Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below 
Sushi X
New member
here's an update on the libertarian article in usa today. thought i'd share it with my fellow libertarians and the rest who may be interested.
Two days have passed since we ran our full-page ads in the Washington
Times and USA Today, so I want to give you a follow-up report about
their impact.
Before I do, I want to again thank everyone who contributed to this
project. YOU made it all possible.
Here's the quick summary of the ad's aftermath:
* We generated a solid amount of media coverage -- although not the
"breakout" coverage we had hoped for. (I'll explain the missing
ingredient that kept us from getting more media attention.)
* We triggered a weird -- almost surreal -- response from the Drug
Czar's office.
* We galvanized the drug reform movement, and generated more positive
comments from them than we have for ANY previous project.
* We TRIPLED the number of daily visitors to our website.
* We proved that we can react quickly to events, raise a substantial
amount of money via the Internet, and have a genuine impact on public
policy debates.
* Most importantly, we achieved our main goal: We spit in the eye of
America's foremost Drug Warrior.
Here's the details:
MEDIA: We got a nice burst of media coverage (most of it positive) that
allowed us to reach MILLIONS of people -- in addition to the 2.2
million people who saw our ads in USA Today and the Washington Times.
Some highlights:
* Our ads were the top story on WorldNetDaily.com on Tuesday, reaching
several hundred thousand readers. (WorldNetDaily.com gets 2 million
visitors a month.) We were also featured prominently on CNSNews.com,
one of the leading conservative websites.
* Our ads were a major topic of discussion on Neal Boortz's syndicated
radio show, which reaches 1 million people every day. They were also
Topic #1 on the Dean Edell syndicated show, which reaches another 1
million. (Boortz and Edell are tied as the 7th most listened-to talk
show hosts in America, according to Talkers magazine.)
* Our ads generated interviews for LP spokespeople on 112 radio
stations -- including the syndicated Blanquita Cullum show (heard on
105 stations). We reached tens or hundreds of thousands of additional
people via these interviews.
* Publications around the country are offering to run our ad for FREE -
- - including the Westbend News in Wisconsin (circulation: 5,000) and The
Connection magazine in Silicon Valley, California (circulation:
125,000). Other requests are still coming in.
* And our ads received online news coverage from National Review Online
(which wrote: "It's hard to deny that this is an effective ad."),
AlterNet.org, Plastic.com, PoliTechBot.com, and Free-Market.net, to
name just a few.
But why didn't the ads get more coverage? Why didn't we get on
television, or into major newspapers?
The short answer seems to be: Because the Drug Czar's office didn't
take the bait.
Frankly, we weren't sure if we'd be able to provoke a response. But we
hoped the full-page ads would do the trick.
However, the Drug Czar's office didn't put out a press release to
strike back at us. They didn't call a press conference to try to rebut
the facts in our ad. Drug Czar John Walters didn't attack us in a
speech.
The media loves a controversy. But every controversy needs TWO sides.
We attacked the Drug Czar in our ad. He didn't respond.
This was a deliberate decision on the part of the Office of National
Drug Control Policy (ONDCP). We know of at least two journalists who
called the ONDCP for a reaction quote to our ads -- but never got a
return phone call. (They were Jon Dougherty from WorldNetDaily.com and
producer Rhyan Jones from the syndicated Blanquita Cullum show.)
But one radio station did get through. And that brings us to....
THE SURREAL RESPONSE.
Mary Starrett, a host at KPDQ radio in Portland, Oregon, called Tom
Riley, the Drug Czar's spokesman -- and actually got a call back!
It quickly became clear why Riley returned that ONE phone call: Drug
Czar John Walters is touring Portland next month, and Riley assumed it
was an interview request for that visit.
When Starrett asked Riley about the Libertarian ad (to his surprise!),
he proceeded to give three wildly different reactions in the space of
just a few minutes:
1) Yes, they saw the ad, but they were "confused" by it. "I mean, we
don't have $40 million to give to the Taliban," he said. "I guess you
could say I didn't get it."
2) The ad was "adolescent and silly," he said.
3) The ad was "great" because it's "cultivating a debate on the drug
war," he said. "People are now talking about the drug war."
So, according to the Drug Czar's office, our ad was confusing,
adolescent, and great!
Starrett asked Riley if he had received any other calls about the ad.
Keep in mind, we have first-hand information that at least TWO other
journalists called his office.
"You're the only person who called," said Riley.
Starrett was dubious. "The ONLY person?" she asked.
Riley: "Yes. You're the only one."
"Oh come on, Tom," pressed Starrett. "Do you swear?"
Riley: "Yes, I swear!"
According to Starrett, Riley then got off the phone as quickly as he
could.
So there you have the Drug Czar's office's response: Stonewall, grope
for a response, and blatantly lie.
Unfortunately, it was an effective strategy. It appears to have kept
our ads from becoming more of a major news story.
But the media is not the only way we can reach people. We have received
an excellent response from...
THE DRUG REFORM MOVEMENT.
For example, Steve Dillon, Chairman of the Board of Directors of NORML,
wrote: "What an excellent ad! This is the best response yet to the
government's Super Bowl ads linking use of drugs to promoting
terrorism. Thanks for your great work."
We also got compliments and support from the Drug Reform Coordination
Network, the Alameda County Alliance of Drug and Alcohol Programs,
Indiana NORML, Students for a Sensible Drug Policy, and
CannabisNews.com.
We even got "atta-boys" from overseas -- from the Queensland
(Australia) Intravenous AIDS Association and from the UK Cannibis
Internet Activists.
LP Political Director Ron Crickenberger said: "We've gotten a better
response from the drug reform movement, our members, and the general
public for this project -- by an order of magnitude -- than from
anything we've ever done before."
We also generated an impressive groundswell of...
VISITORS TO OUR WEBSITE.
On Tuesday, February 26 (the day the ads appeared), we got more than
26,100 visitors to our website, www.LP.org. That's THREE TIMES the
usual number we get (an average of 8,600 a day.)
The surge continued the following day: We got another 17,400 visitors.
(And these are unique visitors, not an inflated "page hits" count.)
At least 800 to 1,000 new people signed up for our LP.announce e-mail
list. (No word yet on how many people have joined the Libertarian Party
as a result of the ads.)
The response we're getting from these visitors has also been extremely
positive. Here are a few comments:
* "I have just one word for your John Walters ad: BEAUTIFUL!" --Jeff I.
* "Bravo, bravo, bravo. Thanks for having the cahones to tell the truth
for once." --Robin F.
* "Wow! Great job! Love the media exposure! Well done!" --Walter F.
* "Good job for speaking out for those of us that cannot. I posted it
on the bulletin board at work." --Oakley T.
* "You seem to be the only political party that has not lost its mind.
I'm going to vote Libertarian in the next election." --Gary C.
We also generated kind words from our libertarian allies.
* Sharon Harris, president of the Advocates for Self-Government, wrote:
"The ad looks FABULOUS! Hope it stirs up a heap of trouble.
Congratulations!"
* Norman Singleton, Legislator Director for Congressman Ron Paul's
office, wrote: "Three cheers for the LP!"
SUMMARY:
The advertisements were a solid hit, even if they didn't turn into the
media "home run" we had hoped for. We knew all along that a media
breakthrough was a gamble -- but a gamble we couldn't win if we didn't
TRY.
That said, the advertisements:
* Allowed us to reach (between the ads themselves and the additional
media coverage) at least 5 to 10 million people with our crucial
message of drug policy reform.
* Demonstrated that we can react quickly to events. When the ONDCP ran
its pro-War on Drugs newspaper ads, our response was conceived,
designed, funded, and placed into two major newspapers in just a few
short weeks.
* Proved again the potency of the Internet. Thanks to your generosity
and the power of instant e-mail communications, we were able to raise
more than $73,000 for the two advertisements.
(By the way, that $73,000 paid every penny owed for the ads. And the
extra few hundred dollars paid for the reprint rights for the John
Walters photo and for extra credit card processing fees for all the
donations.)
* Demonstrated that we can have a genuine impact on public policy
debate.
We may never know exactly how Drug Czar John Walters reacted when he
saw his larger-than-life face staring at him from the pages of USA
Today.
But I'll guarantee this: It had to sting.
We can only hope that Mr. Walters will think twice about running his
propaganda ads again, now that he knows we have such a devastating
response -- and the ability to run it in major newspapers that reach
millions of people.
Two days have passed since we ran our full-page ads in the Washington
Times and USA Today, so I want to give you a follow-up report about
their impact.
Before I do, I want to again thank everyone who contributed to this
project. YOU made it all possible.
Here's the quick summary of the ad's aftermath:
* We generated a solid amount of media coverage -- although not the
"breakout" coverage we had hoped for. (I'll explain the missing
ingredient that kept us from getting more media attention.)
* We triggered a weird -- almost surreal -- response from the Drug
Czar's office.
* We galvanized the drug reform movement, and generated more positive
comments from them than we have for ANY previous project.
* We TRIPLED the number of daily visitors to our website.
* We proved that we can react quickly to events, raise a substantial
amount of money via the Internet, and have a genuine impact on public
policy debates.
* Most importantly, we achieved our main goal: We spit in the eye of
America's foremost Drug Warrior.
Here's the details:
MEDIA: We got a nice burst of media coverage (most of it positive) that
allowed us to reach MILLIONS of people -- in addition to the 2.2
million people who saw our ads in USA Today and the Washington Times.
Some highlights:
* Our ads were the top story on WorldNetDaily.com on Tuesday, reaching
several hundred thousand readers. (WorldNetDaily.com gets 2 million
visitors a month.) We were also featured prominently on CNSNews.com,
one of the leading conservative websites.
* Our ads were a major topic of discussion on Neal Boortz's syndicated
radio show, which reaches 1 million people every day. They were also
Topic #1 on the Dean Edell syndicated show, which reaches another 1
million. (Boortz and Edell are tied as the 7th most listened-to talk
show hosts in America, according to Talkers magazine.)
* Our ads generated interviews for LP spokespeople on 112 radio
stations -- including the syndicated Blanquita Cullum show (heard on
105 stations). We reached tens or hundreds of thousands of additional
people via these interviews.
* Publications around the country are offering to run our ad for FREE -
- - including the Westbend News in Wisconsin (circulation: 5,000) and The
Connection magazine in Silicon Valley, California (circulation:
125,000). Other requests are still coming in.
* And our ads received online news coverage from National Review Online
(which wrote: "It's hard to deny that this is an effective ad."),
AlterNet.org, Plastic.com, PoliTechBot.com, and Free-Market.net, to
name just a few.
But why didn't the ads get more coverage? Why didn't we get on
television, or into major newspapers?
The short answer seems to be: Because the Drug Czar's office didn't
take the bait.
Frankly, we weren't sure if we'd be able to provoke a response. But we
hoped the full-page ads would do the trick.
However, the Drug Czar's office didn't put out a press release to
strike back at us. They didn't call a press conference to try to rebut
the facts in our ad. Drug Czar John Walters didn't attack us in a
speech.
The media loves a controversy. But every controversy needs TWO sides.
We attacked the Drug Czar in our ad. He didn't respond.
This was a deliberate decision on the part of the Office of National
Drug Control Policy (ONDCP). We know of at least two journalists who
called the ONDCP for a reaction quote to our ads -- but never got a
return phone call. (They were Jon Dougherty from WorldNetDaily.com and
producer Rhyan Jones from the syndicated Blanquita Cullum show.)
But one radio station did get through. And that brings us to....
THE SURREAL RESPONSE.
Mary Starrett, a host at KPDQ radio in Portland, Oregon, called Tom
Riley, the Drug Czar's spokesman -- and actually got a call back!
It quickly became clear why Riley returned that ONE phone call: Drug
Czar John Walters is touring Portland next month, and Riley assumed it
was an interview request for that visit.
When Starrett asked Riley about the Libertarian ad (to his surprise!),
he proceeded to give three wildly different reactions in the space of
just a few minutes:
1) Yes, they saw the ad, but they were "confused" by it. "I mean, we
don't have $40 million to give to the Taliban," he said. "I guess you
could say I didn't get it."
2) The ad was "adolescent and silly," he said.
3) The ad was "great" because it's "cultivating a debate on the drug
war," he said. "People are now talking about the drug war."
So, according to the Drug Czar's office, our ad was confusing,
adolescent, and great!
Starrett asked Riley if he had received any other calls about the ad.
Keep in mind, we have first-hand information that at least TWO other
journalists called his office.
"You're the only person who called," said Riley.
Starrett was dubious. "The ONLY person?" she asked.
Riley: "Yes. You're the only one."
"Oh come on, Tom," pressed Starrett. "Do you swear?"
Riley: "Yes, I swear!"
According to Starrett, Riley then got off the phone as quickly as he
could.
So there you have the Drug Czar's office's response: Stonewall, grope
for a response, and blatantly lie.
Unfortunately, it was an effective strategy. It appears to have kept
our ads from becoming more of a major news story.
But the media is not the only way we can reach people. We have received
an excellent response from...
THE DRUG REFORM MOVEMENT.
For example, Steve Dillon, Chairman of the Board of Directors of NORML,
wrote: "What an excellent ad! This is the best response yet to the
government's Super Bowl ads linking use of drugs to promoting
terrorism. Thanks for your great work."
We also got compliments and support from the Drug Reform Coordination
Network, the Alameda County Alliance of Drug and Alcohol Programs,
Indiana NORML, Students for a Sensible Drug Policy, and
CannabisNews.com.
We even got "atta-boys" from overseas -- from the Queensland
(Australia) Intravenous AIDS Association and from the UK Cannibis
Internet Activists.
LP Political Director Ron Crickenberger said: "We've gotten a better
response from the drug reform movement, our members, and the general
public for this project -- by an order of magnitude -- than from
anything we've ever done before."
We also generated an impressive groundswell of...
VISITORS TO OUR WEBSITE.
On Tuesday, February 26 (the day the ads appeared), we got more than
26,100 visitors to our website, www.LP.org. That's THREE TIMES the
usual number we get (an average of 8,600 a day.)
The surge continued the following day: We got another 17,400 visitors.
(And these are unique visitors, not an inflated "page hits" count.)
At least 800 to 1,000 new people signed up for our LP.announce e-mail
list. (No word yet on how many people have joined the Libertarian Party
as a result of the ads.)
The response we're getting from these visitors has also been extremely
positive. Here are a few comments:
* "I have just one word for your John Walters ad: BEAUTIFUL!" --Jeff I.
* "Bravo, bravo, bravo. Thanks for having the cahones to tell the truth
for once." --Robin F.
* "Wow! Great job! Love the media exposure! Well done!" --Walter F.
* "Good job for speaking out for those of us that cannot. I posted it
on the bulletin board at work." --Oakley T.
* "You seem to be the only political party that has not lost its mind.
I'm going to vote Libertarian in the next election." --Gary C.
We also generated kind words from our libertarian allies.
* Sharon Harris, president of the Advocates for Self-Government, wrote:
"The ad looks FABULOUS! Hope it stirs up a heap of trouble.
Congratulations!"
* Norman Singleton, Legislator Director for Congressman Ron Paul's
office, wrote: "Three cheers for the LP!"
SUMMARY:
The advertisements were a solid hit, even if they didn't turn into the
media "home run" we had hoped for. We knew all along that a media
breakthrough was a gamble -- but a gamble we couldn't win if we didn't
TRY.
That said, the advertisements:
* Allowed us to reach (between the ads themselves and the additional
media coverage) at least 5 to 10 million people with our crucial
message of drug policy reform.
* Demonstrated that we can react quickly to events. When the ONDCP ran
its pro-War on Drugs newspaper ads, our response was conceived,
designed, funded, and placed into two major newspapers in just a few
short weeks.
* Proved again the potency of the Internet. Thanks to your generosity
and the power of instant e-mail communications, we were able to raise
more than $73,000 for the two advertisements.
(By the way, that $73,000 paid every penny owed for the ads. And the
extra few hundred dollars paid for the reprint rights for the John
Walters photo and for extra credit card processing fees for all the
donations.)
* Demonstrated that we can have a genuine impact on public policy
debate.
We may never know exactly how Drug Czar John Walters reacted when he
saw his larger-than-life face staring at him from the pages of USA
Today.
But I'll guarantee this: It had to sting.
We can only hope that Mr. Walters will think twice about running his
propaganda ads again, now that he knows we have such a devastating
response -- and the ability to run it in major newspapers that reach
millions of people.
