If his views on warfare are so incompatable with the 'mainstream' of the Libertarian Party, they shouldn't have flocked to him in droves and overwhemingly nominated him TWICE. The LP had the optinion of a fresh face, like Barry Hess or Don Gorman, to "head" THEIR ticket. I advised the Libertarians on this forum to do so over two years ago. They blindly followed Browne just as they had in 1996. Only the Arizona LP refused to embrace him. Since 1995, Browne has become the "face" of the party, reguardless of what his "official" role is.
I listened to both Barry and Don, and I thought either of them would have been a good candidate. However I supported Harry in 2000 because I thought he'd done a good job (under the circumstances) in 1996, and he's generally quite good at articulating libertarian ideas. I don't agree with him on everything, however, and I strongly disagree with his pacifistic blame-the-US attitude towards the terrorist attacks. I'm very disappointed to see him take that position, which I believe contradicts the Libertarian Platform and obviates the whole concept of self-defense.
It's too bad, because I like Harry, but this is a life-and-death issue on which he is way off track. And I think my views are shared by the vast majority of Libertarians. Harry does not represent the Libertarian Party any longer, and at least he's made it clear and explicit in his recent articles regarding the war that he is speaking only as an individual and not on behalf of the LP.