I was a bit startled by this. The latter point is exactly what some Ds & Rs say about any Libertarian or 3rd party candidates, if substituting 'voters' for 'Libertarians', and 'country' (or 'city', 'state', etc.) for 'party'.
Examples of reasons not to list presidential candidates:
- To screen out candidates who are not dedicated to advancing our libertarian agenda, or who actually oppose it.
- To exclude individuals who appear to be disingenuously using the LP.
- To disqualify candidates who are running for the nomination of more than one party.
- To avoid publicizing candidates whose presentation is viewed by most Libertarians as embarrassing or inappropriate for a presidential candidate and who could reflect badly on the party.
In my opinion, these things are up to the delegates to decide.
Just to see what others do, I looked at the RNC website. (I didn't bother looking at the DNC, because we all know President Obama is running for re-election.) But the Republicans do not list any of the presidential candidates. My guess? It's probably because of Ron Paul, whom they don't want to give equal space to. I'm going to further guess that some LNC members feel the same way about some of its' candidates.
In the online poll, only 8% of members thought that none of the candidates should be listed. The greatest response (23%) said to list them all without qualification.
That was my first reaction. After all, the purpose of a political party is to elect people to office. Why hide the candidates under a bushel basket?
Beyond that, the LNC's website already lists presidential candidates! There's a fat disclaimer there from the LNC, so what's the problem?
Having looked at the websites of the seven candidates posted, I didn't see anything crazy or alarming. So, I'd love some disclosure from the LNC. Just what is it that has generated such worry? And, don't you have bigger things to focus on?