The Badnarik Campaign…

[NOTE: Sorry for the lack of updates in the last few days, I’ve been fighting off a really bad cold and haven’t felt much like writing.]

Michael Badnarik’s Congressional campaign has drawn much praise and criticism over the past few months, mostly on blogs in the Libertarian and third party world. The critics generally tend to focus on the way Badnarik’s campaign manager, Allen Hacker, has conducted the campaign.

My feeling is that Mr. Hacker has been tremendously successful at raising a large amount of money… but as an outside observer it seems that money was spent quickly and on things that didn’t directly help the campaign gain momentum. Then again I’m an outside observer, so I honestly couldn’t tell you this for sure.

My own opinion from the very start was that Mr. Badnarik was unelectable due to a lack of experience and community ties. Not really anything Mr. Hacker could have done about that.

This blog actually raised some early questions when the first financial reports showed that almost all of the money being raised was being spent to set up and office and a staff. It seemed like practically nothing was being set aside for future advertising or outreach purposes.

On June 8th we published an interview with Mr. Hacker that is worth re-reading as he addresses some of his critics and the future of the campaign.

The lastest campaign financial report showed good and bad news, with over $300,000 having been raised and yet less than $10,000 of that remained in the campaign’s warchest. Since then I’m sure quite a bit more has been raised and spent, but we won’t know for sure until next month when the next finance reports become public.

Some have been critical of Mr. Hacker saying that he’s used a large portion of the campaign’s funds to pay his own consulting company. This can be misleading because it might be that the consulting company paid for staff or other expenses and then the campaign paid the company to cover those costs.

Either way, I seriously doubt there is any graft going on here.

In truth, the most disturbing thing I’ve read recently was Mr. Hacker’s own response to some critics over at Hammer of Truth:

You want to know where the radio and TV is? Ask Mike Nelson why he was right there on FacePage trying to squash a fundraising project we didn’t even start. You want to know where the yard signs are? Ask Mike Nelson and his lackeys who’ve scared people away, alleging that we’re not running to win and that the only TV in this campaign will be the giant plasma TV I buy with the misappropriated funds.

I don’t think Allen Hacker has stolen any money here, because I haven’t seen anything solid to back that up. But I do think that if, with less than 2 months before the election, they don’t have any television ads or yard signs… then that is pretty surprising and alarming.

In the local Republican primaries we had a few weeks ago in the Jacksonville area, we saw a contested State Senate race in which a challenger raised less than $200,000 and still managed to air local TV and radio spots, field tens of thousands of automated calls, and saturate the city with large and small yard signs. Plus I got at least 2 pieces of direct mail from his campaign. This is a district with nearly as many people living in it as the Texas 10th Congressional District, so direct mail and TV is not cheap.

This challenger lost because the incumbent spent 2-3 times as much ($500,000+) to hold onto the seat. But if someone can take $200k and get themselves all over the radio and local television, in my mailbox, and in my neighbor’s yard with a little yard sign and down at the corner with a big sign… then why hasn’t this happened with the Badnarik campaign?

They have some billboards and what-not, but I’ve seen no news of major outreach efforts. If they want to keep people contributing they need to show results. Show people their money being used to produce and air radio ads, distribute large quantities of literature, direct mail, television, yard signs, bumperstickers… all of that. And, if there’s a real chance of Badnarik winning this race, then do a poll and share the results.

What I read on Hammer of Truth sounded like “we’re going to lose because after we raised $300,000 people started asking why they weren’t seeing any concrete results. We told them not to worry about that and to please keep sending money, but for some reason they slowed up their donations. Our strategy required everyone to keep giving us lots of money without seeing a lot of activity from us, and that didn’t work.”

I don’t think Badnarik is a bad guy, but this seems like a case of what Tim West described over on Hammer of Truth as: “My concern now is that he has crossed the rubicon into being a ‘professional’ LP candidate who will run for major office 3 times over the space of 5 years. I think he likes running for office and does it early and often. I dont know what that means, if anything. But I think it’s a spot on observation.”
It seems like this campaign may have been hit by something of a Harry Browne syndrome. Consultants, staff, office space, and other things became the priorities over more essential things like campaign materials and advertising.

Perhaps one month of their office rent could have paid for 2,500 or more yard signs… or radio ads or who knows what else. But as outside observers, it really is too early to second guess how this campaign was run.

There are 46 days left until the election and hopefully the Badnarik team will pull it together and score a strong finish. Considering the likely half-million dollar budget of this campaign, anything less than 15-20% would almost have to be considered a disappointment.

Until this campaign has been completed, it would be smart to stand back and avoid anything but constructive criticism. If you don’t like the way things have been run, don’t send them any more money.

It’s not too late for Badnarik to restore faith with his donors by showing real progress in this race with polling, media coverage, and sharing actual photos and videos of campaigning that’s being done. Show that the money is being used to win the race and more money will flow in as excitement builds.

The results on election night will be the only thing that determine the success or failure of this campaign.

Anyway, that’s my 2 cents on the matter. What do you all think?

128 Responses to “The Badnarik Campaign…”

  1. Stuart Richards Says:

    What do I think?

    I think this is going to be a warzone in twelve hours. :p

  2. Will Says:

    Badnarik is a lost cause. Bob Smither is where the action is now. That’s the real reason money dried up for them, the party has found a better candidate in a more winnable race.

    BTW Austin, how is your own campaign coming along? I haven’t seen any updates lately.

  3. JH Says:

    When I spoke with Badnarik (quite a while ago), he seemed very set in his ways when it came to advertising/etc. (Libertarian candidates just don’t seem to get the idea of campaigning and asking for votes via advertising. The only thing I can think is it might have something to do with the idea of not asking for a hand out (i.e. “hand me your vote”)).

    I’ve sent money to both Badarik and Smithers. (I think now that people have started getting behind Smithers hopefully his campaign will be serious).

  4. Nigel Watt Says:

    If you like Badnarik and can’t stand Allen Hacker, join my pledge to donate $10 to the Badnarik campaign as soon as Hacker is fired.

  5. Doug Craig Says:

    I have to admit I do not understand.I have been involved in the Allen Buckley campaign in Georgia .He has raised less than $10,000.00. He has a TV commercial and yard signs.He is polling at over 5%.I do not like running a cheap campaign but you do what you can with what you have.I have sent money to badnarik and Smither , if I send more it will go to Smither or my local Georgia candidates.

  6. George Phillies Says:

    When I ran for Congress in 1998, I raised around $10K. $3K of that went for ballot access. The rest went for legitimate campaigning, including thousands of dollars of radio ads and a direct mail effort.

    George Phillies

  7. Mike N. Says:

    The key word in George’s comment was “legitimate”.

  8. Mike N. Says:

    It is all a “top secret” plan. We can’t discuss this. Hacker may sue.

  9. Mike N. Says:

    Cool. I single handedly ruined Hacker’s top secret campaign by making blog comments. I’m soo powerful!

    And what the hell is “FacePage” anyway?

  10. Tom Bryant Says:

    I’ve been wondering why there is a lack of campaign updates on his blog. In the past, the blog used to have postive news of campaign events and bill boards going up. Is campaigning taking place or not?

  11. Mike N. Says:

    More Hacker madness in action:

    http://hammeroftruth.com/2006/09/14/a-message-from-badnarik/#comments

    http://hammeroftruth.com/2006/09/19/libertarians-should-be-good-shots/#comments

  12. Mike N. Says:

    Tom,

    No, they are now broke. They blew $400,000 on… well…. nothing.

  13. Doug Craig Says:

    I would like to hear a response from Badnarik.

  14. Timothy West Says:

    It seems like this campaign may have been hit by something of a Harry Browne syndrome.

    That’s the quote of the year. :D

  15. Allen Hacker Says:

    Huh,

    Polling 7.6% by party in the opposition’s poll and 32% by name recognition in our own poll with 2 months to go, where most people predicted less than 2% no matter what, is …well… nothing?

    0

  16. Mike N. Says:

    Hacker,

    How much more “name recognition” could your candidate have if you weren’t pocketing $100,000 of the campaign’s contributions? How many billboards and radio/TV ads could $100,000 buy?

    Where has nearly $400,000 gone? To 3 billboards and a “name recognition” poll?

    You don’t even have yard signs?

  17. Allen Hacker Says:

    Okay guys, you police this guy for me.

    If you can’t see what’s happening here, I pity you.

  18. Mike N. Says:

    They only need to see the FEC reports and do the math. It is public info.

  19. Mike N. Says:

    Allen,

    Will your campaign be issuing refunds for those that request them?

    If not, why?

  20. Charles Says:

    Mike – I can answer that one.

    of course not, Because they don’t have the money.

    I don’t really blame allen though, he basically just ran the campaign like The D’s and R’s do(in terms of spending), which with the amount of money is great to be getting 8 percent as an L. People are just upset because they wanted him to run it on a shoe-string budget as other third party candiates. It’s an intresting case example for what happens if you run a L campaign in the vein and with the money of other Major party campaigns(obviously he only has close to 10 percent of his republicans money though).

    The only problem is he isn’t going to be getting as much money as the other parties and Badnarik doesn’t have as much local involvement, which is why things like office and 100,000 dollars on 4-5 full-time staff confuse me.

  21. Mike N. Says:

    Charles,

    They confuse me too.

  22. undercover_anarchist Says:

    Much respect to Mr. Austin Cassidy for first (at least to me) exposing the Badnarik campaign for the travishamockery that it is, and allowing Mr. Hacker to expose himself as a fascist nutcase.

  23. undercover_anarchist Says:

    I would also like to express appreciation for Mike Nelson’s SANE, COHERENT perspective on this issue. I don’t know why, but many others in the “third party blog media” (excluding Mssrs. Cassidy and Nelson) are blind to the facts of this campaign. I understand some, like Mr. Gordon for example, have good reason for staying out of the fray. But it disappoints me when otherwise good blogger-journalists spout the “blind loyalty until after the election” mantra.

  24. Jackcjackson Says:

    I have no problem with $100,000 payments to Allen Hacker’s firm. It doesn’t seem that unreasonable to me. Especially considering that is not all “profit”, the time involved, the amount raised,etc.

    However, the big problem is it’s hard to justify those expenses considering things that have NOT been done. Pay your manager 6 figures and have TV, radio, yard signs, polling in double digits, media coverage,etc-GREAT! Pay your manager 6 figures with a staffed office and not even have the marketing of a $10,000 campaign- Something is Wrong.

    I understand wanting to run a “professional campaign”, but if you are throwing those bucks around don’t skimp where it matters. That makes it seem more like an amateur campaign with really high overhead.

    It is also very difficult not to look at Badnarik as a perpetual campaign. When this election ends, is Badnarik going to immediately declare for POTUS, retain Hacker for 2008, and keep solicting donations?

  25. Mike N. Says:

    Jackcjackson,

    If he does, I don’t see him raising much money.

  26. Nigel Watt Says:

    Wait, 32% name recognition? These are the polls you were touting that you wouldn’t reveal to us when I questioned you about the 7.6%? Even if everybody who knew your name voted for you, you still couldn’t get a plurality.

  27. Allen Hacker Says:

    It’s okay, Nigel,

    There’s more to come.

    0

  28. Mike N. Says:

    The resident nutcase has sent out another letter, to whatever supporters he has left, begging for $250,000 within a month. I guess donors are supposed to assume that he will actually spend that money on something worthwhile, such as advertising for example, since the first $375,000 went down the drain.

  29. Stephen VanDyke Says:

    undercover_anarchist: I’m guessing your comment is directed at me. I’m not going to spend a lot of time debating my reasoning for shutting down the discussion (it’s useless and contributes nothing at this point), suffice to say Hacker’s legal threats against HoT are baseless and not the reason for my relative silence on the issue (I asked editors months ago not to speculate on Hackers campaign strategy until after the elections).

    We will be doing an investigative article on the Badnarik campaign no matter the outcome after the election. If the naysayers are right, the most logical course is to stand to the side and let the campaign implode on itself, if they are wrong… then it’s possible they are causing serious damage to Badnarik’s fundraising ability in a critical time.

  30. George Whitfield Says:

    If you do not like the way the Badnarik campaign is going just donate your money to other Libertarian campaigns. There are certainly many other PP candidates who need encouragement. I have contributed to Michael’s campaign and I am not second-guessing him or his team. We should focus on positive efforts and save the harsh public criticism for post election analysis. We are all learning all the time.

  31. Allen Hacker Says:

    To Stephen VanDyke,

    Hey, buddy, plese don’t fall into MN’s misstatements. I did not threaten to sue HoT. Don’t inadvertently perpetuate the misrepresentations, okay?

    Other than that, thanks for your calls for objectivity and for recognizing the negative potential of accusations. Although, there’s little question of that, since MN has made it abundantly clear he is trying to destroy me and the campaign. What a waste of everyone’s time and a great opportunity for the party were he to succeed.

    0

  32. Nigel Watt Says:

    There were definitely legal threats against HoT.

  33. Darcy G. Richardson Says:

    Let’s put this in perspective. If the Badnarik campaign is successful in raising an additional quarter of a million dollars (see Mike N’s comment above), they will have outspent Vermont’s Bernie Sanders, who expended $569,772 in winning a seat in Congress as an independent in 1990. Their fundraising prowess would also put them in the neighborhood of raising almost as much money as Virginia congressman Virgil H. Goode, an ex-Democrat who ran for re-election as an independent six years ago.

    Of course, both of those men won their races.

  34. Timothy West Says:

    Public Notice:

    I, Allen Hacker, claim a common-law property right in my reputation; since failure to defend same is often mistakenly taken by the public to be admission, I have decided to vigorously defend my reputation by taking aggressive legal action against libelous statements made here and elsewhere by irresponsible persons, and where appropriate, their facilitators.

    HoT could reasonably be construed to be a facilitator.

    This has so many parallels to the Harry Browne campaign where J. Hornberger acted up, it’s eerie. All that would need to happen for the circle to be complete is for the campaign to be suspended for lack of funds.

    We have been here before.

  35. Darcy G. Richardson Says:

    Let me just add that Badnarik can still make history this year. Given his dismal showing in the recent poll conducted by Democratic rival Ted Ankrum, I believe the unemployed computer programmer might exceed the $22.76 per vote spent by Lewis DuPont Smith, a Lyndon LaRouche disciple running outside the two-party system for a seat in the U.S. House from Pennsylvania in 1990.

    But then again, what else can you expect from a candidate who has only made 49 public appearances, or fewer than one a week, in his district during the past thirteen months? http://www.lp.org/candidates/article_4.shtml

    Somebody has been hoodwinking the Libertarians…

  36. Allen Hacker Says:

    Tim,

    Are you accusing HoT of being a facilitator? If not, then take note of how easy it is to misread or misconstrue a statement. If HoT does not meet the legal definition of facilitator, then I don’t have to name it if I sue MN. What I did was ask Steve G. to see that it did not so I could proceed without HoT. I vehemently dislike the idea of having to let the real culprit off the hook in order to protect my friends.

    That’s not threatening HoT, that’s trying to protect it from simple error.

    I havern’t threatened to sue you, either, although you seemd worried about it. Unless you’ve been intentionally and malisciously libeling me, which I think you have not.

    These are legal terms. They have precise meanings and cannot be usd in this discussion in the sloppy way that most people use and substitute words on a casual basis.

    Everyone should just settle down and get off MN’s boat, if only to keep your spirit clean.

    0

  37. Allen Hacker Says:

    Hey, Darcy,

    Thanks for finally giving a citation. That’s so unlike you.

    Unfortunately, it’s not one that can be relied upon too heavily, since the LP isn’t measuring for many of the things we’re doing.

    It would help if everyone kept in mind that there are many ways to campaign and we’re not doing the usual. The LP’s points system is based on the common LP campaign model of running for attention rather than votes, as George P. can so well attest.

    For the record, Michael taught constitution to six government classes at a district high school today, and will do eight more tomorrow, all amidst being on a four-day campout with Jon Airheart at the Washington County Fair in Brenham, the only candidate or party presence at the fair this year.

    How many points are these things worth, when other candidates show up for a few hours if at all and my guys are there 12 hours a day or in high schools reaching entire families and the future? While volunteers keep the booth alive? Oh, right, appearance get fixed points no matter how many people you touch or how long they last. And I didn’t see any points for invading the enemy’s most sacred turf and taking back the hearts and minds of its current victims.

    Also, the RV is out in the fair parking area sporting a banner for all to see from the street. Is that one unit of points, or a unit for each day?

    BTW, you forgot to put the standard disclaimer on your posts, that you’re a republican and have a vested interest in us losing, a thing which you’ve been working hard to help along in your private misreprentations to our friends via email.

    It was you who started the crap about me being personally paid $100K, wasn’t it? Wasn’t that right after your “exhaustive” review of our FEC reports, where you converted gross payments to my consulting firm into net payments to me? Golly, I missed your phone call when you tried to ask me about it, right? Not!

    And I’m sure that’s also the one where you didn’t ask about the treasurer arrangement, where I am the FEC treasurer of record and someone else is the bank’s treasurer of record and actually deals with the FEC and signs almost all of the checks?

    The only reason I mention these incredibly relevant details is so that everyone will understand that you are not a supporter, ‘cause, gee, I wouldn’t want anyone to think I’m abusing a real supporter (or get away with saying so, eh MN?) when I point out that the depths of your proactive ignorance and dishonesty are appalling.

    But then, you are after all, politics as usual, aren’t you?

    Just so we all understand where you’re really coming from, right?

    0

  38. Timothy West Says:

    I think HoT would be construed as such if you thought in would be in your interest to claim it one. (thats not a slam, just the truth.) Anyone can claim anything in a suit.

    Seriously, if the campaign has been keeping proper records, it should take you no more than a day to round up and publically release disbursement records of donor funds, showing where they went to and how much. This includes your company. If everything is on the up and up, you would quash this in less than a day, and your detractors would be rendered speechless and shown to be incorrect. This is the obvious way of clearing your name and assuring donors and those in the movement that their donations have not been misused in any way. You would restore donor confidence in 24 hours or less.

    You’ve made statements on the issue, but you are now past the point where that matters in a political sense. You need to publically release your campaign finances for inspection, or you need to hire an auditing firm to verify and legally attest to the amounts and disbursement and release their report. That’s the only way you’ll totally resolve this beyond doubt. To hold this off until the election is over is the worst thing possible for the campaign. Clear your name, prove to everyone that the amounts were justified and nessecary. NOTHING spells instant relief from nightmares like this like 100% public disclosure over and above FEC requirements. If everythings cool, thats the quickest way to show everyone what the deal is.

    Allen, quit playing blog tag. Round up your official records of disbursement and release them showing where the money went. If you dont get this behind you, it will kill the campaign. I havent supported you becuase I dislike several of Michaels stands on the issues, but neither do I wish him or you ill. The last thing The LP needs is another ‘Harry Browne like’ campaign controversy. The last time we had one of these affairs, LP membership dropped like a stone.

    Just release the supporting documents, and this will be over and done real quick, and you’ll get your reputation back for free. Then after the campaign is over, sue like a MF if you wish.

    My ears only perked up when Michael claimed something in a public forum that I knew WAS NOT TRUE. (bout Liberty Mix) I dont have a dog in this either way, as I havent given. So I have nothing at stake besides wanting the best for the party.

    left hand is hurting so I have to stop. Think about doing this please.

  39. Timothy West Says:

    Oh, and Darcy, dont get too snooty. I think your party is about to get it’s ass handed to it and lose the House and the Senate. Nov 7th is gonna be a bloodbath for the R’s.

    The Democrats will then own the investigatory apparatus. Look out.

  40. Allen Hacker Says:

    Tim,

    I know you mean well with this one. But let’s take another look at what you’re asking.

    First, however, let me remind you that I corrected Michael’s forgetting much earlier than the noise continued about it. Where were you in that part of it? Saying OK, right? Or still talking.

    Anyway….

    You’re asking me to let the lowest common denominator and the falsifiers define the party, our campaign, and what I must do to survive.

    You’re essentially asking me to kiss ass for the greater good.

    There’s nothing wrong or illegal with the way I’m doing things. Everything has been checked against the manual and run by the advisor. Our financial conduct is in total compliance and our filings are as perfect as my treasurer can get them, and we are the only candidate in the race who can say that. We actually refiled almost an entire year of reports on our own initiative to correct an insignificant $20 mistake that no one would have noticed or cared about.

    This is still America, where the accuser bears the burden of proof.

    There you have two reasons not to grovel.

    Another is that it’s not my job to single-handedly save the LP. If the LP can’t muster enough loyalty from its people that we can expect them to rise up and smash liars and destroyers, to stand firm in enforcing some rules of law or at least decency, then we have no LP and the illusion that we do should pass away.

    The LP has not been defined by its better half, nor has libertarianism. Sure, there were anarchists and ferret-fetishists from the beginning, but mostly that’s only because the core founders were too kind-hearted or wimpy to stand up for the crucial points that (1) the LP is a political party and should in fact do politics to arrest the growth of socio-fascism, and (2) the LP is not a refuge for bully anarchists and the smelly t-shirt crowd.

    All it has ever taken to stymie any decent LP movement is one loudmouth making accusations—of impropriety, of impurity, of lesser commitment, of profiteering, of just not being like them so they can feel good about their own irresponsibility and unproductive lives.

    This time the wastrels don’t get to win.

    I stand on my integrity. The accusers have lied and pestered and subverted, coming back time and again after being beaten back, and all the while you and too many others have stood by wringing your hands about how I should be nice to jerks, about how all I have to do to get them off my back is prostrate myself before them.

    But you’re wrong about all of it. You’re wrong to think that they have any value, or that it’s rude to be tough with evil, or even that anything will change if they get what they say they want. Because me groveling at their feet is not what they are after, it’s just a step toward what they really want. Meanwhile, all it would do is embolden them and make the world a lot less nicer a place in which to be a libertarian.

    Darcy is no libertarian, and there’s no way any credibility should be given to the opinions of an other-partisan who opposes us and wants our party dead.

    I suspect MN isn’t really a libertarian either, because he consistently ignores that his rights end where another’s begin. Rather, I suspect that he’s just a failure in life who fears a libertarian world because then he’d have to take care of himself. (Well, okay, he might be a libertarian to the extent that it serves him in justifying ignoring the rules of polite society—if that is all you want libertarianism to be.)

    This is all a microcosm of everything wrong with the LP, and that means it is everyone’s chance to stand up to all that wrong in one single cause.

    Stop thinking that every member is crucial to the growth of the LP, no matter how many other members and prospects that one runs off. This isn’t the only place MN, for example, is offensively obnoxious, you know.

    Stop thinking that any candidate is better than no candidate when the best you can do in some cases is send forth a toothless pigpen to embarrass us now and set us back for years to come.

    The bylaws and purpose of the LP state that it is a political party whose purpose is to effect its aims by electing candidates. Stop thinking tiny and holding everything back with “we can’t win”. (Are you listening, George?!)

    Stop trying to dictate things to each other at the drop of a hat. Stop enforcing politically correct ways to lose elections. Stop stifling initiative and innovation.

    Stop thinking that just because someone makes a lot of noise, he has something to say, or that just because he can approximate a sentence, that he’s intelligent. (Hint: if he’s more proficient in a programming language than with English, then you should be able to predict that he’ll be inept with people, weak as a member, lousy at recruiting anything but clones of himself, and an embarrassment as a candidate.)

    And stop letting the dregs define your self and your life.

    It’s easy. Just get really clear on two words: discernment and integrity. Then unceasingly practice the one and live the other.

    I’ll bet you didn’t mean to, but you just asked me to surrender my integrity.

    Think about it. My road to hell paved by your good intentions! No thanks, not gonna go there.

    Don’t ally yourself with the destroyers. Make them put up or shut up.

    Or, surrender all that you hold dear, for at some point in their game, it will become your turn.

    0

  41. Timothy West Says:

    OK, time will tell. Good Luck.

  42. Mike N. Says:

    since MN has made it abundantly clear he is trying to destroy me and the campaign.

    I am out to destroy your campaign because I am relaying to others what Darcy G Richardson brought to our attention? Umm… okay.

    http://thirdpartywatch.com/2006/09/06/democrat-ankrum-polls-his-own-race/#comment-53995

  43. Mike N. Says:

    Darcy’s quote:

    The only television in Badnarik’s campaign will probably be the new 50” plasma TV Allen Hacker buys for himself from the huge salary he’s pulling down as campaign manager. According to FEC Reports, Hacker, or more precisely his firm “Articulate Management,” has already been paid $93,750 since signing on as Badnarik’s campaign manager in August 2005. This includes twenty-four checks totaling $74,250 that Hacker, who also conveniently serves as Badnarik’s campaign treasurer, has written to himself during the first six months of 2006. It’s all there in the FEC Reports.

    Hacker’s so-called “secret plan” to win the Texas CD-10 race has always had a Nixonian ring to it. But that’ll become clearer to Badnarik’s contributors about a half-hour after the polls close on November 7 when the LP’s one-time presidential candidate barely breaks double-digit percentage, if that.

  44. Mike N. Says:

    It was you who started the crap about me being personally paid $100K, wasn’t it? Wasn’t that right after your “exhaustive” review of our FEC reports, where you converted gross payments to my consulting firm into net payments to me?

    Yes, it was Darcy. And her math is correct.

  45. Mike N. Says:

    The only reason I mention these incredibly relevant details is so that everyone will understand that you are not a supporter, ‘cause, gee, I wouldn’t want anyone to think I’m abusing a real supporter (or get away with saying so, eh MN?) when I point out that the depths of your proactive ignorance and dishonesty are appalling.

    Actually Hacker, if you would simply (and if at all possible, professionally – but that hasn’t happened yet) come out and dispute such rumors with facts instead of making a complete ass of yourself constantly, these “rumors” probably wouldn’t get very far. You are your worst enemy.

  46. Mike N. Says:

    This is all a microcosm of everything wrong with the LP, and that means it is everyone’s chance to stand up to all that wrong in one single cause.

    Very true. The LP would benefit greatly by dissassociating itself with whackos like yourself. We DO need to stand up to people like you.

  47. Mike N. Says:

    Stop trying to dictate things to each other at the drop of a hat. Stop enforcing politically correct ways to lose elections. Stop stifling initiative and innovation.

    If only you took your own advice….

  48. Mike N. Says:

    Stop thinking that just because someone makes a lot of noise, he has something to say, or that just because he can approximate a sentence, that he’s intelligent. (Hint: if he’s more proficient in a programming language than with English, then you should be able to predict that he’ll be inept with people, weak as a member, lousy at recruiting anything but clones of himself, and an embarrassment as a candidate.)

    Are you referring to Michael Badnarik? Isn’t he a programmer?

  49. Mike N. Says:

    I’ll bet you didn’t mean to, but you just asked me to surrender my integrity.

    So Tim West asks you to come clean with your campaign, and you think that means to surrender your integrity? Have you not figured out why people perceive you as a tad bit looney?

  50. Mike N. Says:

    Allen,

    Will the Badnarik campaign be issuing refunds to those donors that request them?

    If not, why?

    I am sure there are legitimate campaigns that some donors may wish to re-direct their funds to.

  51. Mike N. Says:

    Darcy,

    If you are in fact from another party, I would suggest you capture some of Hackers comments and use them to your advantage.

  52. Mike N. Says:

    Darcy,

    In case you need even more…there are many, many more going back for months. I have them all saved, printed, filed and bookmarked. Please let me know if you need any references.

  53. Nigel Watt Says:

    Whoa now. Now you’re seriously campaigning against a Libertarian campaign. That’s going a little far, isn’t it?

  54. Mike N. Says:

    Nigel,

    I didn’t make Hacker’s comments, he did. If they get used against him, that is his problem.

  55. Mike N. Says:

    Nigel,

    If you think that was a “little far”, just wait unitl the real campaign is launched. Coming soon.

  56. Rob Power Says:

    Um, Mike? You know that campaigning for a Republican against a viable Libertarian candidate is incompatible with your position as Texas State Coordinator for Outright Libertarians, don’t you? See Article Four, Section III, Subsection C of our bylaws.

    I assume you will resign your post before starting any such campaign. We’ve never had to remove someone from our Executive Committee in our 8-year history, but if you go through with this campaign, I assure you that we’ll have the 2/3 majority required to remove you from your post.

    I’d much rather just see you scrapping this campaign idea and fulfilling the remainder of your term with Outright. Criticizing a Libertarian candidate is one thing, but actively campaigning for a non-Libertarian opponent is crossing a very clear, very serious line. Please don’t cross it.

  57. Carl Says:

    When I took a course at the Leadership Institute, they taught fundraising in the following fashion:
    1. Raise money.
    2. Spend the money raised to raise yet more money.
    3. ditto
    4. ditto
    ...
    N. Use the last round of funds to actually reach out to the public

    This is the standard. It’s par for the course.

    Unfortunately, it doesn’t work so well for Libertarian campaigns because the fundraising base is too small. What base we do have is relatively cheap to reach and is relatively ready to write early checks. Thus, the pyramid levels out for Libertarians far earlier than it does for D’s and R’s.

    This is why I have put my own efforts into fixing the platform and the message: to expand our base.
    ——-
    My own contributions to the Badnarik campaign have been very limited because I knew of this problem from the start. The standard professional approach to campaigning does not work for Libertarian candidates.

    Given the history of the LP, I think an open books approach and a committment not to pyramid as aggressively as the general standard is required to maintain credibility with jaded donors.

    And I fear we are still too small to support high-caliber campaign consultants. Quality overhead is good if you can afford it. Otherwise, it is better to do things on the cheap and actually have enough money to follow through, even if it isn’t the best implementation. Better a cheap campaign commercial done in Power Point (a la Russo) that actually gets broadcast than a $200,000 slickly produced commercial that never runs.

    Thinking back, I think Aaron Russo understood best how to campaign as a Libertarian. He did do cheesy commercials and ran them in Atlanta—before he even got the nomination.

  58. Mike N. Says:

    Umm Rob, when and where have I campaigned for a Republican?

  59. Mike N. Says:

    or even suggested campaigning for a Republican?

    You are awful quick to jump to absurd conclusions.

  60. Nigel Watt Says:

    That’s what you appear to be doing, helping a Republican against a Libertarian, and that’s what Rob and I are objecting to.

  61. Mike N. Says:

    Nigel,

    Where do you derive this “appearance”? Explain.

  62. Nigel Watt Says:

    “Darcy,

    If you are in fact from another party, I would suggest you capture some of Hackers comments and use them to your advantage.”

    “Darcy,

    In case you need even more…there are many, many more going back for months. I have them all saved, printed, filed and bookmarked. Please let me know if you need any references.”

    I’d love to find a different interpretation for that, but I can’t.

  63. Mike N. Says:

    Nigel,

    Is Darcy from the Republican Party? If so, where do you get that information?

    Also, for me to suggest to Darcy, who may be from any party, to use Hacker’s comments against him is in no rational way a “campaign” for any Republican – or any other party for that matter. If you still assume so, which Republican am I campaigning for?

  64. Brian S Says:

    I have to agree with Mr. West here, and I rarely do that. I understand Mr. Hacker’s position. It is grating to have to defend oneself against mere accusations. He is right that one has a presumption of innocence – but that’s in court. This isn’t court. It’s politics. In politics, perception is everything. It’s not fair, but that’s the way it is.

    I have no doubt that the campaign situation is exactly as Mr. Hacker says, and that people have either willfully or naively confused gross vs. net payments to his consulting outfit. But as Tim points out, that’s an easy fix – putting egg on the faces of the critics immediately and defusing the issue. The way that Mr. Hacker has handled this is understandable, but not political.

    If we’re going to do politics, we’re going to have to be prepared to deal with a lot worse accusations from outside the LP regarding any candidate who looks competitive in or actually wins a partisan race. From that standpoint, we can look at this tempest as a learning experience.

  65. Allen Hacker Says:

    Brian S,

    You’re falling right into the trap. You’re asking us to do exactly what they want: trade integrity for a place on their playing field. If we do that, we have joined them and will never recover.

    Please rethink your position. The easy way out of an engineered tough spot is always the way that has been engineered for you.

    The correct way through this situation is exactly what I’m doing. I’ve exposed the perpetrators and gotten a public confession. Had I given in only one day ago none of you would have ever learned the truth.

    Michael Badnarik uses the blunt analogy of rape for this type of situation. Are you someone who, coming upon a rape in progress, would do nothing more than whisper to the victim, “Relax, don’t fight it, it’s not personal and it’ll be over soon?” Christ, I hope not!

    You talk about this being politics, but you don’t seem to get the depths of it. Am I the only one here who has read and understood Macciavelli and Sun Tzu?

    Now you owe me for showing you reality. Now I expect you to start joining into that right solution and demand an end to to the Nelson/Richardson defamation road show.

    0

  66. Tom Bryant Says:

    Allen,

    I’m not sure what your response means.

    I believe the idea expressed was that our opponents will be throwing worse accusations out there at us when we become viable. How are we supposed to react when a Rep says that the Libertarian wants old people to die on the street and our children to be drug addicted prostitutes?

    Do we “keep our integrity” by not answering the charges? Do we respond with threats of a defamation lawsuit? The publich would perceive such reactions as support of the original claims.

    Or do we slap the facts in the face of those who tarnish our campaigns?

    Your campaign emailed me and stated that these accusations are having a negative impact on the campaign. The campaign needs to put these people in their place by using the facts.

    You will have to do an expenditure breakdown after the campaign anyways, why not do it early and enjoy a month and a half of increased donations coming in. The campaign needs money, as the email stated, so the campaign needs to eliminate this crap that is driving donors away.

  67. Stuart Richards Says:

    Nigel,

    If you think that was a “little far”, just wait unitl the real campaign is launched. Coming soon.

    Yeah, watch out Hacker. He’s got a SECRET PLAN to fuck you up.

    This is getting way too childish for even libertarian standards.

  68. Mike N. Says:

    Yeah, watch out Hacker. He’s got a SECRET PLAN to fuck you up.

    This is getting way too childish for even libertarian standards.

    Yea.. not only secret… but TOP secret! Booga Booga!!

  69. Stuart Richards Says:

    Now you owe me for showing you reality. Now I expect you to start joining into that right solution and demand an end to to the Nelson/Richardson defamation road show.

    WTF? Oh no you don’t. I’m assuming you misspelled my last name? I haven’t defamed you one bit, don’t you even TRY to toss that shit my way. I’ve spent the past few days trying to get Mike to STFU and this is the thanks I get?

  70. Mike N. Says:

    Stuart,

    Try reading before responding… you will look much more intelligent. He wasn’t referring to you.

  71. Chris Moore Says:

    You know Allen, just like Tom Knapp, I’m getting fed up.

    Most people with sense do not think you are funnelling campaign funds into your own pocket, many just think you are incompetent and have poorly spent the campaign’s money. Releasing financial reports would do nothing to quash that perception. Get off of the “Mike Nelson is raping me” whine. He’s not the problem, you are.

    You couldn’t have honestly believed that good Libertarians would just keep sending money without the expectation of seeing some concrete results. You’ve fed donors pie in the sky, and have failed to provided so much as a ladder.

    I’ve supported the campaign for months with a little bit of money, but I’m having a lot of trouble continuing that support, and it has nothing to do with Mike Nelson. The campaign has issued some of the worst written press releases I’ve ever read, published horribly written position papers, called on the Democrat to drop out because you had a few thousand more in the bank, issued another whiny, arrogant press release about how Ted Ankrum (who most consider a stand-up guy) is a liar, and have raised and spent close to $400,000 and have ZERO yard signs, much less TV and radio spots.

    That is why your fundraising has been drying up. Quite bitching about Mike Nelson and look in the damn mirror. Unless you have one HELL of a duzzy of a secret plan to show us in your next email, then expect even less of a return.

    And equating others with rapist apologists makes you an asshole.

  72. Stuart Richards Says:

    Oh… yeah, my apologies for jumping to conclusions.

    Nonetheless, do neither of you have anything better to do?

    Mike, why don’t you go write an article completely unrelated to Badnarik or Hacker? You’re a really good writer when you’re not bogged down in this shitfest. There’s a lot of good tips we’re getting that I don’t have the time to follow up on.

  73. Mike N. Says:

    Stuart,

    So that I can incite you to come in here and make retarded comments… working isn’t it?

  74. Darcy G. Richardson Says:

    “BTW, you forgot to put the standard disclaimer on your posts, that you’re a republican and have a vested interest in us losing, a thing which you’ve been working hard to help along in your private misreprentations to our friends via email.”

    Allen—- You are so absurd, it’s almost funny. Where did you hear that I’m a Republican? You couldn’t be further from the truth. I’ve never belonged to the GOP, nor have I ever voted Republican. I’m sure a number of folks who know me are laughing hysterically at that one. I’m actually a registered independent with a long history in third-party politics. Among other things, I’ve waged several independent and third-party campaigns over the past twenty-five years or so, including an unsuccessful bid for the U.S. Senate from Pennsylvania on the left-wing Consumer Party ticket in 1988. I’ve also managed a half-dozen campaigns, including one of the late Eugene McCarthy’s latter campaigns for the presidency. In 2004, I was a presidential elector for former Oregon State Senator Walt Brown, the Socialist Party’s candidate for president.

    Those are hardly Republican credentials. Get a grip.

    Moreover, I’m currently managing Brian Moore’s independent antiwar campaign for the U.S. Senate here in Florida:

    http://www.sptimes.com/2006/08/06/Floridian/What_makes_Brian_run.shtml

    http://www.floridagreens.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=58

    Granted, we haven’t raised anywhere near the $400,000 that you’ve amassed for Badnarik. But we’ve spent our meager resources effectively.

    I’m not sure, Allen, exactly what you’re talking about when you referred to my “private misreprentations to our friends via email.” I sent only one e-mail to a Libertarian friend in California regarding Badnarik’s campaign. I was concerned that he might have been a contributor to your sorry-ass campaign, but fortunately he wasn’t. In any case, my friend happened to share my e-mail with Badnarik. I would be more than happy to post Badnarik’s response to that e-mail, but I really, really don’t think you’d want me to do that.

    I’d love to chat longer, but I have yard signs to distribute.

  75. Mike N. Says:

    Darcy,

    The world is out to get him. He appears to be a paranoid schizophrenic.

  76. Thomas L. Knapp Says:

    I’ve been looking at the FEC reports again, and I’m just not seeing evidence of the kind of malfeasance Mike N. keeps insisting is present (i.e. Allen Hacker simply “pocketing” $100K as income). What I see are payments made to Hacker’s firm, which presumably is using some of that money to pay employees, etc., to perform services for the campaign. I see some expenditures that I wouldn’t have made, but they’re not a huge part of the campaign and the fact that Mr. Hacker doesn’t do things the way I would is not evidence that he’s doing anything corrupt, criminal or otherwise reprehensible.

    There are other, more likely explanations for the seeming failure of the campaign to have generated media, momentum and poll numbers than that Allen Hacker has just been raising funds and moving them from the campaign bank account to his wallet without trying to run a real campaign.

    In November we’ll know whether that seeming failure was real, or whether Mr. Hacker really does have an ace in the hole. If the seeming failure is real, we’ll probably be able to piece together a fairly accurate picture of why. If it isn’t real—if Badnarik polls better than 20% or so—then Hacker will have earned every dime he nets. If Badnarik wins (a likelihood that I deeply discount regardless of how well the campaign is run) then everyone with an IQ bigger than his shoe size will sit down, shut up and hope he tells us how it’s done.

    Tom Knapp

  77. Mike N. Says:

    Knapp,

    Who is accusing Hacker of doing anything “corrupt, criminal or otherwise reprehensible.”?

  78. Mike N. Says:

    Mike, why don’t you go write an article completely unrelated to Badnarik or Hacker?

    Huh? The last time I wrote anything related to Badnarik was 5 months ago. See below. And I don’t believe I have every written anything about his bozo sidekick on HoT.

    http://hammeroftruth.com/2006/04/24/lady-liberty-interviews-michael-badnarik/

  79. Allen Hacker Says:

    Oh Gosh, Darcy,

    Somebody misrepresented you. Bummer, and I apologize for getting that wrong.

    But you raise an interesting question. You’ve been running losing campaigns since 1968 and you’re ridiculing me for not doing it the way you do?

    Talk about getting a grip.

    Here’s a thought: the next time you take it upon yourself to do an exhaustive analysis of an FEC report, would you mind doing it, and reporting the results, to the same standards expected of you in your real job? Your performance here would incite the SEC to riot in the corporate world. Not to mention that you flat lied, intentionally or sloppily, it doesn’t matter, to your friend in CA.

    You should have been surprised at Michael’s response, particularly since it’s been looking like you and Mike Nelson are in league.

    Have fun wasting your client’s money and time with those yard signs. Haven’t you seen the numerous studies showing that yard signs don’t move voters?

    0

  80. Allen Hacker Says:

    Tom Bryant,

    You needed to catch the part about discernment in order to understand what I am saying.

    It’s one thing to have to respond to position misrepresentations in a campaign. Of course, we’ll be doing that, and expect such low tricks.

    But there’s a world of difference between someone misrepresenting your positions and someone falsely attacking your character.

    I believe you’re capable of seeing that, so please review the material.

    0

  81. Allen Hacker Says:

    Chris Moore,

    You are fed up?

    Then why didn’t you ask Nelson to stop before I came back in? This is the third time you and others have let this guy run amok defaming people.

    Why do you insist that I should take instruction and meet the methods of people who’ve never won an election? Talk about strange.

    You have concrete results. Your friendly Demo’s poll puts us at 7.6%, far higher than all but one here was giving us.

    And you have another concrete result: Mike Nelson’s blatant confession that he is trying to destroy the B4C campaign. He may not be working for a Republican by agreement, but he certainly is working for the megaparty. Finally, we have proof of intentional internal subversion in LP campaigns, and what, you want to ignore it?

    Go ahead, bail out when the going gets tough. Don’t fight the internal enemies, and don’t look for better ways to campaign than the tried and true failures of the past. Yard signs—give me a break, go find and read the research.

    I promised a different campaign, and I’m doing my best to deliver it. I warned up front that it would cost a lot. This is what it takes, including swatting flies. You should be having a house party, raising money.

    Quitters don’t win, and people calling me a whiner to excuse their sins and permissiveness is just plain silly. You should be asking every one of the critics to stick to facts and say relevant things instead of stooping around name-calling.

    It wouldn’t hurt to ask them to open the discussion with a question instead of accusations and innuendo, but that would require a substantial change in libertarian culture. Why not lead that change instead of reinforcing it?

    But no, it’s so much easier to bitch and swear at me, isn’t it?

    0

  82. Mike N. Says:

    You should have been surprised at Michael’s response, particularly since it’s been looking like you and Mike Nelson are in league.

    Darcy, I don’t even know you, but King Hacker has deemed that we are in some sort of league. Shall we have coffee?

  83. Mike N. Says:

    Mike Nelson’s blatant confession that he is trying to destroy the B4C campaign.

    Where and when did this confession take place?

    He may not be working for a Republican by agreement, but he certainly is working for the megaparty.

    Interesting. I wonder how much they are paying me? Shall they pay me $100,000 perhaps?

  84. Allen Hacker Says:

    Okay guys,

    It’s all out there now. Those with eyes to see will see, and the rest will do whatever they’re going to do, won’t they?

    Sorry world some people are creating, isn’t it?

    Thanks, Austin, for the forum. I knew that if the conversation went long enough the truth would surface.

    0

  85. Mike N. Says:

    Yard signs—give me a break, go find and read the research.

    Yea, cuz we all know those constitution classes to high school students who can’t vote are much more effective!

  86. Allen Hacker Says:

    Of course, Darcy should not have been surprised….

    When I finally do return to making $100K a year, I’m going to buy a keyboard that can keep up with me! Maybe even one with a dyslexia compensator

    0

  87. Mike N. Says:

    It wouldn’t hurt to ask them to open the discussion with a question instead of accusations and innuendo

    Hunni, that whole post of yours was full of accusations and innuedno. Are we feeling a little hypocritical again?

  88. Allen Hacker Says:

    Look, look, look!

    See Mike Nelson snipe and evade and trip and slobber.

    Ladies, I present for your inspection… the lowest common denominator!

    Do with him as you wish.

    0

  89. Mike N. Says:

    So lets see, virtually all campaigns use yard signs including multi-million dollar ones…. Hmmm…. I guess they aren’t privy to Hacker’s top secret “numerous studies showing that yard signs don’t move voters”.

  90. Rob Power Says:

    Ooh. There was a glimmer of rational discourse about campaign strategy, and it totally got glossed over.

    “Haven’t you seen the numerous studies showing that yard signs don’t move voters?”

    I have to agree—everything I’ve ever read, heard, or been trained on (I took the Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund’s candidate training when I ran for San Francisco Supervisor in 2002, before I knew they were owned by the Democrats) says that you only buy enough yard signs to give to the donors who ask for them. They have no impact on an election, other than if a donor wants one and you don’t have one, that donor may get mad and not give you any more money. Which seems to be happening here.

    A suggestion, Allen? Find someone like thelibertysource.com who is willing to produce a very short run of yard signs for you—maybe 50 signs, so that those donors who really want a sign can have one, and you can squeeze some more money out of them. But you’re right to not waste money on “pushing” these signs. In terms of bang for the buck, nothing beats direct mail. And given your current fundraising issues, I’d say mailings are your only responsible option.

  91. Tom Bryant Says:

    Hell, I’ve asked questions and no one on either side seems to want to answer them.

    With no real information to go on, I’ll just wait until the election to see what happens.

    I think that both sides of this debate have failed miserably in putting their views forth in a factual manner. This is definitely the Libertarian Party at its worth (assuming Mike is an LP member).

  92. Mike N. Says:

    Bryant,

    Nah, I am a fascist party member… no, umm, I am a communist party member… ummm, that doesn’t sound right…. oh hell, just wait for Hacker to come back, he will surely make something up for you to believe.

  93. Carl Says:

    Yard signs can be useful if you have a place to put them. That is, either:
    1. You have a lot of supporters willing to put them in their yards, or
    2. Your area tolerates signs on the median strips and right of ways.

    I once lived in an area that fell under the latter category. I got multiple LP campaigns to use the same motif and to share issue signs. The result was not victory, but in terms of votes per (dollars+effort), the experiment was successful.

    See http://quiz2d.com/essays/scale/ for a writeup.

    That said, in other districts, where neither of the above conditions apply, signs are a complete waste of money. I especially think that signs are not useful at polling places. There are too many and people go into intentional tunnel vision mode to get to the door. I have learned this through bitter experience from doing all-night pre-election day sign postings and measurement of the results afterwards.

  94. Thomas L. Knapp Says:

    Yard signs can be effective in certain circumstances—as a matter of fact, they can be DECISIVE in certain circumstances. A US House race in which the candidate is starting from a base too small to seriously affect name rec or perceived momentum by displaying them is not one of those circumstances. Hacker has that one very right.

  95. NewFederalist Says:

    Whew! My eyes are bleeding! Let’s order up some lives, shall we?

  96. Timothy West Says:

    eh, mine has been less than optimal lately. Can I change my order, hold the brain tumor?

  97. mark s2 Says:

    As I review the 96 comments here, it is obvious why Badnarik is not doing better-his campaign manager is spending all day rebutting all the comments on this blog, instead of running the campaign!

  98. Austin Cassidy Says:

    On yard signs, I think they can make a big difference or none at all. It depends a lot on the race.

    First, how much do people care about this race and how well known are the candidates? If the candidates aren’t that well known and the race is not that “important” in the eyes of voters… then yard signs can be extremely useful.

    Can you provide significant coverage with the signs? If you’re running for governor of Texas… 1,000 yard signs is a waste of time unless you’re giving them to donors, etc. If you’re running in a district small enough where you can afford to make a notable impression with signs, then do them.

    Also, as Carl said… if you have a lot of supporters or if your area allows signs to be placed around businesses, at corners, etc.

    I’m running a Soil and Water Board race in a large city (550,000 registered voters) right now. The laws are a little muddy on sign placement, but in the last few weeks of the campaign they pretty much allow for anything. For that reason, I’ll be using signs very heavily… probably aiming for at least a few hundred and possibly as many as 2,000 signs of various sizes. This will be on a campaign budget of maybe $4,000 or $5,000 maximum… and I’m planning on doing a small radio buy as well, so the signs are only about $2,500 worth of my expenses.

    Another point… signs are cheap and they raise your name recognition. If Badnarik’s name is only recognized by 32% of the people in the district, he could probably use the help.

  99. Stephen VanDyke Says:

    Austin, congrats on getting the slew of libertarians who would rather fight with each other over one campaign that everyone wants to place best one in blog comments than actually go out and do some useful campaigning for their candidates.

    When I say that, my finger is pointing in Hacker’s direction as well.

    Selah retards, now you see why I closed the comments at HoT.

  100. Timothy West Says:

    eh what the hell. Why not 100 to put a point on it?

  101. Mike N. Says:

    Austin, I would like to thank you for your this post. Especially considering VanDyke’s very un-libertarian decision to basically censor conversation at HoT.

  102. Tom Bryant Says:

    Ah, here we go with the whole “it’s unlibertarian to control ones property” nonsense again.

  103. undercover_anarchist Says:

    Darcey Richardson wrote the best book in the history of third party literature, OTHERS. You should all definitely check it out.

  104. Mark Odell Says:

    Allen,

    > I stand on my integrity.
    > Just get really clear on two words: discernment and integrity. Then unceasingly practice the one and live the other.
    > I’ll bet you didn’t mean to, but you just asked me to surrender my integrity.
    > You’re asking us to do exactly what they want: trade integrity for a place on their playing field.

    You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

    You still have not explained exactly what process of reasoning leads you to conclude that Tim’s “come clean” translates as “trade integrity”. In what way?

    > Am I the only one here who has read and understood Macciavelli and Sun Tzu?

    Speaking of Machiavelli and Sun Tzu: Do you honestly not know that threats are illogical? That when you actually have the ability to do X, then when the time comes you do it instead of talking about it?

    > Now you owe me for showing you reality.
    > I knew that if the conversation went long enough the truth would surface.

    “Thank you for the lesson, Mr. Hacker.” However, your risk in making the kind of remarks you’ve made here is that the actual lesson imparted may be quite different to the one you intended.

    Lecturing us, as if from “on high”, instead of replying to direct questions with straight answers, is also a point not in your favor.

    HTH

  105. Darcy G. Richardson Says:

    Thank you, undercover_anarchist, for the kind words about my book. I didn’t know anyone actually read it. In any case, I tried to find your e-mail address on the web to say thank you, and if you’re the same person I came across in my search, congratulations on the birth of your beautiful baby daughter! Maybe there’s still time to create the kind of world she deserves to live in. Thanks again and best wishes!

  106. Darcy G. Richardson Says:

    P.S. – I agree with your assessment of Allen Hacker. You really have to wonder about anyone who would urge potential contributors to sell their personal possessions, such as their second automobile, or borrow money, to fund a losing campaign like the one he’s mismanaging. I understand he now wants to raise $70,000 to put out door-hangers throughout the district. Wow, what a genius! The fact that he’s been able to squelch criticism in Libertarian circles by threatening lawsuits speaks volumes not only about those who call themselves “libertarians”—- with a small “L”—- but also about the man whose campaign he is supposedly managing. You’re right—- he’s pretty creepy.

  107. Darcy G. Richardson Says:

    As poet Emily Dickinson wrote, “truth is such a rare thing, it is delighted to tell it.” Try suing Mike Nelson, myself, on any other valid critic. Bring on your lawsuits, Allen—- we’ll be ready.

  108. Darcy G. Richardson Says:

    “or”—- sorry for the typo.

  109. Darcy G. Richardson Says:

    Every time I hear Allen Hacker’s name I can’t help it, but I think of that old Dire Straits’ song “Money for Nothing.” It must be my old age.

  110. paulie cannoli Says:

    Every time I hear Allen Hacker’s name I can’t help it, but I think of that old Dire Straits’ song “Money for Nothing.” It must be my old age.

    I don’t think that helps make your point. The song was written as a mockery of the idea that working musicians get their “money for nothing”. The author was working 16 hours a day at the time on his music when he overheard these comments and decided to write about them.

  111. Darcy G. Richardson Says:

    Thanks, Paulie. Obviously, I never knew that about the song’s origin and I appreciate your insight.

  112. paulie cannoli Says:

    It’s one of those songs that’s often misuderstood, like “Don’t Worry, Be Happy”.

  113. undercover_anarchist Says:

    Darcy – I bought your book in ebook format, and when I couldn’t print it, I had my mother in law buy it for me for Christmas last year. It is the definative tome on third-party politics, one of the most interesting books I’ve ever read. I know that it was originally supposed to be only the first in a series of books… Are the future volumes still planned?

  114. Mike N. Says:

    I’ve been looking at the FEC reports again, and I’m just not seeing evidence of the kind of malfeasance Mike N. keeps insisting is present

    Knapp, the funny thing is that I have never made such a charge… but YOU have on your latest post on your blog:

    “I think that Badnarik’s campaign is a $400,000 bust, that he’ll be extremely lucky to break 10%, and that that situation results from either incompetence (most likely) or malfeasance (less likely but possible) on Mr. Hacker’s part.”

    Let me guess, the tooth fairy logged into your account and posted that for you?

  115. Mike N. Says:

    Link:

    http://knappster.blogspot.com/2006/09/this-discussion-is-now-closed.html

  116. Carl Says:

    I saw the word “door-hangers.” I’ve played with those as well. Bleah! Yard signs are a better value.

    My experience has been that lit-dropping and door-knocking is largely a waste of effort. If you aren’t the candidate, people don’t want to talk to you, and lit dropped on their door has little impact. Lit dropping might be useful as a lead up to a candidate visit just to provide face recognition of the candidate prior to the visit.

    Putting up yard signs is much less work for the same impact—assuming you have a place to put them. And yard signs are cheap if you go the plastic bag sign route—if you are buying at least 5000.

    Sometimes you can get screamingly good deals on radio spots. Broadcasters have to offer political campaigns the best deals they offered anyone else over the past year. Sometimes a radio station will screw up and give a big advertiser an incredibly good deal—which they must pass along to campaigns.

    In fact, the biggest reason for running paper campaigns is purely to be eligible for these discount ad rates. You could run spots such as these:

    http://quiz2d.com/commercials/

  117. Darcy G. Richardson Says:

    “I know that it was originally supposed to be only the first in a series of books… Are the future volumes still planned?”

    Thanks again for the nice compliment. My next volume, covering the period from the Populist Party to the Progressive movement of 1924, will be published very shortly. Drop me a line sometime and I’ll be happy to send you a copy as soon as it’s released.

  118. undercover_anarchist Says:

    Darcy – I sent a message to your @ml.com address. Is that still current?

  119. Nigel Watt Says:

    On the plus side, Badnarik won a Facebook straw poll! That means…nothing!

  120. Darcy G. Richardson Says:

    “Darcy – I sent a message to your @ml.com address. Is that still current?”

    Undercover – Actually, it’s the same address, except it should be @ aol.com. Also, delete the underscore in the first part of the address. Thanks. Looking forward to hearing from you.

  121. Mike N. Says:

    Nigel,

    I like how Hacker starts his blog post off:

    “Hey, You alla Youse,

    (Sorry, I’m still larnin’ Texican!)”

    WTF?

    http://www.badnarik.org/supporters/blog/2006/09/25/we-win-straw-poll/

    This guy gets stranger by the day.

  122. Peter Says:

    Mr. Hacker, I’ve heard very little of this “controversy” until this post and this thread of comments. I must say, your comments do not seem particularly “honorable” or “noble” as you are trying to portray yourself. Your campaign is probably entirely on the level, but by refusing to really even deny the charges, much less prove them wrong, looks strange at best. You won’t be “descending to their level”, whatever that means, you’ll be showing them that you’re the better man.

  123. Michael McNeil Says:

    I’m an LP member, staunch libertarian, I live in Badnarik’s district, and I donated to the campaign. Mr. Hacker, I have a hard time believing you. Where can I find information on how my money was spent?

  124. bambino Says:

    Interesting comments.. :D

  125. any problems with vytorin Says:

    any problems with vytorin

  126. effects of vicodin Says:

    effects of vicodin

  127. The Liberated Space Continues Says:

    [...] Now as to party purpose, I know what Lucy, Lee, Flash Gordon, Sean and Dr. Scott are going to say, but what I am going to tell you is this, and listen closely, No one is stopping you from running successful campaigns. No one and nothing. Not Susan’s bitchiness, not Starchild’s gravity defying buttocks, not the Rev. Allen’s hoo-doo conjuring for cash, not whatever it is that Ernie does that gets your boxers into a wad.  Nothing.  Now go out there and win me some park district. [...]

  128. The Liberated Space Continues Says:

    [...] Now as to party purpose, I know what Lucy, Lee, Flash, Sean and Dr. Scott are going to say, but what I am going to tell you is this, and listen closely, No one is stopping you from running successful campaigns. No one and nothing. Not Susan’s ‘bitchiness’, not Starchild’s gravity defying buttocks, not the Rev. Allen’s hoo-doo conjuring for cash, not whatever it is that Ernie does that gets your boxers into a wad.  Nothing.  Now go out there and win me some park district. [...]

Leave a Reply