem is economics, and will be for some time. Al Sharpton, Dennis Kucinich, and the like may be all well and good on foreign policy and social issues. But I don't think they have a pro-market bone in their body. It would be nice to take their foreign policy and social views and graft them onto the economic views of, say, Joe Lieberman, who without the Iraq mess would most likely have been my 2004 candidate because of similarities on domestic views. The following is just a list of various stances on economic issues that would get my attention.

* Instead of focusing only on how the deficit was caused by Bush's tax cuts, at least talk about the huge increases in spending.

* On a related note, talk about corporate welfare and the need to cut spending.

* More related to my complaints about Kerry in 2004, instead of saying that we aren't spending enough on No Child Left Behind, come out and attack the whole goddamn bill and work to repeal it.

* Come out and propose to abolish a Department. Just pick one. I'll let you move some agencies and the like from the Department into a different one, you don't have to cut everything. But with the dust settles, I want something gone. Agriculture, Transportation, Energy, Commerce, or even Education (Hey, Jerry Brown in 1992!), take your pick.

* Show some balls and promise to use the veto. This President has been a joke. Even though I think Russ Feingold is too big government on most economic issues for my taste, I know that he's the type of asshole to veto a spending bill just because it's one dollar higher than what he told Congress to pass. He wouldn't be interested in making friends, he'd be doing his job.

* Related to both corporate welfare and abolishing a Department, go after agriculture subsidies. Talk about helping the Third World more through cutting agricultural subsidies than through foreign aid. We can make a difference.

* Avoid universal health care proposals. Instead, focus on bringing costs down through greater competition in two big areas: prescription drugs and doctors. I want more drugs over the counter, faster approval times, and shorter patent times. Doctors in Europe may significantly less than doctors in America, how about some free trade in that market?

Am I asking for the moon here, or what?