Here is something that is very easy that you might want to try to get
Badnarik and the Libertarian viewpoint on the air.

Email some local radio station talk show hosts  (John Boy and Billy,
Lex and Terry, etc.) with a message similar to the following: 


===============================================  
Dear Programming Director:


Neither Presidential candidate is talking about the real issues.  All I
ever hear from them is why you shouldn't vote for the other guy.

It gets frustrating and makes one wonder, why even bother if this  is
the best there is. But, then I remembered there are alot of candidates
with proposals on the ballot that are just as important.
If you do some checking there are better candidates out there that are
not getting any press.

Libertarian Michael Badnarik, on the other hand, has information on his
 web site, http://www.badnarik.org that is targeted directly at this 
audience. Among other issues, he is, in my opinion, the candidate who 
has made the greatest commitment to protect young Americans from the 
reinstitution of the draft and and the financial slavery of the  Social
Security system.

I'm going to be voting for the Libertarian candidate, Michael Badnarik. 

Badnarik IS ON THE BALLOT in 48 states, plus DC.  Voting for him is  
an affirmation of the ideas that once made America the miracle among
nations -- a constitutional republic built on the  revolutionary idea
of man as self-owner, and the corollary values of individual  liberty
and personal responsibility.

Voting for a third party candidate like Michael Badnarik is better than
not showing up at all. 

These minor candidates may not win but they give us better choices and
maybe the other parties might get the message that we are getting sick
of their same old baloney.

It would be great if you would put Mr. Badnarik, a Libertarian
candidate, and some of other candidates on your show so people can hear
more about them.

One thing that you almost always find in ballot access laws, is that
the signature requirement is explicitly intended to "demonstrate
community support" for the candidate. So, as there is demonstrated and
documented community support across the country for several alternative
candidates, why does the major media usually only report on "poll
numbers" that so exceed  the signature requirements? By law, "community
support" and interest has been verified by the process of getting on
the ballot, so shouldn't that be the end of it?

The poll hurdle is not only too high, it is illegitimate. For what good
reason should anonymously given answers in a privately-taken survey
carry more weight than actual signatures of registered voters?

It is my rule of thumb that one signature on a petition or
party-registration form indicates between 20 and 30 others who don't
bother to sign. By that yardstick, I would expect between 2 and 3
million people to be actively interested in Badnarik, and perhaps a
similar number could be swayed to vote for Badnarik if they knew who he
was and his positions on the issues. If I were the major media, I would
seriously consider doing right by a candidate who could very reasonably
be the choice of up to six million people this year.


Thanks for your consideration,