David Nolan, LP founder and Restore04 organizer, on 2008-01-12 in private email:
I actually rather like your proposal. Clearly, you spent a lot of time researching past platforms, and did a good job of synthesizing key elements. And from a quick scan, it appears that about 75% of it appears in the ‘04 platform, so in a sense it is a step toward what the Restoration Caucus proposes. […] What you have proposed is basically an expanded, more detailed version of the Statement of Principles.
Steve Kubby, self-described "plumbline" radical LP candidate for president, and #3 signer of the Restore04 petition, at 53 minutes in to his 2008-01-17 webradio show:
I'd like to go back to the beginning to that 2004 document and then I would like to distill out of that the essence in the simplest possible terms of how we can draw all those different planks together and make an attempt to consolidate and condense that down to certain basic fundamental principles. But I think we have to go back to 2004 to start because it represents sort of the tradition, the long-term accumulation and accretion of thoughts that need now to be analyzed and filtered down with the goal of making our new Platform as short as possible without sacrificing our principles, without diluting our beliefs, without trying to sell libertarianism as something other than what it is. If somehow we can retain its libertarianism in its most potent form, that's the goal.
George Phillies, Restore04 signatory, writing on LPradicals in Dec 2007:
I hold no position on the length of the platform. I do hold a position on writing quality, namely that the 2004 platform was abysmally repetitive.
Starchild, prominent LP radical, on 2007-08-29
Your draft platform is much better than I might have expected. It even includes the Non-Aggression Principle, though not as prominently as I would like to see it affirmed. While there are no doubt things from our pre-2006 platforms that should be included, it doesn't sound like an attempt to run headlong away from solid libertarian principles. If this is what the "reform" faction supports, we're in better shape than I thought.
Tom Knapp, prominent LP radical, in Aug 2007:
As usual, it looks like you're taking a constructive approach. […] I'm a "non-specifist," and there seem to actually be quite a few like me. We want a broad framework, not a laundry list of issues positions. Hit the principles, then either create a biennial or quadrennial program, or just trust the candidates, to turn those principles into policy positions. [His three biggest complaints about the draft at that time were its specificity about abortion, secession, and tuition tax credits. The specificity about both abortion and tax credits have since been removed from the proposal.]
Allan Wallace, moderator of the Outright Libertarians forum, in Feb 2008:
I have to admit that it [the gay rights plank] is better language (with the phrase, "such as in marriage, adoption, immigration, or military service") than I expected
Alex Peak, early Restore04 signatory, on Third Party Watch in April 2008:
Since we both agree that the government is way, way too big, to powerful, too costly, and too interventionist in our lives, it behooves our two factions to continue to work together. Once we reach minarchy, we can debate amongst ourselves whether to stop there or keep going. There's plenty of time for our factions to bicker once we reach the minimal state. Let’s not let our differences divide us now, when we need each other the most.
Rob Power, in email in Dec 2007:
The goal is simple — to not have the LP be silent on issues as important as war, taxation, and civil rights, as it has been since 2006 in Portland.