Badnarik Begs for Another $200k…
I am honestly a little shocked to see this email request for another $200,000 or so for the Badnarik campaign. Considering they only got 4% of the vote, I can’t really understand paying off more of the debt than absolutely has to be done. That amount appears to be $65,000.
Allen Hacker’s final report for the campaign is not worth $100,000+. Honestly, considering the absolutely awful results, I’m not sure that it’s worth $1,000.
However, I don’t completely blame Hacker for the poor showing, as I know some of you probably do. I think the key element here was Badnarik himself. I’m sure he’s a very nice guy, a very dedicated guy, and all that jazz.
However, when Hacker states that “Michael has retired from political candidacy”—I hope he means for good, and not just from this campaign. He had no elected experience. He had no relevant professional experience. He had no personal wealth. He had very limited resume of community involvement. Plain and simple… Michael Badnarik was not qualified, by normal standards of what voters expect, to be elected as a Congressman.
Badnarik is now working as an account representative for a political and novelty bumpersticker mail-order business. That sounds like a good job for him, and hopefully he’ll stick with that instead of launching yet another campaign in two years.
Anyway, here’s the e-mail from Hacker…
(I don’t want to see this get into the extremely negative, personal attacks in this thread. It’s counterproductive. Please try to remain civil in the comments area.)
Allen’s Update, post-election #1Greetings & Salutations!
Well, the 2006 elections are history, nobody did well except the statists, and your Party needs your help now more than ever. In the animated contest for freedom, there’s not much left to lose. So, what’s the best, most effective thing you can do now?
Permit me to shock and amaze you: contribute to the Badnarik for Congress campaign!
What’s that you say? It’s December! The election’s over and we’ve been humiliated? Maybe, maybe not. There is entirely another way to look at it.
We set out to run a legitimate campaign against the big boys, the way the big boys do it, and to the extent we were able, we did exactly that. We started with as good a chance to win as the democrat had when he jumped in. Better, actually, since he was an unknown with no party support and no money—yet he beat the incumbent in Travis County. Overall the incumbent only won 55% of the vote. That alone is proof of our first premise: that pretty-boy billionaire on the fast-track to the White House was (and remains) vulnerable. The fact is, give either challenger another $300K last August and the republican would be history today.
For this campaign at least, that part really is over. Michael has retired from political candidacy, returning to his constitution classes and the private sector, joining thebumpersticker.com with Rick McGinnis. Michael is an account rep there, so invent a reason to need a couple dozen freedom-oriented or cult-challenging bumper stickers and give him a call, help those guys out: sales@thebumpersticker.com or (512) 873-9626. To get an idea of the wealth of witticism they offer, visit libertystickers.com as well.
So, if Michael’s out of the scene, how does it make sense for me to ask you to contribute to the campaign when it’s over?
Because it’s not over.
First, we can’t close the committee until all the debts are paid. That’s a basketful of thousands, right there, that Michael has to carry until it’s paid. That’s right, federal candidates are personally responsible for their campaign debts, and they can’t be forgiven or negotiated away because that makes them campaign contributions under campaign finance law. Michael could be in debt the rest of his life, and I could be stuck filing meaningless quarterly reports even longer than that.
You really don’t want that, and here’s why. There’s an unexpected benefit to the party yet to be realized from this campaign, and I won’t be in a position to produce it until the committee is closed. Think of it as an extension of the educational side of our campaigns: educating ourselves!
You see, for the past 20+ years I’ve been a private business consultant, specializing in vision clarification with owners and executives. It’s a weird specialty that depends on a peculiar talent, of which I seem to have a remarkable share of. As a result of honing that talent in my practice, combined with 35 years’ LP experience culminating in this campaign, I am uniquely qualified to analyze the LP’s difficulties. I have the right attitude as well: where others see impediments and problems, I see patterns and possibilities.
We’ve been accused of risking the LP’s future with this campaign. The argument has been that by raising so much money and talking about winning, We have set everyone up for a huge disappointment, which will in turn stall everyone’s fundraising and support for years to come. Balderdash!
What we have actually done in pushing the envelope so far is to peel back the scab hiding the chronic infection that has been keeping the LP anemic and unhealthy all along. By going for the whole enchilada, we aggravated every failure mode the Party has ever adopted. We incurred so much wrath from some unfortunate souls that they actually began a proactive underground counter-campaign to sabotage our fundraising. And they succeeded, too, to the degree that the Party itself has institutionalized their ways of stopping everything good anyone tries to do as a libertarian activist, officer or candidate.
For just one example, consider that in a party whose highest social value is the free market, when you get accused of corruption because you expect to be paid for your work, almost no one defends you. That’s two crimes, actually. But most important, why does it happen? I know the answer; it’s startling in its simplicty and far-reaching in its consequences. I wouldn’t have seen it had we not done this campaign. We can now do something about a problem we had no chance of dealing with before.
That’s just one of several tactical traps libertarians are plagued by, that a small but highly effective band of saboteurs use to keep the pond small and to keep themselves looking like good, hardworking big fish. I now know who they are, how they do what they do, how they are enabled, and why they get away with it. One of them has actually confessed.
I’ll be revealing why, even though these people and what they do will be our most difficult problem to solve, they aren’t even close to being our worst problem. That would be the fatally-conflicted value that’s embedded in the libertarian thought process but must be excised if we are ever to succeed. That’s the one that keeps me smiling to myself, remembering the old Confucian admonition, “Your greatest strength is also your greatest weakness.”
Don’t you just want to know what that is, and get it resolved?
So, what has your money bought, since it wasn’t victory at the polls in TX CD10?
Well, once the bills are paid and I have the freedom of mind to compile everything, you’ve sponsored a final report and a libertarian manifesto for the future. An analysis and a plan, if you want them. From a top consultant in his field, one who routinely doubles and triples his clients’ operations within the first year or two.
Do you want the LP to double by the next election? Do you want us to finally achieve public acceptance, even public endorsement and finally, electoral victory?
Yes, I know, some of you don’t, but I’m talking past you to the ones who do.
Don’t you just need to know how to accomplish those 6-7 milestones I listed in my August “Plan B” update?
So here’s the deal. First, we pay the debt. Then we build the party and the movement, and ultimately, we take back our freedom.
When you think about it, there’s no way to put a price on that, yet in our case reality has put a price on it nonetheless. That price is simply what it takes to clear the campaign and free my attention so I can deliver on the future instead of forever deal with the past.
How much do we need? Is it even possible to raise it at this point? Let’s put it into real terms. We began this campaign with a donor list of about 6500 contributors who had given a bit over a million dollars to the presidential campaign. To date, fewer than 2000 contributors have given just over $430K to date, and many of them are new donors. The average is about $136 per contributor, more that what it was in the presidential campaign.
From this we see that some 4600 of those who contributed in the presidential have yet to contribute their $136. So paying off the debt completely from this one email is entirely possible. In fact, we wouldn’t even be able to accept the full amount possible because in winding down a campaign we can’t accept more than we owe.
Still, think about it: 4600 times $136 totals over $625K. That’s way more than we’ve already raised! Do you see why we thought we’d be able to raise the money to win? A mere $750K would have done it, had it come in soon enough to support all the environmental reprogramming that needed to be done.
Ah, well, that part is water under the bridge, as they say, and I choose to look to the future. And these numbers say that in the immediate future, we can still raise the close-out amount.
The debts include unpaid staff, ongoing rent, database/reporting service fees (which will never stop accruing until we close the committee), the monthly bills in general until the committee is certified closed by the Federal Election Commission, and the LNC for an unpaid portion of our advertising purchase for the national convention in July. And, my consulting fees (almost all of which have been held in abeyance until now)
Just for reference, for non-financial reasons the 2004 presidential committee didn’t close for some 8 months!
Our reasons are purely financial, so we could close this thing as of December 31st. And if I get paid and don’t have to scramble to reestablish my business right away, I’ll get directly to the documentation I mentioned above.
Again, what do you get for your money? You get the solution to our problems as a party. Cheap at twice the price!
And what is the price? I won’t know exactly for a couple more days, but it’s about $65K if I don’t get paid but the staff and vendors all do. If I were to get paid what was originally agreed to, $5K per month ($75K for 15 months) and 15% of fundraising (another $75K on about $600K total after direct expenses), the total is more like $215K.
None of that first $65K can be negotiated or discounted. However, any portion of my own pay can be converted to volunteerism, so falling short on that amount won’t be a killer, but if I have to scramble, that could delay my delivery of the final product.
The entire amount would work out to a bit less than $50 each if all you who haven’t contributed yet did so now!
Of course, more than half of you won’t do it no matter what, and more than half of you who do, will send less. So the necessary average contribution goes back up to the actual average for the campaign, $136. Which means that the more financially-healthy among you should contribute at least $250. (Pushing yourself to the limit, if you can afford it, is fine, too!)
This is such a silly exercise, really. Everyone on this list pays more in illegal taxes every year than we were originally asking, and yet we have had to beg for most of what we’ve gotten so we could have a shot at going to DC to defend your money (and your liberty). Do you see the dark humor in that? Are you ready to put an end to that paradox?
Two more things. First and unfortunately, those few among you who maxed out in the general election cycle can’t help us out with this; the $2100 limit continues past the election. But your willingness to go so far with us was more than appreciated. Of course, you can still fundraise for us. Tell your friends!
The rest of you existing donors can also chip in.
Second, if we can’t accept more than we need to zero out the committee, and all of you suddenly get generous this fine holiday season, how do we stop the influx to prevent excess contributions?
When we reach the limit, we’ll break the PayPal and Complete Campaigns payment pages so you can’t contribute any more. Incidentally, that’s also one way for you to know whether we’ve made it. If those links remain live, we’re still needing your help.
Now, I know some of you are thinking that I must have brass whatsits the size of the moon, to come around and ask for 50% more money after allegedly blowing the biggest wad a Libertarian congressional candidate has ever raised. That’s okay, you can think of it that way if you insist. I understand that some of you will refuse to change your thinking despite wanting change from everything and everyone else. To those of you who choose that path, I say, sure, you can stay the same. But know this: if you don’t change neither does anything else around you, and that’s the problem. (When you read the report, you’ll see why I say that.)
The rest of you are who I’m really talking to. So, let’s get with it. This is not about your hard-earned hundred bucks, it’s about the LP getting the desperately missing knowledge whose absence has been stifling it all these years.
Ultimately, it’s about the future of freedom in our world for the next ten thousand years.
Go right now to Go to www.badnarik.org and click that Donate button as quickly as you can.
Yours in appreciation,
Allen Hacker Badnarik for Congress campaign managerPS: It costs money to send out these updates, and there are a lot of you who have never helped. My thinking is, if you still haven’t contributed after this, you probably don’t even want these emails. Therefore, to cut costs and create a passive ask-off for continued non-contributors, on about Dec. 15th we’re going to deactivate everyone from this list who hasn’t contributed at least $10 since July 1, 2005. So if you’ve not yet contributed at least $10 to the congressional campaign and you want to remain active on this list, which will enable you to get Post-election Update #2 and learn what Jon Airheart and I are up to next, you know what to do.
Go to www.badnarik.org – click Donate Today! – and co-sponsor the next step!
December 6th, 2006 at 9:23 am
Wow!
December 6th, 2006 at 9:36 am
“I don’t want to see this get into the extremely negative, personal attacks in this thread.”
Austin, do you honestly think that is possible?
December 6th, 2006 at 10:10 am
Let me be entirely positive.
There are orthodox methods that the FEC will explain to you for cancelling debt when there is no likelihood that the debt will be paid, for example, the candidate is no longer active in politics and will not raise money. You need but talk to your FEC contact. They may want to wait a while.
Tell your California database operation at $500 a month that the contract is ended: they should send you the backup of the data base, and clean you out of their servers.
By the way, you are only the second most expensive Federal campaign we have run. Carla Howell’s US Senate campaign was bigger. And she spent her money more effectively.
December 6th, 2006 at 10:38 am
I have one positive thing to say: libertystickers.com is awesome.
Other than that…
December 6th, 2006 at 10:42 am
I hope that this isn’t too negative…
Seeing the report has no value to me. The claim that 750k would have enabled Badnarik to win shows just how little the campaign has learned. Also, the description of the report sounds a lot like “Allen Hacker’s idea on what the LP should be.” I get plenty of similiar reports from various blogs and personal discussions. I don’t see any promise of a detailed analysis of where and how the campaign money was spent. And it would have to be quite an impressive analysis to show that 750k would have achieved victory considering that 400k garnered 4%.
The fundraising method used is not likely to inspire contributors. There was far too much “selling” of Allen Hacker as the uniquely qualified person to set the LP right, and no solid explanation of why the campaign did so poorly. I can’t imagine too many non-contributors being inspired to contribute based on the threat to remove them from the mailing list. I don’t see the wisdom is shrinking your list of supporter.
Personally, my take on this is that rather than being introspective and analyzing what the campaign did right and wrong, Allen Hacker is just going to write a report blaming others for everything.
For what its worth, I gave nearly $1000 to Badnarik’s presidential campaign, raised another $5000 for him, attended his constitution class, and contributed about $100 to his Congressional run.
December 6th, 2006 at 12:53 pm
He spent hundreds of thousands of dollars and got 4 %. yet he wants now to be paid more money to tell the LP how to win elections. Its like Michael Dukakis giving advice on how to run for President. Let Hacker write an email promising never to be active in the LP again and then he might got a lot of contributions.
Also how much money does it cost to send an email. I always did it ofr free or set up group to send updates.
December 6th, 2006 at 1:21 pm
1. Fraudnarik deserves to be in debt for the rest of his life. Good. I hope he can never get credit again. Oh wait, he doesn’t even have a fucking driver’s license, so that’s not much of a penalty.
FRAUDNARIK DESERVES TO BE IN PRISON. Lifelong indebtedness and a shitty job as a bumper sticker salesman is too goof for him.
2. I’m supposed to feel sorry that Hacker has to file reports until the debts are closed? Why doesn’t he just give back the $100,000 that he embezzled from the campaign and call it even?
HACKER DESERVES TO BE IN PRISON. Lifelong report filing and the end of his career as a politican consultant are too good for him. Maybe he can also become a stationary salesman like our hero Fraudnarik.
December 6th, 2006 at 1:35 pm
On 10/18/06, the campaign was in debt $10,000. I’d say that is a reasonable amount of debt to carry over.
http://herndon1.sdrdc.com/cgi-bin/cancomsrs/?_06+H6TX10098
So what did the campaign spent $55,000 on in those last three weeks? There were no TV ads. There were no extra billboards. There weren’t many radio ads (if any). How much did the smile brigade really cost?
Something smells very fishy here.
December 6th, 2006 at 1:43 pm
maybe the fact that he was the 2004 Presidential nominee and the process of how he got to do that, and then do this, needs to be examined.
maybe there really are institutional failures relating to the LP and how it is run that might be helpful to change and stop repeating if those advocating same were not hounded and attacked as “unprincipled” in some manner should be examined.
maybe attention should be paid to why the LP cant sell it’s product to anyone but a tiny fraction of members or voters – and stop making excuses and talking bullshit after 35 years. This is little different than the 2nd Harry Browne Campaign in 2000.
when you widen the underpinnings of LP thought beyond the non force principle to include and enfranchise all types of libertarians, and then stop attacking them like jackals and hyenas when they show up, the LP might start making a difference. Until then, nothing anyone does will help. The LP is in a philosophical prison of it’s own making.
December 6th, 2006 at 1:54 pm
2. I’m supposed to feel sorry that Hacker has to file reports until the debts are closed? Why doesn’t he just give back the $100,000 that he embezzled from the campaign and call it even?
Agreed. 100%.
December 6th, 2006 at 1:56 pm
Something smells very fishy here.
Agreed. 100%.
December 6th, 2006 at 2:06 pm
It’s called chutzpah and anyone who falls for this and sends a contribution deserves to be ripped off. I’m surprised the e-mail didn’t mention some Nigerian manager who had a few million $$ sitting around that he would give you if you’d only help him out.
December 6th, 2006 at 2:06 pm
Hi Tim,
You are the most astute observer here.
You all have many legitimate gripes. You just don’t know what constructively to do with them. The answer to that is what ‘m promising.
My final report will focus particularly on my own failings as well as the people who sabotaged the campaign. There was nothing in my email that said I was blameless or that I was blaming anyone else in the sense of shunting away responsibility.
And I think the hint was directly obvious that I will forgive whatever I don’t get paid as soon as I can close the campaign.
As for how easy that is, George, it’s not as simple as you try to make it sound, and I say this next despite the fact that I like you personally. As with the details on how much of McCaul’s money he could spend in this campaign, you miss the mark. Perhaps for this reason more than any other, your inattention to detail, you should reconsider your bid for the presidential nomination, thus to avoid the possibility of your becoming yet the next LP embarrassment. You are, ultimately, unsellable as well.
Thanks, Austin.
0December 6th, 2006 at 2:24 pm
“We set out to run a legitimate campaign against the big boys, the way the big boys do it, and to the extent we were able, we did exactly that.”
Therein lies the problem. Third party politics is not “big boys” politics. A third party campaign is about acquiring one’s base and convincing that base that the campaign is for real. A big boy campaign is about getting out the vote of an established base and grabbing some swing voters. The game is different.
A big boys campaign puts a great deal of emphasis on name recognition—useful for getting swing voters. Name recognition doesn’t do all that much for a third party candidate with little base.
Big boy campaigns can raise money just by offering influence. A third party campaign needs to show that it can build the party, promote certain issues, or actually win in order to provide value to donors. “Smile if you love liberty” does none of these things.
The idea that a doubling of funds could have produced victory defies credibility. It might be theoretically possible: if the first $400K was mostly eaten up by overhead, then the second $400K could have increased outreach by a factor of ten, but if this was the case, it does not reflect well on the campaign.
I think the campaign might have been able to raise that extra $400K or so had it generated more evidence of effective outreach early on. Bumper stickers, TV ads, yard signs etc. should have been produced earlier, even though doing so defies conventional wisdom. Remember, third party politics is about base building, an effort that must begin much earlier than swing voter campaigning. That said, even if such efforts were as inefficient as the professionals maintain, they should have been done to reassure the donors.
And another good general rule: donors to third party campaigns are not customers; they are investors, and investors in a problematic startup at that. As such, they should be treated like venture capitalists.
December 6th, 2006 at 2:27 pm
I’m starting to kick myself for supporting him in 2004.
December 6th, 2006 at 2:56 pm
I’m starting to kick myself for supporting him in 2004.
From what I can tell, he actually ran a somewhat honest campaign in 2004. It is when he brought this lunatic crook Hacker into his 2006 campaign that everything went to shit.
December 6th, 2006 at 3:02 pm
Libertarian positions can sell very well. Or they can not sell at all. The difference is in who is selling and how. I’ve seen libertarian candidates win 70%+ of the vote campaigning on strictly libertarian positions. I’ve seen candidates fail miserably and succeed beyond expectation with a change in campaign management.
There is no secret to getting libertarians elected. You have to do a lot of work both during, and more importantly, before the campaign. As Austin touched on, Badnarik has no political resume. Without that, and without millions, you have no chance to win.
Get involved in your community. Serve in a committee. Know the issues. Know the movers and shakers and become their friend. Develop a relationship with the local reporters. Speak out at public forums and government meetings. Then…and only then…think about running for office.
Unless you win the lotto =)
December 6th, 2006 at 3:14 pm
btw George Phillies for president already has bumper stickers. They are free for the asking just email me.
hankreardan@yahoo.com
December 6th, 2006 at 3:15 pm
Badnarik did as well as could be expected during the presidential campaign in terms of vote totals and specifically in terms of dollars per vote. Russo or Nolan may have done a little better, but would have had a little more money as well.
I am interested in what Allen thinks the Badnarik campaign did wrong and right. I’m not interested in hearing about fictitious “saboteurs” and what he thinks is wrong with the party and its supporters. I’m certainly not interested in giving the campaign any more money to get this information, specifically because Allen’s tone leads me to believe I’d get more of the latter than the former.
December 6th, 2006 at 3:18 pm
Tim,
Badnarik got elected entirely due to the convention debate. At that debate Nolan was too moderate and noncommittal for the purists. Russo was openly unorthodox on key anarchist points, which lost him those votes. Badnarik, on the other hand, preached the straight anarchist, purist party line in an engaging and positive way… which gave him the base he needed to pass Nolan and eventually win the nomination.
Badnarik was the purists’ baby, plain and simple.
December 6th, 2006 at 3:39 pm
Maybe it would be a good deal for everyone if Badnarik retired from campaigning, but it would be awful if he retired from the liberty movement. This guy is passionate and articulate, and I don’t think he’s a crook. I’m all for crapping on this guy Hacker, but Badnarik himself has always impressed me.
December 6th, 2006 at 3:40 pm
Carl,
All good discussion. But here’s a thought. No state has LP registration above 2%. Thus any votes we get over 3% (given that not everyone votes) are probably from outside the party. This is particularly true given that many many libertarians will vote against a fellow libertarian they don’t like personally.
So, if I ran a campaign to only make the libertarians happy, I would market only to them and their friends, and be cosmically fulfilled if we get more than 2%.
Yes, it’s about building our base in most cases. There might be exceptions where it makes sense to go for a win, but either way, until we develop correct marketing, we’re going nowhere.
I intend to take that marketing beyond just selling the candidate to include positioning the party and handling our PR issues, particularly damage control against party pretenders and saboteurs and wild-card misrepresentations of what the party is trying to do.
That’s what this campaign was designed to do, but it did in fact require more funding that “conventional wisdom” was prepared to tolerate.
That last part about the pretenders and saboteurs will no doubt invite quite an uproar because it will have to begin with discrediting the idea that any wild-eyed fanatic with a problem with authority can go out and define the entire party and lbertarians in general to suit his own antisocial purposes.
If we have the guts to do what’s necessary, we will grow big through a small subtraction as we “lose” maybe another 10% of our “members” but begin to attract and retain more sociable and rational people who may only be 70% convinced but will work 100% to achieve 50% of what we radicals want. Which would be, I am certain, more than 90% of what we will ever achieve on our current path of oblivious unenlightened self-interest.
Yes, the donors are investors. But that investment goes beyond getting the inevitably disappointing vote totals. (We did increase ‘participation’—in Texas there is no party registration). It has to include institutional learning. Of course that will require culture shock as we motly band of uninformed opinion-spouters grow up to do real-world R&D and advance the LP from being the party of opinion to the party of applied principle.
If you give my update a careful read without your own expectations coloring the message, you will see that I am asking functionally non-libertarians to carry this last part of the burden: the 4600 presidential donors who haven’t contributed. AND, invisible in the nature of a mailing list, the remainder of the 10,200+ people that the update went out to who have never contributed. That’s maybe 4500 people who’ve shown interest but never done more than request a bumer-sticker or brochure.
What none of you are aware of yet, and there is much like this that won’t come out until I report because it’s such a big sublect, is that every time I send out an update, more and more of those dry spots become donors. In fact, while a few armchair quarterbacks were being encouraged on this blog by a traitor and an agent provocateur to shred me for the Plan B update, the first contribution that came in from it was $1000 from a previous non-donor. Then over the following week, while too many HoT and TPW commenters were busy creating their own private Idaho, several more as-yet non-donors gave us $1000 or more and that email raised easily more than $20,000.
We had every reason to hope, then, since money was obviously out there, the only source of opposition we saw were the usual suspects in the gallery.
There was another negativity that we uncovered out in the field, but not until we we hit campaign season and had to go out and try to campaign without a marketing budget, and that was how truly deep is the hatred the voters actually have for libertarians.
I knew there was a problem, I did the marketing survey mysef. That’s what the Smile billboards and brigade were the beginnings of: a subcampaign to rehabilitate libertariansim as a political concept in our district. I couldn’t say so, and got a lot of flak from people shooting at me in the dark (still do), but that part of the campaign was more important than early amplification of Michael’s name and qualities as the alternative. There’s been complain that we did no general mailing, yet when I asked for the money to do it and door-hangers, what came back was criticism.
Yes, our problem within is as big as the one without. And as for them, the still-unedicated public….
It’s true, they hate us. Our predecessor candidates and activists have made it cear to them that “we” want to destroy the only world they know, but offer no viable subtitute that they’ve been able to understand. And they would rather see us dead.
So PR is our biggest challenge, and internal misrepresentation is our greatest enemy. That’s shitty candidates, infighting executive committees, superego would-be opinion-makers who undermine everone else without even trying ot meaning to, and generally, otherwise a-social nerds who think that their one area of talent (usualy with inanimate objects like computers) gives them an ipso-facto qualification in every endeavor of life, even though by and large they can’t get a date and nobody but their own kind respects them.
Don’t fool yourself for a moment that the voters can’t see all this about us. After all, as in my consulting business where everything I know I learned from my clients, eveything I know about the true public perception of libertarians was given to me by the voters of TX CD10, and it ain’t pretty. It also wasnt pretty the way it was delivered. You guys are amateurs when compared to the visious wrath of a Christian fundamentalist (the majority in our district) who can show us (did show me) from our own literature and campaign statements over the years, that all we really want as individuals (we don’t have a true group) is their daughters (or sometimes, sons), naked on their backs and out of their minds on drug, uncaring as to who is impregnating them at the moment.
The cruel joke is that they don’t know or want to know that that is exactly what many of their daughtrs and sone are doing twice a week at college.
Moving back to the point, the most unfortunate comment in this thread is Tom Bryant:
“The fundraising method used is not likely to inspire contributors. There was far too much “selling” of Allen Hacker as the uniquely qualified person to set the LP right, and no solid explanation of why the campaign did so poorly. I can’t imagine too many non-contributors being inspired to contribute based on the threat to remove them from the mailing list. I don’t see the wisdom is shrinking your list of supporter.
“Personally, my take on this is that rather than being introspective and analyzing what the campaign did right and wrong, Allen Hacker is just going to write a report blaming others for everything.”
AH: It appears that, like too many people, Tom is only reading for what he wants to find and is not paying attention to the message. In this update I’m solicting the edge, thanking the mainstream donors, openly saying that this is not the report, and laying out a plan. But Tom wants everything he wants right now without regard to what it takes to get it.
And that’s a damn shame, because all prior campaign support was definitely apprecated, even his. Or would have been—buthe’s not in our dabase has having given anything at all!
Is this yet another pretender trying to paint himself credible by telling you what you’l believe without questioning, so you’ll accept his criticism as being meaningful? I’m sorry, it could just be a cowardly donor writing under a nom de plume, but I’m twice shy now, having proven that pretender on this blog actually control the conversation and tone.
It’s okay with me that so much shallow pontificating happens here, if it can happen without the lying and intentional sabotage.
Here’s the surprise: I used to be just like most libertarians. So now I’m like the reformed smoker: intolerant of the foolish life I’ve left behind. I apologize for that. But I don’t apologize for my confidence, there’s too much real-world non-LP-approved evidence to support it.
I don’t need your money personally. Any day, I can start a new business and make a million dollars in a year. I’ve done it twice, will do it again as soon as I’ve shed the shackles of this campaign. And I’ve put my money where my mouth is. I spent or forewent over $130,000 supporting the 2004 campaign. And I honestly don’t expect to see much if anything of the $150,000 I’m not going to get paid here for living in shared-housing poverty for the last 15 months.
I just had this perhaps child-like notion that like any other social operation, the LP and its candidates should become viable and fiscally responsible within the free market rather than charities whose loudest proponents demand that its activists (sometimes the same people) become slaves to the mission and sacrifice themselves to the common good.
Damn! I guess I’m saying that the LP subculture is a rude form of neo-Marxism.
That is the first thing that has to change. Maturity should follow.
All will be revealed. Meanwhile, please stop the griping and get to some productive work.
0December 6th, 2006 at 3:46 pm
Hey, Chris Moore,
Did you happen to notice that your “I’m not interested in hearing about fictitious ‘saboteurs’” comment ended up almost immediately after Mike N’s comments? You know, Mike Nelson, the self-confessed saboteur I’ve been referring to all along?
You do your credibilty great harm when you ignore what came to light right here on the blogs while you were reading and posting back in August and September.
Maybe you didn’t mean to lie, but the saboteur is not fictitious. Please, please, please, start confronting reality.
0December 6th, 2006 at 3:47 pm
Clearly we should purge the party of anyone who questions why $400k dropped on a campaign doesn’t buy a single television ad.
/rolls eyes
December 6th, 2006 at 3:53 pm
You do your credibilty great harm when you ignore what came to light right here on the blogs while you were reading and posting back in August and September.
You mean he should ignore the fact that you were getting paid $100,000+ to spend all day scaring away potential donors/supports on blogs?
And you wonder why you are such a failure?
December 6th, 2006 at 3:54 pm
Dear “Rolling-Eyes” VanDyke;
Asked and answered and you know it, so what are you really trying to do here?
Just so those not here previously can know, here’s the answer, for what, the fifth time between Hot and TPW?
Austin is divided into four congressional-district pie slices, Houston into seven. If you buy a TV ad in Austin, 75% of the people who see it can’t vote for you. In Houston, 86% who see it can’t vote for you.
It’s a suicidally bad investment, that’s why!
Kindly now, move one, will you?
0December 6th, 2006 at 3:56 pm
Clearly we should purge the party of anyone who questions why $400k dropped on a campaign doesn’t buy a single television ad.
Don’t forget yard signs. King Hacker is adamantly against campaigns wasting money on yard signs. Overpaying the incompetent campaign manager is much more important.
December 6th, 2006 at 4:04 pm
Your comment shows how little you know about the media. If you were such a hotshot campaign manager, you would know by now that the only way to get media coverage for third parties is by buying up ads with them. It sucks, yes… but it’s the truth.
Your campaign barely registered a blip on the local media’s radar, which means you barely registered a blip in the voters conscious. Media buys aren’t as much for the voters as they are for the press that follows it. You should know better than to throw that straw man argument at me.
I am also extremely uncomfortable with the way you handled campaign finances by funneling it through your private company for ultimate disbursements (to protect those people who were working on the campaign as you told me). For a party that prides itself on government transparency, you sure as hell know how to make us look hypocritical in that regard.
December 6th, 2006 at 4:09 pm
Hey Guys,
Here’s a little quiz for you.
We didn’t buy TV because it was a bad investment. But we spent $7200 on a very nice billboard facing a daily viewership of 116,000 people who saw it 3-6 times a week for 7 months or more. The neighborhood included 2 precincts that were won, and 5 more almost-won, by the previous CD10 LP candidate.
Repetition is the essence of advertising success. Those 116,000 people saw us an average-projection 15 MILLION times.
Neither of the megaparty candidates advertised in that neighborhood until a few scattered last-week road signs, and the no-name democrat carried it in a landslide.
Q: Why didn’t any reasonable number of those people vote for us?
A) They can’t read.
B) They can read, but they only read HoT and TPW.
C) They like free porridge.
D) No-proof electronic voting machines owned in part by the incumbent.
0December 6th, 2006 at 4:14 pm
No Allen, I will not “Kindly now, move one [sic]” because frankly I gave you plenty of rope on HoT during the campaign season (even asking Nelson to bit his tongue on posts).
I did this because I figured if the naysayers were right, you’d hang yourself and it would curb the inevitable accusations of sabotage (guess I was wrong about that).
December 6th, 2006 at 4:17 pm
“D) No-proof electronic voting machines owned in part by the incumbent.”
So now Badnarik lost because… IT’S A CONSPIRACY?!?
Jesus Allen, you’re really grasping at straws here.
PS- Here in Ohio we bought 30+ billboards for one month for slightly over $10K. Maybe dollars are worth less in Texas, it could be a… conspiracy.
December 6th, 2006 at 4:19 pm
Sure, Steven,
Perhaps we had an honesty-above-all policy that prevented us from prostituting ourselves to the media, and planned to go around them directly to the voters. And maybe we’d have been successful with that strategy had no one listened to your single-solution pontifications?
Perhaps we should even have bought all that air time exclusively on Clear Channel stations so the incumbent would profit personally from an obviously illegal transaction. After all, we need them so badly, don’t we?
Or is it that you want us to need you that badly?
The answer me this. How is it that we got invited onto KLBJ without having bought anything from them, the co-hosts had an outright argument on the air right afterward about having Michael on because one of them doesn’t take libertarian candidates seriously, and then, after spending thousands with them for ads, we didn’t even get a call about our press release accusing the incumbent d illegal fundraising?
Your theory doesn’t hold up, no matter how hearfelt you may believe it.
The media is bad, but not the way you think.
0December 6th, 2006 at 4:24 pm
Steven,
I accuse you of selective focus. You chose D) and turned it into a conspircy ridicule? I offered up the choices that have been suggested to me. One or two of them, even, in jest. I didn’t say which, if any, I think it is. So stop trying to put your words into my mouth.
And what’s this denial of the sabotage? You saw Micke Nelson’s confession just like all the rest of us did. Why do you choose to ignore it?
What’s wrong with you?
0December 6th, 2006 at 4:25 pm
The answer me this. How is it that we got invited onto KLBJ without having bought anything from them, the co-hosts had an outright argument on the air right afterward about having Michael on because one of them doesn’t take libertarian candidates seriously, and then, after spending thousands with them for ads, we didn’t even get a call about our press release accusing the incumbent d illegal fundraising?
Well, after meeting Badnarik in person and if you are anywhere near as nutty in person as you are on blogs… I can understand perfectly why they would ignore you.
Oh wait, lemme guess. It was those damn “sabatage” blog comments that no one (especially voters in TX-10) reads….
December 6th, 2006 at 4:25 pm
The answer me this. How is it that we got invited onto KLBJ without having bought anything from them, the co-hosts had an outright argument on the air right afterward about having Michael on because one of them doesn’t take libertarian candidates seriously, and then, after spending thousands with them for ads, we didn’t even get a call about our press release accusing the incumbent d illegal fundraising?
Well, after meeting Badnarik in person and if you are anywhere near as nutty in person as you are on blogs… I can understand perfectly why they would ignore you.
Oh wait, lemme guess. It was those damn “sabatage” blog comments that no one (especially voters in TX-10) reads….
December 6th, 2006 at 4:27 pm
I called to get some confirmation on my numbers:
21 total Lamaar billboards
1 other billboard
10 8’x4’ vinyl signs on private property
Total: ~$10K
December 6th, 2006 at 4:28 pm
Allen,
The donors gave you plenty of money for general mailings and door hangers. The campaign decided to spend the money elsewhere. $400,000 is more than enough to print out yard signs, run ads, and do mailings as evidenced by the Jon Coon campaign for Senate (statewide race that earned 4%). When one campaign can do X, but another better financed campaign cannot do X, many see it as suspicious.
I’m not sure why we need to fork out $200,000 to get a report of how the campaign spent the first $400,000. Harry Browne managed to report on his Presidential campaign without asking $200,000. Badnarik’s team in 2004 did a report without asking for $200,000. Many see that as suspicious.
You blame the hard-right majority in your district for your failure. If they hated you so much, why did you pick that district? And I find it hard to believe that that hatred could be wiped out if your campaign had raised $350k more. Those two statements just don’t add up to me, and many see that as suspicious.
You may think that your request is “In this update I’m solicting the edge, thanking the mainstream donors, openly saying that this is not the report, and laying out a plan” but perception is what counts the most. You have alienated donors in the past, and I believe you have alienated more donors with this email. Specifically the threat of removing names from email lists unless they fork over $10 for a report.
“I don’t need your money personally. Any day, I can start a new business and make a million dollars in a year. I’ve done it twice, will do it again as soon as I’ve shed the shackles of this campaign.”
Yeah…you know, that’s probably not the best thing to say when you’re asking people for $10.
Heck, at $1 million a year, you should be able to make $60k in three weeks – just in time for the New Year’s.
December 6th, 2006 at 4:29 pm
And I quote, Mr. Hacker:
“Just for reference, for non-financial reasons the 2004 presidential committee didn’t close for some 8 months!”
&
“I don’t need your money personally. Any day, I can start a new business and make a million dollars in a year. I’ve done it twice, will do it again as soon as I’ve shed the shackles of this campaign.”
I think you should put your money where your mouth is and do your business thing, make your million, and retire the debt personally.
And that’s my two cents….(of which I will not be donating to your failed campaign)
December 6th, 2006 at 4:35 pm
I will give Allen this, he does have some intelligence to hold off on the “TV ads are a bad investment” until after the campaign. If he had gone into fundraising on that slogan, he wouldn’t have raised nearly as much.
December 6th, 2006 at 4:46 pm
“Q: Why didn’t any reasonable number of those people vote for us?
A) They can’t read.
B) They can read, but they only read HoT and TPW.
C) They like free porridge.
D) No-proof electronic voting machines owned in part by the incumbent.
”
Does anyone else see something missing from the list of the four possible reasons for not getting votes? Something that a very arrogant person would leave out when discussing reasons why an endeavor has failed?
I’d submit the following:
E. A lack of TV ads
F. A lack of significant radio ads
G. A lack of direct mailing
H. A lack of door-hangers
I. A lack of door-knocking
J. A lack of political experience (no prior public offices held) on the candidate’s part
K. A lack of political experience on the management’s part
L. A combination of various items from E-K.
But let’s not look internally, let’s just blame all our failures on the religious right, the free-porridge left, and conspiracy theories about voting machines.
December 6th, 2006 at 4:48 pm
Allen: you need to market to libertarians and their friends if you want them to keep sending money. Doing some bumper stickers, yards signs, etc. early on can be thought of as a fundraising expense.
In the field, yard signs primarily serve to lepeople know that the candidate has some support—assuming one can find people willing to have them in their yards. They are a signal of electibility, not desireability.
I realize that the libertarian brand has been ruined by the radicals, but I don’t think that “Smile if you Love Liberty” is going to change that image. But the key point that I was making is that “Smile if you Love Liberty” is not going to thrill either LP partisans or related interest groups. A campaign that puts of “Legalize Hemp” billboards is going to be of interest to hemp legalizers, even if the campaign has no chance of winning. A campaign of “Get Us Out of Iraq” is going to be interesting to peaceniks. A campaign of “End the Income Tax” is going to be of interest to anti-tax folks.
Granted, such edgy messages can hurt electability. But many of us never thought Badnarik to be that electable in the first place, long before any sabotage broke out. To win without a strong local base requires having more money than the major party candidates have. And the LP just does not have that large a fundraising base.
The wild-eyed fanaticism is built into the membership pledge. At least in 2004, Badnarik endorsed most of it, using the 2004 party platform as his campaign platform. While Badnarik has lots of charm, his message from his writings still are very radical to those who pay attention. And people pay attention to those who pay attention. (see Malcolm Gladwell’s “The Tipping Point”)
Regarding television: don’t the cable companies offer geographic focus?
December 6th, 2006 at 4:54 pm
To win without a strong local base requires having more money than the major party candidates have. And the LP just does not have that large a fundraising base.
And that base just got a lot smaller. I would imagine a great number of donors weren’t expecting $100k+ of their hard-earned donations to go into Hacker’s pocket, unecessarily expensive office space and on and on….
December 6th, 2006 at 5:05 pm
As some of you will recall, I have prviously noted that Michael Badnarik did unusually well for a libertarian, both in fundraising and in vote percentages.
Lest I be misunderstood, I did not mean to imply that the debt forgiveness process is simple. It is complex, must be applied uniformly across all vendors, and must be convincing to the FEC. The FEC is very suspicious of people who say they have no cash. On the other hand, they can look at the candidate’s tax filings for a few years, see that he has only had minimal income, look at a net worth, and look at a record of no further political activity, and agree that there is no blood to be wrung from this stone. At that point, debt forgiveness applies. In defense of Mr. Hacker, if he has already billed the Badnarik campaign for his work then there is a fine line between ‘saying it is voluntarism’ and ‘converting debt into an illegal excessive personal campaign contribution’, and those of you referring to debt of this sort should read the regulations carefully before saying the debt can simply be forgiven.
I file with the FEC myself, for my PAC, and if fundraising is on hiatus the effort required to file is quite limited.
I am not sure what Mr. Hacker’s reference to Badnarik’s opponents is supposed to mean, with respect to my comments. I had not been thinking of them.
With respect to the national convention, note that in the penultimate round a very small number of votes separated Badnarik and Nolan, and if that very small group of people had voted for Nolan, Badnarik would have been eliminated first and the next round would have been Russo vs Nolan.
Finally, please recall that after serving Aaron Russo as his national volunteer coordinator, I was able with some effort to convince the powers that be that Michael Badnarik needed a national volunteer coordinator and I was prepared to serve in that role. It was my privilege to have supported both of their 2004 campaigns in this way.
To see me on video http://www.phillies2008.com and click on the New Hampshire link near the top of the page.
George Phillies
December 6th, 2006 at 5:08 pm
If you guys haven’t noticed already, Hacker refuses to acknowledge any responsibility for $400k being blown. It’s always someone else’s fault that he couldn’t raise more than that to (I presume) blow just as well.
I wonder who he blames when his Rice Krispies are soggy.
December 6th, 2006 at 5:13 pm
Can the campaign sell its donor list? If I were a marketer I’d love to have it. Fools are pure gold.
December 6th, 2006 at 6:45 pm
Praise Jesus—I just gave to the Badnarik Campaign simply because the esteemed Mr. Hacker has the grande cojones I’ve ever seen in even asking for this money! If they just didn’t go to Outback so much on the campaign trail—then perhaps they wouldn’t have any debt to pay off!
December 6th, 2006 at 6:56 pm
If some will send me $200,000 I will send you a report on all the campaigns in Ga.I will then deliver it in person then I will then wash you car make you breakfast dance a Irish jig then share some of my Irish whiskey then go to the Islands for a few months and send you some pictures.Then laugh all the way to the bank.
December 6th, 2006 at 6:57 pm
Tim
maybe the fact that he was the 2004 Presidential nominee and the process of how he got to do that, and then do this, needs to be examined.
What do you propose?
maybe there really are institutional failures relating to the LP and how it is run that might be helpful to change and stop repeating if those advocating same were not hounded and attacked as “unprincipled” in some manner should be examined.
Of course there are institutional failures relating to the LP and how it is run that might be helpful to change and stop repeating, but this is an entirely separate matter from the issue of how hardcore the party is ideologically.
Ideologically extreme groups ranging from the Soviet Communists to the German Nazis have been extremely effective; in fact, tiny political cults like the Trotskyite factions, LaRouchies, and Fulani/Newman crew get a hell of a lot more done vis-a-vis their numbers than the LP.
On the other hand, political history is rife with meaningless, ideologically centrist or unclear efforts which sputtered and went nowhere, as well as movements which sold out and found no one was buying.
This incessant linkage of procedural and ideological reform of the LP is in fact part of the problem, not the solution.
maybe attention should be paid to why the LP cant sell it’s product to anyone but a tiny fraction of members or voters – and stop making excuses and talking bullshit after 35 years. This is little different than the 2nd Harry Browne Campaign in 2000.
when you widen the underpinnings of LP thought beyond the non force principle to include and enfranchise all types of libertarians, and then stop attacking them like jackals and hyenas when they show up, the LP might start making a difference. Until then, nothing anyone does will help. The LP is in a philosophical prison of it’s own making.
This “ideological prison” idea seems to based on the view that all we have do is offer a moderate position and we’ll suddenly become a major party or something close.
However, this ignores all the procedural roadblocks – from ballot access to straight ticket voting devices and party loyalty, from the corporate money/insider expert news source/ newsworthiness-results catch 22, and most importantly the “wasted vote” calculation in the winner-takes-all electoral system – preventing a new major party from forming.
In fact, the last one that did form did so at a time when ballot access barriers did not exist, corporate political donations weren’t anything to speak of, a modern national/international media didn’t exist, the country’s population was tiny compared to today, and one of the two major parties in existence at the time had just collapsed.
In the modern era of mass political spending, mass media, and ballot access barriers the LP has already done better than any other political party over its entire lifespan. It’s true that some parties have garnered larger national top-of-the-ticket vote totals and been elected to higher offices, but they fizzled quickly, never built a lasting farm team of lower level candidates to nearly the extent of the LP, and didn’t leave any tangible ideological legacy.
In size, scope, endurance and diversity the LP and libertarian movement is roughly similar to the socialist parties and movement of 100 years ago. Various socialist and communist parties formed then, while other socialists infiltrated the major parties or functioned in various non-partisan advocacy groups. Some of the most extreme of these parties ended up taking over countries.
If the LP and libertarian movement is interested in practical success, it ought to study that tactical history closely.
The Reform Party, John Anderson, etc., aren’t really good role models to emulate.
December 6th, 2006 at 7:02 pm
I was on the let’s see what happens train months ago, and now I see a train wreck. Mr. Hacker should detail the expenses. I like Badnarik, but his campaign manager is leaving a bad taste in my mouth.
December 6th, 2006 at 7:12 pm
Badnarik got elected entirely due to the convention debate. At that debate Nolan was too moderate and noncommittal for the purists. Russo was openly unorthodox on key anarchist points, which lost him those votes. Badnarik, on the other hand, preached the straight anarchist, purist party line in an engaging and positive way… which gave him the base he needed to pass Nolan and eventually win the nomination.
Badnarik was the purists’ baby, plain and simple.
Gotta diagree with you there. Both Nolan and Russo diverged from some ZAP libertarian views (for example, Russo on environmental issues and Nolan on the Afghani war/occupation) but then again, Badnarik is a Constitutionalist who claimed that government, when constrained by the Constitution, is both good and necessary – not exactly a purist Anarchist position. None of the candidates were anarchists or purists.
Personally, as an Anarchist, I was a Russo supporter and continue to believe he would have been far and away the better pick. I liked the issues he emphasized and the way in which he presented them. Other anarchists I know were also supporting Russo.
Badnarik benefitted from being most people’s second choice. The bad blood and relatively even strength between the Russo and Nolan camps neutralized each other. Badnarik also did relatively well in the convention debate. He mostly got elected because he was not much disliked by anyone yet.
In fact, it was the Nolan faction which threw its support to Badnarik to get him over the top, because they found him preferrable to Russo. By and large, Nolan supporters who found Badnarik preferrable to Russo were not anarchists or purists. They were more likely to be moderate and/or conservative-leaning, in political views as well as personal style.
So, if anyone was behind the Badnarik nomination, it was the corporate suit and tie/Republitarian crowd. And no, I don’t mean every single Nolan supporter, since I know a few whose second choice would have been Russo, but the bulk of them, including Gary Nolan himself.
December 6th, 2006 at 7:19 pm
I’m just really sorry that the LP cant confront itself and see both itself for what it is internally and what it seems to non-libertarians externally.
there is not, and never will be, a way to “fix” the LP without starting to acknowledge and repair the damage done by 35 years of what is at the least, a serious mistake in judgement by David Nolan and the founders of this “party” that political effort was last on the list of things to do.
“Maybe we might even get some libertarians elected!”
2006 is a very important year – the year the LP started to realize how much damage has been done becuase there has not been a real political party all these years that could both defend and articulate liberty in a manner americans could vote for. If there had, we might not be so bad off.
I’m sitting here just thinking how much has been wasted. I’m sad. I hurt. Someome maybe will offer me a tissue or some other glib comment.
You confront your demons and deal with them head on or you continue the evasions. Thats the choice. I hope someone in the LP has enough balls to say 06 is the final straw and that we are going to approach 08 as a real political party and shove the non force principle into the toilet.
just persue public policy goals that do he same thing, and it fixes itself.
December 6th, 2006 at 7:19 pm
daughters (or sometimes, sons), naked on their backs and out of their minds on drug, uncaring as to who is impregnating them at the moment.
The latter is certainly a neat trick.
December 6th, 2006 at 7:26 pm
I think I have the best response to the Hacker email and request for more money (besides the $100 he got from me during the campaign). When I got it, I hit the ‘delete’ button. Nuff said.
December 6th, 2006 at 7:42 pm
D) No-proof electronic voting machines owned in part by the incumbent.”
So now Badnarik lost because… IT’S A CONSPIRACY?!?
I don’t dismiss conspiracies out of hand. As a former career criminal, I was involved in a few, and as a former government independent contractor, well, the less said about that, the better.
I know enough about black box voting to give it a great deal of credence.
However, no black box voting scam is going to convert a win or near-win to anything like 4%. That’s ridiculous. To be able to successfully steal an election, it has to be close to begin with, or your effort would be far too transparent.
Nor is anyone likely to bother to shave 8% down to 4% – what would be the point? If Badnarik’s actual vote total was above 8% or so, shaving it down to 4% would have been too blatant.
We didn’t buy TV because it was a bad investment.
I would have to disagree. Sure, having a gerrymandered and mostly rural district isn’t ideal for media buys, but so what? There’s a reason why all other candidates in such districts who can afford to buy ads on TV.
For one thing, your rural voters do almost universally watch some TV, and their stations will be out of the nearest big cities. They may also be influenced by friends and relatives in their media markets but outside the district itself.
Also, what about future possible statewide runs or redistricting? Those media dollars aren’t wasted completely.
Stephen VanDyke pointed out another big reason for Tv ad buys.
Another is to increase your donations. Quite likely, you would have received more donations, bigger donations, and more repeat donations if you had more of a tangible result to show for what you spent the money you initially raised on.
But we spent $7200 on a very nice billboard facing a daily viewership of 116,000 people who saw it 3-6 times a week for 7 months or more. The neighborhood included 2 precincts that were won, and 5 more almost-won, by the previous CD10 LP candidate.
Yes, but what did the billboard say? Was it anything that would inspire someone to vote for an alternative candidate? And how many billboards did you say you had again? As you say yourself….
Repetition is the essence of advertising success.
December 6th, 2006 at 7:46 pm
If Michael Badnarik had polled 10-15% or better, it would have been reasonable to simply reiterate what we’ve learned from past campaigns: In order to be competitive, a Libertarian candidate for races of this scale doesn’t just have to raise money on par with his or her major party opponents, he or she has to raise more than they do.
$400k+ for 4.x% requires more explanation than that . In general, the explanation is simple: The campaign was poorly run. It’s the details of how it was poorly run that are important. Right now, the only “lesson learned,” whether that lesson is accurate or not, is “never, ever, ever hire Allen Hacker to run your campaign.” Presumably Mr. Hacker would rather we drew other, different lessons … but doing so is impossible without the information that he intimated earlier would be coming, but now seems to be demanding another $200k for.
The “we were sabotaged in the blogosphere” dog just isn’t going to hunt. Criticisms of the campaign appeared on only a few blogs, and mostly down in the comments at that. More than 175,000 individuals voted in the Texas CD 10 election, and there’s just no reasonable case that any significant percentage of the 169,000 (give or take) who did not vote for Badnarik chose not to do so because Michael Nelson slagged Allen Hacker on Hammer of Truth. Don’t get me wrong—it would be great if HoT was that influential, but it just isn’t.
Furthermore, to the extent that blog coverage was skylined, it was skylined precisely because the campaign had almost zero apparent “mainstream media” presence. It might not have received the attention it deserved had it competently sought that attention, but we’ll never know because it didn’t competently seek that attention in either earned or paid media. Those who didn’t go looking for Badnarik didn’t hear about him. Those who did go looking for Badnarik were forced to the blogs alone for lack of any other coverage.
I still resist the portrayal of Michael Badnarik as “Fraudnarik.” I’ve known Michael for several years. I’ve worked with him. I trust him and I know him not to be personally greedy. I know this because at a low point in his presidential campaign, when he was down to his last $250, he pulled out that last $250 and gave it to help bail someone out of jail. He was paid back the next day, but he couldn’t know that he would be. And yes, that someone was me.
In my experience, Michael hits the road, works his ass off, and listens to and trusts his campaign manager and staff on the mechanics of the thing. That works great when the manager and staff are locked on and doing what needs to be done, and in a perfect world that’s exactly what a candidate should be able to do. An actor (and in many ways that profession parallels political candidacy) should be able to act, confident that the stage crew has the curtains, lights, camera, etc. under control and that they know better than he how to manage them.
In this case, it’s obvious that Badnarik’s campaign manager and staff either didn’t know what to do, or didn’t do it. But, once again, that’s a general statement. It would be really nice to have specifics so that we can avoid fiascos like this in the future.
Regards,
Tom Knapp
P.S. I’ve already seen my first “after that $500 to Badnarik and the election results, my wife has put her foot down about contributions to LP candidates” letter in response to a Kubby fundraiser. This is going to affect LP candidate fundraising, no two ways about it. It would be nice to get some useful data on why and how it occurred.
December 6th, 2006 at 7:49 pm
Michelle,
You’d feel better if you didn’t read these blogs. You know nobody gets an even break here, and measured discourse is impossible. If you think what you see of me here pissing on fire ants is all there is, then go ahead and hate me. Listen to Tim West, instead. He’s the most sensible commentator here.
–
Sorry Austin, there’s just not enough value possible here. Read the thread, notice how much information the critics ignore and how they then say that you didn’t say the stuff they ignored…. Or how, as in the case of Tim, they just ignore intelligent comments altogether.
They’re just here to kep themselves busy, can’t think of anything constructive to do. That’s the persistent word-twisting critics. I’m not sure what’s wrong with everyone else. Maybe they’re still hoping that you’ll get the blog you meant to start.
0December 6th, 2006 at 7:51 pm
Perhaps we had an honesty-above-all policy that prevented us from prostituting ourselves to the media, and planned to go around them directly to the voters.
That could have worked too. Take your initial FR and invest a good chunk of it into professionally produced video. Say 15-30 min long, perhaps. Then copy a ton of DVD and VHS tapes. Put a DVD into your next FR lettter and say something like “your last contribution allowed us to produce this video, if yopu give us X amount more we will distribute one to every voter in the district” and then if you raised the money do so.
If you get enough additional money, have a campaign volunteer or employee actually delivery every copy to the voter, or as many as you can afford to. Not enough money or manpower? Follow the district mailer up with direct mail and/or phone calls.
Asking people to repeatedly drop money into a black box and then expecting your FR not to drop off over time is incredibly unrealistic. This would have been the case even without critics and, by your description, saboteurs.
December 6th, 2006 at 7:56 pm
I accuse you of selective focus. You chose D) and turned it into a conspircy ridicule? I offered up the choices that have been suggested to me. One or two of them, even, in jest. I didn’t say which, if any, I think it is. So stop trying to put your words into my mouth.
Well that would require taking one of the following seriously…
A) They can’t read.
B) They can read, but they only read HoT and TPW.
These can be dismissed out of hand.
So it must be:
C) They like free porridge.
Well, OK, most people do. Yet Libertarians have been known to get well above 4%.
Ron Paul, although he runs as a Reptublican, doesn’t exactly go around promising free porridge, and he’s been in office long enough for people in his district to know what he’s up to. Yet he manages to get re-elected. So much for the Goldilocks theory.
December 6th, 2006 at 8:06 pm
I like Badnarik, but his campaign manager is leaving a bad taste in my mouth.
I apologize in advance because I really like Michelle, but I just can’t resist.
Why were you letting him into your mouth?
(I kid, I kid…)
December 6th, 2006 at 8:08 pm
Allen:
There were at least two, maybe three, LP paper candidates for US House in three-way races who got a greater percentage of the vote than Badnarik did… without spending a penny.
By contrast, the other active campaigns in Texas- my own for state rep, ditto Matthew Mosely, Rock Howard for state senator, even Bob Smither- showed a greater than average vote total for their efforts.
There are only two explanations, and they are not exclusive: either Badnarik is a bad candidate, or the campaign was badly run.
Speaking as a candidate, I found it nigh impossible to get donations from Libertarians in no small part because the Badnarik campaign- “all in one basket” strategy and all- drained the coffers dry. If Badnarik had even done as much as 10% in his three-way race, perhaps there might be some justification… but he didn’t do as well as some of our paper candidates. That means $400,000… enough to have given between six and eight state representative candidates spending parity with their big-party opponents… was completely, totally, and utterly wasted.
Tell me, why should we, as investors in liberty, give you a penny more?
December 6th, 2006 at 8:10 pm
“We didn’t buy TV because it was a bad investment. But we spent $7200 on a very nice billboard facing a daily viewership of 116,000 people who saw it 3-6 times a week for 7 months or more. The neighborhood included 2 precincts that were won, and 5 more almost-won, by the previous CD10 LP candidate.”
Those billboards were extremely lame. “Smile if you love liberty” and “Property, Security, Prosperity” are not attention grabbers. This was the kind of fluffy CRAP that Democrats and Republicans can get away with but do NOTHING to build a “third party” candidate.
Here are some billboards that would have gotten people’s attention.
“IMPEACH BUSH! Libertarian Michael Badnarik for Congress”
“LEGALIZE MARIJUANA! Libertarian Michael Badnarik for Congress”
“BRING THE TROOPS HOME! Libertarian Michael Badnarik for Congress”
“TIRED OF DEMOCRAT AND REPUBLICAN LIES? Libertarian Michael Badnarik for Congress”
“ABOLISH THE INCOME TAX! Libertarian Michael Badnarik for Congress”
Would these billboards offend some people? Sure. But these people aren’t going to vote Libertarian anyway so the heck with them. The focus should have been put on the people who would have seen those billboards and thought, “Right on!”
I think that Michael Badnarik is a good guy and a decent candidate. The problem with this campaign was the way that it was run. I donated $100 to Badnarik’s campaign for President and $200 to his congressional campaign. I ASSUMED that the campaign was going to do TV advertising. If I would have known the way that they were going to piss away the money I wouldn’t have donated anything.
Just because only part of the district was in Austin is no excuse for not running TV ads. Remember that a big part of Libertarian campaigns is to SPREAD the Libertarian message. If I was in charge of the campaign I would have made a TV commercial (and not some LAME AS “Smile if you love liberty” CRAP) as soon as the funding was available. The commercial could have been posted on-line and could have brought in a lot more donations.
This had to have been one of the worst run campaigns ever and likely destroyed the future political prospects of a decent man.
December 6th, 2006 at 8:19 pm
The “we were sabotaged in the blogosphere” dog just isn’t going to hunt. Criticisms of the campaign appeared on only a few blogs, and mostly down in the comments at that. More than 175,000 individuals voted in the Texas CD 10 election, and there’s just no reasonable case that any significant percentage of the 169,000 (give or take) who did not vote for Badnarik chose not to do so because Michael Nelson slagged Allen Hacker on Hammer of Truth. Don’t get me wrong—it would be great if HoT was that influential, but it just isn’t.
Let’s be generous enough to suppose that Allen does not mean anything quite that ridiculous. Give him the benefit of the doubt to assume he means that the saboteurs ruined their national libertarian fundraising efforts and that in turn translated into lower than expected results at the end.
Even then, you are correct – the main reason their fundraising fell off was because of how they spent, or, rather, how they did NOT spend the money initially raised (on tangible early results that could be parlayed into repeat, additional and increased donations). “Saboteurs” were very secondary to that – and, in fact, given their spending choices and the internally critical LP /libertarian movement culture, which they were well aware of before they made their campaign management and spending decisions, “saboteurs” were entirely predictable.
December 6th, 2006 at 8:25 pm
Andy writes “If I was in charge of the campaign I would have made a TV commercial (and not some LAME AS “Smile if you love liberty” CRAP) as soon as the funding was available. The commercial could have been posted on-line and could have brought in a lot more donations.”
In fact my campaign posted to my site http://www.phillies2008.com a series of storyboards (concept videos) sketching what ads might cover, followed by an almost
completelyready real ad, opposing the war. Work is now underway to run the final ad in select markets soon.“King George W has been spying on you” is fairly radical. That one is a concept video not yet ready for braodcast.
December 6th, 2006 at 8:33 pm
Mr. Hacker,
You should know that I am the Michelle from HoT who asked for you to be let alone to run/ruin the campaign as you saw fit. I am the same Michelle who supported Michael in both of his campaigns. Because I write these blogs, I am offended that you would ask me not to read them. You had my support months ago, and as I said in a recent email (TX newsgroups), you seem to be hanging by a noose of your own design. I told people to keep tight lipped until after the election season. I told them that they did nothing to promote liberty or its party by bitching before the results were in. Now you tell me to pay no attention to the man behind the curtain?What is that old movie line? Something about being weighed, measured and found lacking?
December 6th, 2006 at 8:34 pm
told should have been asked- i am hoping that you guys knew that without this comment
December 6th, 2006 at 8:39 pm
Well, the 2006 elections are history, nobody did well except the statists,
Hold it…hold it right there.
What are you talking about?
I’ve detailed lots of good news from the elections on this site and elsewhere.
In short:
The voters top three priorities were ending the illegal
occupation of Iraq, stopping the destruction of civil liberties in
the name of the war on terror, and ending corrupt pork barrel
spending (such as the military-industrial complex). If the LP
hammers away at those priorities strongly, consistently, and
unwaveringly for the next two years, we will be in a great position
to challenge the major parties – especially the Donkey Show Party
which is likely to sell out the will of the strongly antiwar
majority who elected them.
Their Kongressional Kangaroo Klique is “ruling out” impeachment
hearings for the war criminal Bush Gang, keeping the (disastrous)
course in Iraq and Afghanistan, preparing to roll over for the
executive dictatorship, and will almsot certainly be just as corupt
and wasteful as the NSGOP bunch (or at least nearly so).
Their likely 2008 nominee Madame Clinton is a rabid, foaming at the
mouth warmonger and no friend of civil liberties or the taxpayer.
And all of this is also very much true of NSGOP frontrunners Benito
Giuliani and John McCain.
There is definitely an opening for the LP - as long as we make make
ending the wars, preserving our civil liberties from their
destruction in the endless “war on terror,” and ending regime waste
and corruption our top priorities.
and your Party needs your help now more than ever. In the animated contest for freedom, there’s not much left to lose. So, what’s the best, most effective thing you can do now?
Permit me to shock and amaze you: contribute to the Badnarik for Congress campaign!
Good God….do you honestly expect anyone to take this seriously? Sure, it has shock value, but then again so does a car wreck.
There are hundreds, no, wait, thousands, of things which can be done right now. Looking forward to 2008 by donating to a candidate (say, Steve Kubby) might be among them. Perhaps a winnable local race in 2007. A good citizen initiative in your city or state. National ballot access. Educating your friends and neighbors about the philosophy of liberty. Reading a good book. Buying stock in a silver mine. Building an underground bunker. Learning more about offshore banks. Learning more about making home videos. A rollicking good mudslinging session on your favorite debate blog comment section. Hell, a juicy rare steak and spreading some holiday cheer at your local neighborhood titty bar.
Anything but the Ghost of Christmas Past coming back up like the bile-ravaged remains of some leftover Election Day Turkey that had been left out for a month, went very very bad, and then got eaten by mistake after a twelve pack and a half of warm canned Natural Lite slammed down quickly after a long overdue yet unforeseen bitter break-up with your ex- live in girlfriend.
December 6th, 2006 at 8:43 pm
Running a Libertarian campaign from the fundraising side is 100% about tangibles.
Want raise money to run a television ad? Go ahead and shoot the damn thing… put it on YouTube and ask for money to do it professionally if need be. This applies to print, door hangers, flyers… whatever.
December 6th, 2006 at 8:44 pm
What’s that you say? It’s December! The election’s over and we’ve been humiliated? Maybe, maybe not. There is entirely another way to look at it.
Yeah, if you take enough acid and squint long and hard enough.
Of course you got humiliated.
Anything else would be a gross distortion of the obvious facts.
December 6th, 2006 at 8:44 pm
Paulie,
You eat at titty bars? Brave dude, brave.
December 6th, 2006 at 8:50 pm
The fact is, give either challenger another $300K last August and the republican would be history today.
Yeah, right.
Perhaps this would be true if you gave the D 300 k. Even then, perhaps not, in a very conservative district – had the D been close enough, the Rs would have made shoring up support there more of a priority, and spent more there themselves – probably ending up with about the same results they ended up with but in a more expensive fashion.
And the fact that it was even that close has to do with a strong anti-incumbent, anti-GOP and pro-Democrat (as the designated non-R) sentiment this year.
Give you another 300 K? With lots of luck, it may have gotten Badnarik all the way up to 7 or 8%, with most of that 3-4% difference coming out of the Democrat’s total.
December 6th, 2006 at 8:52 pm
Paulie,
You eat at titty bars?
Not normally. Those are two separate expenditures.
BTW, as adventurous as that may be, it’s still not as brave as letting Allen into your mouth (again, I kid…)
December 6th, 2006 at 8:56 pm
Michael could be in debt the rest of his life, and I could be stuck filing meaningless quarterly reports even longer than that.
I kinda feel bad for Badnarik. Kinda.
As for Allen, perhaps a cosmically appropriate punishment for him would be to do nothing but file these meaningless quarterly reports over and over again for all eternity. Or at least a few aeons.
December 6th, 2006 at 8:58 pm
I have been trying not to say this, but the only man I let in my mouth is the doc. Of course, he tells me that he is checking my throat. Tongue depressors have changed recently, right??
December 6th, 2006 at 9:00 pm
That’s right, federal candidates are personally responsible for their campaign debts, and they can’t be forgiven or negotiated away because that makes them campaign contributions under campaign finance law.
At best a half-truth. The number of former federal candidates who skip out on their campaign debt is legion.
Fair warning to those who accept checks from campaigns close to election time, particularly if they also at the same time accept the attendant pleas not to cash said checks immediately.
December 6th, 2006 at 9:03 pm
I have been trying not to say this, but the only man I let in my mouth is the doc. Of course, he tells me that he is checking my throat. Tongue depressors have changed recently, right??
Probably. To be honest, I don’t really know much about letting men into my mouth. But it sounds plausible.
Your husband’s a doctor? Lucky girl…
December 6th, 2006 at 9:05 pm
“In fact my campaign posted to my site http://www.phillies2008.com a series of storyboards (concept videos) sketching what ads might cover, followed by an almost completelyready real ad, opposing the war. Work is now underway to run the final ad in select markets soon.
“King George W has been spying on you” is fairly radical. That one is a concept video not yet ready for braodcast.”
It sounds like George Phillies is off to a good start.
We should applaud George Phillies and Steve Kubby for starting their campaigns early. I hope to see more effective outreach from both candidates as well as anyone else who jumps in the race.
December 6th, 2006 at 9:10 pm
Ladies and gentlemen, it is my distinct pleasure and honor to introduce our next speaker, the one and only legendary businessman and consultant, Mr. Charles Ponzi….
Hold your applause. Mr. Ponzi will speak now…..
You really don’t want that, and here’s why. There’s an unexpected benefit to the party yet to be realized from this campaign, and I won’t be in a position to produce it until the committee is closed. Think of it as an extension of the educational side of our campaigns: educating ourselves!
You see, for the past 20+ years I’ve been a private business consultant, specializing in vision clarification with owners and executives. It’s a weird specialty that depends on a peculiar talent, of which I seem to have a remarkable share of. As a result of honing that talent in my practice, combined with 35 years’ LP experience culminating in this campaign, I am uniquely qualified to analyze the LP’s difficulties. I have the right attitude as well: where others see impediments and problems, I see patterns and possibilities.
We’ve been accused of risking the LP’s future with this campaign. The argument has been that by raising so much money and talking about winning, We have set everyone up for a huge disappointment, which will in turn stall everyone’s fundraising and support for years to come. Balderdash!
Thank you. Thank you. The donation plate is being passed around. Remember that the more you give, the more you get back in return.
December 6th, 2006 at 9:11 pm
For more about our featured speaker
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponzi
December 6th, 2006 at 9:18 pm
What we have actually done in pushing the envelope so far is to peel back the scab hiding the chronic infection that has been keeping the LP anemic and unhealthy all along. By going for the whole enchilada, we aggravated every failure mode the Party has ever adopted.
So it was a pre-planned experiment to expose LP weakness and failure? Nicely done.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Con_artists
December 6th, 2006 at 9:18 pm
Yep, hubby is a doc. Unfortunately, some people are calling for those in his profession to be sued if they fail to put on their naggy housewife hat. (see reason.com h&r and the whole smoking thing) If that happens, I think, for him, his tongue depressor will get smaller*** .
***size doesn’t change, but male perception of income/depressor size is mostly in his head anyway
December 6th, 2006 at 9:20 pm
“Personally, as an Anarchist, I was a Russo supporter and continue to believe he would have been far and away the better pick. I liked the issues he emphasized and the way in which he presented them. Other anarchists I know were also supporting Russo.
Badnarik benefitted from being most people’s second choice.”
I agree. I supported Badnarik after he recieved the nomination but I think that Russo should have been the nominee. Russo had more charisma, more money, and more name recognition.
I had the chance to speak to Aaron Russo recently and I told him that I thought that he should have been the LP’s Presidential nominee. He said that in retrospect that he’s glad that he didn’t get the nomination because not getting the nomination gave him more time to work on his movie, “American: From Freedom To Fascism.” I wish that he could have done both.
Aaron is cotemplating another presidential run but this time he’s leaning towards trying to win the Republican nomination by winning the New Hampshire primary or running as an independent. He mentioned something about the Libertarian label scaring people off. I’d support him if he changes his mind and decides to go for the LP nomination again.
December 6th, 2006 at 9:24 pm
And they succeeded, too, to the degree that the Party itself has institutionalized their ways of stopping everything good anyone tries to do as a libertarian activist, officer or candidate.
For just one example, consider that in a party whose highest social value is the free market, when you get accused of corruption because you expect to be paid for your work, almost no one defends you.
There’s some truth to that, but it begs a question:
paid for what?
I’m all for rewarding success. I can see some justification with rewarding a good honest effort which had some reasonable hope of some success.
Rewarding an admitted attempt to push the envelope of endemic failure seems somewhat less justifiable.
December 6th, 2006 at 9:27 pm
“The fact is, give either challenger another $300K last August and the republican would be history today.”
This sounds like something that the government school teachers union would say. Give us more money and we’ll get better results. Nevermind the fact that they already recieve plenty of money and nevermind the fact that everytime they get more money there’s no real improvement.
If 4% of the vote is the best you can do with over $400,000 then I’d say that your campaign plans were flawed.
December 6th, 2006 at 9:32 pm
Quote:
I called to get some confirmation on my numbers:
21 total Lamaar billboards
1 other billboard
10 8’x4’ vinyl signs on private property
Total: ~$10K
Endquote.
$400,000 – 10,000———————$390,000 dollars worth of unaccountability!
All that money and no doorknob mailers or ad buys?
I suspect fraud or at least greivous waste. I heard someone riffing on how much money was spent at steakhouses, but I don’t know have any concrete information about that. I’m just not sure how the money was spent.
What I am sure about is that getting rid of the NAP and running (further) towards the center wouldn’t have improved anything. In 2006, a firm “bring home the troops” platform would have gotten you at least 30%, in any district in the country. Paulie’s other proposed “bumper sticker” ideas would’ve gotten you 5-10% too. Moderate libertarians will NEVER effect change at the ballot box. All they’ll do is waste money and allow the Republicans to move further right.
December 6th, 2006 at 9:33 pm
But most important, why does it happen? I know the answer; it’s startling in its simplicty and far-reaching in its consequences. I wouldn’t have seen it had we not done this campaign. We can now do something about a problem we had no chance of dealing with before.
I believe in free market competition. I too know the answer, and will sell it for a mere $150,000, well below Allen’s asking price of $200 K.
This is a limited time offer. Operators are standing by.
The first twenty callers will be entered into an exclusive lottery to win a first crack early peek at the information, plus an all expense paid weekend at a fabulous time share resort in beautiful Grand Island, Nebraska.
December 6th, 2006 at 9:34 pm
If 4% of the vote is the best you can do with over $400,000 then I’d say that your campaign plans were flawed.
Unless your campaign plan had been to expose LP weaknesses.
December 6th, 2006 at 9:35 pm
“The “we were sabotaged in the blogosphere” dog just isn’t going to hunt. Criticisms of the campaign appeared on only a few blogs, and mostly down in the comments at that. More than 175,000 individuals voted in the Texas CD 10 election, and there’s just no reasonable case that any significant percentage of the 169,000 (give or take) who did not vote for Badnarik chose not to do so because Michael Nelson slagged Allen Hacker on Hammer of Truth.”
I gave the Badnarik campaign the benifit of the doubt. Now I’d say that Mike Nelson has been vindicated.
December 6th, 2006 at 9:39 pm
“$400,000 – 10,000———————$390,000 dollars worth of unaccountability!
All that money and no doorknob mailers or ad buys?
I suspect fraud or at least greivous waste. I heard someone riffing on how much money was spent at steakhouses, but I don’t know have any concrete information about that. I’m just not sure how the money was spent.”
I’d like to know WHERE IN THE HELL THE MONEY WENT
?
?
The Badnarik campaign has a LOT of explaining to do.
December 6th, 2006 at 9:42 pm
@matt: I was reference the Peirce for Ohio governor campaign. We only raised a tad over $50k and spent much of it on tangible advertising.
December 6th, 2006 at 9:42 pm
Do you want the LP to double by the next election? Do you want us to finally achieve public acceptance, even public endorsement and finally, electoral victory?
Yes, I know, some of you don’t, but I’m talking past you to the ones who do.
Do you want to double your net worth in the next two years? Do you want to finally start getting the supermodels you have been dreaming of to not just go out with you, but actually become your personal sex slaves and pay YOU money for sex? Would you like to get rid of those pesky pimples once and for all, and have a full head of hair?
Some of you may give in to the derision and scorn of your family and friends. But only those who send me $10 or more will receive my patented cures once the total donations reach $200,000.
Hurry up and call and have your credit card ready! If you provide your bank account number, SSN and mother’s maiden name as a special bonus you will be entered into a drawing to win a new pre-owned Playstation 3.
December 6th, 2006 at 9:43 pm
Thank you Andy. Mike (Nelson) and I are friends, but we disagreed on the District 10 race. Today, I am asking Mike if I can make it up to him. He clearly saw a problem. Vindication must taste sweet- especially when you have been asked to hold your tongue.
Hey Mike- are your maids still missing the toilet area? ;o)
December 6th, 2006 at 9:48 pm
Don’t you just need to know how to accomplish those 6-7 milestones I listed in my August “Plan B” update?
Don’t you just need to know what future events such as these will affect you in the future as predicted by The Amazing Criswell in Plan 9 from outer space?
So here’s the deal. First, we pay the debt. Then we build the party and the movement, and ultimately, we take back our freedom.
Here’s the skinny: first, you send more money. Then, we will build a time machine and teleport to the past, win the election, and save the galaxy – to infinity and beyond!
December 6th, 2006 at 9:50 pm
Vindication must taste sweet- especially when you have been asked to hold your tongue.
Hey Mike- are your maids still missing the toilet area? ;o)
Now I understand how Allen can leave a bad taste in your mouth without ever entering it in the first place.
December 6th, 2006 at 9:54 pm
Paulie, I have misplaced your digits- email me at micheshi@comcast.net. I have to cut up right now, and this thread is not the place. ;o)
December 6th, 2006 at 9:55 pm
The debts include unpaid staff, ongoing rent, database/reporting service fees (which will never stop accruing until we close the committee), the monthly bills in general until the committee is certified closed by the Federal Election Commission, and the LNC for an unpaid portion of our advertising purchase for the national convention in July. And, my consulting fees (almost all of which have been held in abeyance until now)
Let me see if I understand this right. The Badnarik campaign didn’t pay Allen. They didn’t pay the rest of the staff. Or at least they only paid part of what they owed. They didn’t pay all their rent. They did not buy broadcast or print media or yard signs and only a few billboards.
They spent 400 k and are 200 k in debt.
Is that correct?
December 6th, 2006 at 10:03 pm
Our reasons are purely financial, so we could close this thing as of December 31st. And if I get paid and don’t have to scramble to reestablish my business right away, I’ll get directly to the documentation I mentioned above.
Again, what do you get for your money? You get the solution to our problems as a party. Cheap at twice the price!
Here’s the deal, losers:
I know I just got you for $400 k and it looks like I don’t have anything to show for the money.
But, if you send me another $200 k quickly I will explain what causes you to have such self-loathing as to keep sending me more money.
What are you waiting for, you worthless dregs of the sewers? I command you to send me more money NOW!
December 6th, 2006 at 10:06 pm
That’s the one that keeps me smiling to myself, remembering the old Confucian admonition, “Your greatest strength is also your greatest weakness.”
Confucius say: if you are lost in the dessert and dying of thirst, walk away from water.
December 6th, 2006 at 10:11 pm
None of that first $65K can be negotiated or discounted. However, any portion of my own pay can be converted to volunteerism, so falling short on that amount won’t be a killer, but if I have to scramble, that could delay my delivery of the final product.
Why?
I don’t need your money personally. Any day, I can start a new business and make a million dollars in a year.
Co-ops on the dark side of the moon are selling out fast. You must act NOW!
December 6th, 2006 at 10:12 pm
Well isn’t that giving! Mr. Hacker put other people first and allowed them to be paid before he was. Now we can’t suspect him of anything! He’s as clean and pure as the driven snow! What a guy! If he’s nice enough to do this, let’s just forget all about those figures from the campaign that don’t add up.
December 6th, 2006 at 10:18 pm
Anyone who has “solutions to what’s wrong with our party” and doesn’t share IS what’s wrong with our party. That or else delusional.
December 6th, 2006 at 10:29 pm
The history of successful independent candidates in the 20th Century coincides with a centrist or populist message, accompanied by a great deal of hope and most likely money. Usually with a candidate who went off the major party reservation after holding some high profile office (Teddy Roosevelt, John Anderson etc.). Decrying the LP for its lack of electoral success makes little sense unless you are the emotional type.
In other words your sense of anger and frustration guides you to think that somehow if the LP just did X or Y they could take back the country from these awful power brokers and those who generally mismanage the ship of state. Why anyone who thinks a party with less money then Tiger Woods on a bad day will win or possibly be effective is behind me. Finding a third party that even exists beyond a charismatic leader (Lyndon Larouche ? tongue in cheek) or a populist or an anachronism (Prohibition Party is still around in some form, Socialists too) is somewhat of a miracle. One that savors free markets and lets individuals alone has lotsa of appeal. The LP fills that lacuna.
Unless the dimensions of the electoral game change (IRV, Range or STV voting, ballot access, proportional representation etc.) third parties will be relegated to driving certain issues or the repository for the disgruntled few willing to step out of the mainstream. Americans want to pick winners and traditionally identify with those who can actually do so, Democrats and Republicans. Money and boots on the ground are the key difference. Sustained periods of this help. A ‘flash in the pan’ will never ignite correctly. Branding, diddling with pledges or platforms is meaningless, but at least it keeps the faithful occupied.
This navel gazing, barb trading, hand wringing and otherwise cosmic anguish and elixir preparation is to be expected when expectations are driven by emotion and passion, especially for Liberty. The founders and original patriots even went so far as to initiate force for it. The reality is that the average person is happy to work for the state, pay taxes and think that their security is provided for by bureaucracies and rules. They like Fox News and Jesus too much to abandon it for an ideology whose rational basis is quite sound, regardless of what you think of the influence of Rand or Rothbard.
Those who truly want to win should shed the LP label and run charismatic individuals, with monetary backing, who cater to the angry center. Perhaps the alternative is to tweak the Party for at least the next thirty years and build with technology, local candidates and message etc. Shrug. Only the winners will ultimately be listened to. But don’t blame the last thirty years, celebrate it and learn from it. Occasionally the right Jesse Ventura, Ross Perot or Bernie Sanders comes along. It depends on the region, luck, campaign savvy and a host of other factors, mainly money. Who’s suggesting that a candidate not raise more money ? That will always be a requisite for a campaign, whether it be educational or delusional. There’s plenty of mainstream races that spent double the TX-10 LP candidate and lost. Find that niche and apply your suave and good luck, there’s no guarantee, even if you’re Joe Trippi.
December 6th, 2006 at 10:30 pm
Allen Hacker wrote:
“They’re just here to keep themselves busy, can’t think of anything constructive to do.”
This from the man who couldn’t think of anything constructive to do with hundreds of thousands of dollars during a campaign.
I’ve seen a lot of requests for you to explain where the money was spent and to offer up explanations (other than conspiracy voting machine stuff) for the poor results. That is the ONLY constructive thing that will come out of the campaign. It’s a shame that you want another $200,000 before you’ll explain how you spent the first $400,000. And it’s a bigger shame that you can’t understand why donors such as myself feel scammed and betrayed.
This campaign did more than just bruise your ego. This campaign, as Tom Knapp pointed out, is already hurting fundraising efforts for LP candidates. The LP already doesn’t get enough funds, and just when it seemed that the damage from the Harry Browne accusations was healing, this happens. This is bigger than you and your blogwar with Mike Nelson.
It is a shame that you cannot see beyond yourself and your bruised ego. The LP is going to really suffer from this campaign unless some things are cleared up.
December 6th, 2006 at 10:30 pm
It’s called chutzpah and anyone who falls for this and sends a contribution deserves to be ripped off. I’m surprised the e-mail didn’t mention some Nigerian manager who had a few million $$ sitting around that he would give you if you’d only help him out.
Allow me to help.
MMEDIATE ATTENTION NEEDED :
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
FROM: LOTT DUFFER
DEAR SIR / MADAM,
I AM LOTT DUFFER, Cousin of Allen Hacker, AND CURRENTLY SERVING AS PRESIDENT OF Particulate Campaigns. THIS LETTER MIGHT SURPRISE YOU BECAUSE WE HAVE NOT MET NEITHER IN PERSON NOR BY CORRESPONDENCE. I CAME TO KNOW OF YOU IN MY SEARCH FOR A RELIABLE AND REPUTABLE PERSON TO HANDLE A VERY CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS TRANSACTION, WHICH INVOLVES THE TRANSFER OF A HUGE SUM OF MONEY TO AN ACCOUNT REQUIRING MAXIMUM CONFIDENCE.
I AM WRITING YOU IN ABSOLUTE CONFIDENCE PRIMARILY TO SEEK YOUR ASSISTANCE IN ACQUIRING campaign FUNDS THAT ARE PRESENTLY TRAPPED on a moon of Jupiter. MY PARTNERS AND I SOLICIT YOUR ASSISTANCE IN COMPLETING A TRANSACTION BEGUN BY MY Cousin, WHO HAS LONG BEEN ACTIVELY ENGAGED IN THE EXTRACTION OF Cash IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND BRAVELY SERVED HIS party AS DIRECTOR OF THE Badnarik for Congress Campaign.
IN THE year 2006, MY Cousin, THEN Campaign Manager for Badnarik, SOUGHT TO Bring Freedom to Planet Earth for Ten Thousand Years. THIS UNSUCCESSFUL VENTURE WAS SOON FOLLOWED BY A FALLING OUT WITH HIS former lover Mike Nelson, WHO went on to single handedly sabotage the Badnarik for Congress Campaign and bring on the ten thousand year reign of the Dark Lord Pizuzu.
MY Cousin then SECURED THE campaign ASSETS on his secret Jupiter Moon Base. BUT MY Cousin’S FORMER Lover Mike Nelson was given CONTROL OF THE REPUBLIC OF America by the Dark Lord Pizuzu in return for betraying the People of Earth.
MY FAMILY IS CALLING FOR YOUR URGENT ASSISTANCE IN FUNDING THE REMOVAL OF THE Lord Pizuzu and his vassal Mike Nelson, whom he has made immortal. AS COMPENSATION FOR THE COSTS OF REMOVING them FROM POWER and re-aquiring the campaign funds from the Jupiter Moon Base we will need a good faith deposit of 200 BILLION DOLLARS, BOTH IN THE INITIAL ACQUISITION AND IN LONG-TERM MANAGEMENT.
WITHOUT THE FUNDS FROM OUR 2006 Campaign for Congress, WE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO ACQUIRE THE Planet held captive by alien reptiles. THAT IS WHY MY FAMILY AND OUR COLLEAGUES ARE URGENTLY SEEKING YOUR GRACIOUS ASSISTANCE. OUR DISTINGUISHED COLLEAGUES IN THIS BUSINESS TRANSACTION INCLUDE THE SITTING VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, RICHARD CHENEY, WHO IS AN ORIGINAL secret PARTNER IN THE Badnarik for Congress Campaign, AND CONDOLEEZA RICE, WHOSE PROFESSIONAL DEDICATION TO THE VENTURE WAS DEMONSTRATED IN THE NAMING OF A Major Texas University and a Chinese Food Staple AFTER HER.
I WOULD BESEECH YOU TO TRANSFER A SUM EQUALING TEN TO TWENTY-FIVE PERCENT (10-25 %) OF YOUR YEARLY INCOME TO OUR ACCOUNT TO AID IN THIS IMPORTANT VENTURE. THE Bank of Nigeria WILL FUNCTION AS OUR TRUSTED INTERMEDIARY. I PROPOSE THAT YOU MAKE THIS TRANSFER BEFORE THE FIFTEENTH (15TH) OF THE MONTH OF December.
I KNOW THAT A TRANSACTION OF THIS MAGNITUDE WOULD MAKE ANYONE APPREHENSIVE AND WORRIED. BUT I AM ASSURING YOU THAT ALL WILL BE WELL AT THE END OF THE DAY. A BOLD STEP TAKEN SHALL NOT BE REGRETTED, I ASSURE YOU. PLEASE DO BE INFORMED THAT THIS BUSINESS TRANSACTION IS 100% LEGAL. IF YOU DO NOT WISH TO CO-OPERATE IN THIS TRANSACTION, PLEASE Put your head in the oven and shut the door tight.
I PRAY THAT YOU UNDERSTAND OUR PLIGHT. MY FAMILY AND OUR COLLEAGUES WILL BE FOREVER GRATEFUL. PLEASE REPLY IN STRICT CONFIDENCE TO THE CONTACT NUMBERS BELOW.
SINCERELY WITH WARM REGARDS,
Lott Duffer
December 6th, 2006 at 10:34 pm
What I am sure about is that getting rid of the NAP and running (further) towards the center wouldn’t have improved anything.
I wrote a response, and then realized it was a worthless gesture.
December 6th, 2006 at 10:58 pm
Your forbearance is touching. Let’s have a footrace to the center, just you and me:
LOWER taxes
FEWER illegal wars
MILDER atrocities
GENTLER Beauracratic millstones
PRIVATIZED Police State surviellance
This one’s too close to call!
December 6th, 2006 at 11:01 pm
Well, it’s good to see that the LP is getting back to normal after the purist-pragmatist lovefest before the elections. Now everyone can just say how they really feel and let the shit balls fly.
Now, if everyone on this blog will just send me $10,000 each (Tim West and Mr. Hacker must send $50,000 each), I will release my top secret report on how Libertarians can win elections and rule the world.
In this report I will reveal why crypto-fascist Republicans think libertarians are leftists, why crypto-fascist Democrats think libertarians are right-wingers, and why crypto-fascist Libertarians think the general public has the perception that Neal Boortz is an anarchist.
In addition, I will throw in my special report entitled “If All Of You Assholes Will Only Think Like I Tell You To, Then The President Will Be Someone Who Says They Are Libertarian” for no extra charge.
But seriously folks, why not get a mortgage and send Mr. Hacker (and me) a bunch of money so that the LP can capture the White House, the Congress and the Soil Conservation Board in 2008.
December 6th, 2006 at 11:07 pm
I think some of these pragmatists could even screw up the Soil Conservation Board.
On second thought, that’s the perfect place for them.
Pragmatist Libertarians: Promoting the Politics of Erosion since 2004!
December 6th, 2006 at 11:19 pm
Hey, it’s almost like having Hammer of Truth back online!
I feel bad for Michael, he made a major mistake in bringing this guy onboard.
Hey Hack-Job: I think YOU should own up and pay off the debts yourself.
To everyone else, enjoy the last 20 mins of FTL from tonight, where we trash his email on-air. Archive available later at http://freetalklive.com
December 6th, 2006 at 11:23 pm
Blanton-I am in stitches here. Don’t forget dog catcher.
December 6th, 2006 at 11:27 pm
LOL. Paulie and Tom and cracking me up. This is too funny.
December 6th, 2006 at 11:27 pm
All my invective comes seasoned with love. It’s so nice to have something vaguely reminiscent of HoT! I’d rather harangue these people than anyone else in the world!
December 6th, 2006 at 11:42 pm
Hacker,
Open the books. Surely an adept campaign manager would have kept a spreadsheet of expenses (not that I’m assuming you’re an adept campaign manager or anything).
I’m not saying this out of any self-interest – I did not donate to Badnarik’s campaign and do not even really consider myself very involved in the LP anymore since the elections – but out of interest for you and your predicament. If people see the way you spent the money, they would be more likely to help you pay off the debts. If you believe the money was not mismanaged, prove it. Those who agree with you (and there’s any I can tell at this moment, because of both your egotistical assessment/blame gaming of your failure and your many statements not reinforced by any proof) might be willing to help you out. And those who are made angrier by your expenses probably wouldn’t have given you a cent anyway. You show us the numbers, if you are so confident in the job you did.
Face it: your political consultancy career in the LP is over. If you want to help the LP win in the future, please become a campaign manager for the major party candidates. Badnarik’s political career is over, at least for now. You have nothing to lose by opening the books, and we all have the potential to learn a lot without having to pay you any more money to wrap up the loose ends.
December 6th, 2006 at 11:54 pm
By the way: I think this is one of the rare situations when the pragmatists and radicals are unified, so I don’t see how it is productive to turn this thread into a fight. Ineptly run and wasteful LP campaigns, regardless of the ideology of the candidate, deserve all the criticism and condemnation coming to them.
We can debate all day over whether Badnarik is radical or moderate or whether or not the NAP would have made a difference. I don’t believe it would have, by the way – contrary to radical stereotype, most of the LRCers recognize that the platform and NAP reform we are advocating is not about direct vote totals – it’s about attracting a bigger base of candidates from whom more viable and electable candidates can be drawn. Frankly, there’s a very limited base of electable anarchocapitalists, and by opening the party to more miniarchists and Constitutionalists who cannot consistently adhere to the Non-Aggression Principle, we automatically increase our chances of winning. Most viable candidates don’t want to risk their reputation by linking themselves with excessive radicalism, and most radicals are not electable candidates (not that all aren’t.)
December 7th, 2006 at 12:31 am
“Frankly, there’s a very limited base of electable anarchocapitalists, and by opening the party to more miniarchists and Constitutionalists who cannot consistently adhere to the Non-Aggression Principle, we automatically increase our chances of winning. Most viable candidates don’t want to risk their reputation by linking themselves with excessive radicalism, and most radicals are not electable candidates (not that all aren’t.)”
EXACTLY!
December 7th, 2006 at 12:53 am
A good anarcho-capitalist would resign if elected.
December 7th, 2006 at 1:04 am
Archives are up, and the trashing starts at 103:55
http://ripple.radiotail.com/357/FTL2006-12-06.mp3
December 7th, 2006 at 1:14 am
I have love and compassion for all those that ran active campaigns within all the parties, and all those that helped them with contributions or assistance!
Running is so hard. So easy to make honest mistakes. So easy for the media and others to attack and spin in intellectual arrogance, malice or ignorance.
I think that most who have not yet reached power are essentially honest.
In Liberty!
A 2006 candidate who can’t give his/her name for fear of retribution from all sides (not on the Badnarik team)
December 7th, 2006 at 1:37 am
Just read an email exchange that would make you cry. a $430K treasure-trove worth of tears
December 7th, 2006 at 1:47 am
Hacker, mail me privately. I like Michael (B) and you have stained his name. I would love to see the Tide pen work, but you cannot wipe out stains without first providing something of substance.
December 7th, 2006 at 1:57 am
Detailed spending is available at the FEC:
http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/dcdev/forms/C00414615/252351/sb/ALL
http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/dcdev/forms/C00414615/244585/sb/ALL
December 7th, 2006 at 2:17 am
Allen,
I am not terribly bothered by the fact that Badnarik didn’t win, or that there were no TV ads, or any number of other things for which you are being criticized. If you gave it your best shot and it didn’t work out, I’m grateful to you for trying.
Obviously, though, some things didn’t go quite as planned, and it troubles me that I haven’t heard a simple acknowledgement of that. I would be more inclined to rush to your defense if you simply said “Guys, I gave it my best and it didn’t work out. If I had it to do over I would have done A instead of B, and X instead of Y. I’ve learned from the experience and will apply it to future campaigns.”
There are some people you’ll never satisfy, but I think the majority of us just want to hear something like that.
Just my 2 cents, for what it’s worth.
December 7th, 2006 at 3:01 am
From the FEC reports disbursement to Articulate Campaigns:
10/2005 – 6,500
11/2005 – 4,000
12/2005 – 3,000
01/2006 – 8,000
02/2006 – 1,000
03/2006 – 5,000
04/2006 – 21,500
05/2006 – 22,500
06/2006 – 13,750
07/2006 – 14,500
08/2006 – 18,500
09/2006 – 5,000
10/2006 – 11,000
TOTAL: $134,250
December 7th, 2006 at 5:03 am
Thanks for the detailed spending sheets.
Is “Articulate Management” Hacker’s company? That seems to be the primary place big expenditures were made, in thousands here, thousands there. And why exactly did they need a $3,054/month office? Surely there is cheaper commercial property? Or why all the publicity consultancy seemed to be like a money vacuum with no results? Or why roundtrip travel to Browne’s memorial service was a valid campaign expenditure? Or why Hacker and Badnarik seemed to live off “business meals” – which took place about every single day?
I don’t see anything to suggest that campaign funds were spent in the most efficient and economic way at all. Certainly it does not demonstrate that the Badnarik campaign is incredibly distinguishable from the rest of the status quo politicians who wine and dine on their donors’ tickets or spend campaign money freely on themselves. The lack of fiscal responsibility or conservatism in the campaign makes me wonder how fiscally conservative Badnarik would be in office with an easily accessible federal budget to live off of. I respect that Badnarik seems to be so dedicated to liberty that he gave up his career to become a “wandering Messiah for liberty”, and thus he doesn’t have a lot of money. That does not excuse the fact that this campaign demonstrated all the traits of the wasteful big government Badnarik claims to criticize. More importantly, I’m trying to see how the campaign of a purported “fiscal conservative” would go $200,000 in debt. With a “politician” like Hacker and a treasure chest of money behind him, it’s not entirely surprising that he would follow the path of the “powerful”, I guess.
Maybe that’s the best lesson we all can learn from this: Don’t be a hypocrite, or you deserve the fate you get.
December 7th, 2006 at 5:04 am
...and you don’t deserve any sympathy or charity from those who feel betrayed by it.
December 7th, 2006 at 5:19 am
What I don’t understand is:
I assumed all the big spending INCLUDED Allen’s fees and the other expenses already listed.. Since, as others have noted, the spending didn’t buy much else.
I thought the whole justification of the big spending ( and not on media buys) was the need for the professional HQ and staff.
Now Allen is saying he DIDN’t GET PAID? And that other vendors havent been paid either?
Then what the hell actually WAS paid for with all that money?
December 7th, 2006 at 5:23 am
Ok, what the fuck is up? grant it I am new (less than 6 months) to the online libertarian coomunity, however I have noticed a couple of things. First this liberty mix thing is, claimed by some, to be a fraud. The date keeps getting pused back, people gave all this money…etc. Then I hop on here and see that, from the post itself and what others of said, that this hacker just wasted 400K, what the fuck, do any of these people give fuck about what is being adovacted, or are people just being robbed. Yes, I know that in any political group you are going to have a few douche bags, but 400K, 4% of the vote, and a whole shit load of bills (oh yeah, he wants more money?!?) its 330 am, i am little drunk and now feeling sick (and its not from the booze). goodnight, I have class at at 930am
December 7th, 2006 at 7:08 am
George Phillies for President!
December 7th, 2006 at 8:32 am
dont forget that libertarians would kill the FEC, and your knowledge of such things would be not quite as detailed as a result. basically none.
so what is it – no FEC figures, no public oversight of elections or that just maybe that some public institutions have value ( the opinion of the value in this case immaterial) ?
I dont approve of all FEC functions, but I LIKE knowing what campaigns and candidates spend with donor money.
what a bunch of unprincipled SOB’s. There’s maybe 3 among you that would not POSTURE to abolish the FEC yesterday if the discussion was raised.
December 7th, 2006 at 10:01 am
One that savors free markets and lets individuals alone has lotsa of appeal.
To who? Bullshit. Where is it? it’s been voted against strongly for the entire history of the LP. The historical record says otherwise.
thats the reason I got started writing about the LP to start with. Black was white, victory was defeat, and truth was lies.
“I like the LP to remain powerless, so it keeps our message pure”.
badnarik blog, 2004
December 7th, 2006 at 10:50 am
“what a bunch of unprincipled SOB’s. There’s maybe 3 among you that would not POSTURE to abolish the FEC yesterday if the discussion was raised.”
Tim, I stopped donating to Badnarik’s campaign exactly because there was so little transparency. The FEC reports tell you very little, especially when expenditures are hidden in payments to Articulate Management. So at best, the FEC provides a false sense of transparency, just as the FDA provides a false sense of safety. If the FEC was abolished tomorrow, then I would not donate to a single campaign that did not have transparency as a principle. Would I get burned by some candidates? Sure. But the FEC didn’t prevent me from getting burned by Hacker, did it? How is this being unprincipled.
It is entirely possible to believe transparency to be a good thing and the FEC to be a bad thing.
December 7th, 2006 at 11:12 am
Jackcjackson,
Good question.
December 7th, 2006 at 11:26 am
LIBERTY magazine ought to feature a whole issue devoted to various opinions on future libertarian strategy. Invite Tim West, David Nolan, Ed Crane, George Phillies, David Friedman, Lew Rockwell, the ghosts of Murray Rothbard, Roger MacBride, Ron Crickenberg, Harry Browne,
candidates such as Ed Clark, Jon Coon, Carla Howell, etc. etc.
Thirty five years of the LP may look like failure (or success) to them, depending on their viewpoints, but we need to look forward and decide what paths are most likely to lead to more liberty.
December 7th, 2006 at 11:31 am
Well, Chris, the FEC would at least send Hacker and Badnarik to jail if they fraudulently reported the places at which they spent money. At least you see that money is funneling ambiguously into Hacker’s company – in an unregulated electoral system with no FEC, you would have to take the expenditures the campaign claims to be making as being honest – what incentive would they have to be honest when they could claim they spent the money one way, actually spent it another, and get away with it, even if you found out about it. The FEC does a lot of crap, but realistically we have to have an organization to run federal elections and set standards to make them consistent with each other, and prevent fraud campaigns that would go unaccountable without any election laws whatsoever.
The FDA has less constitutional justification, although setting basic food and drug health standards by which court systems could make consistent settlements on personal health damages and fraud cases is generally a good idea in the age where self-production of food is generally out of the picture and where there is a vested economic interest in lowering health standards and hiding the truth from consumers.
The problem with the pure libertarian system has more to do with the fact that all “justified use of force” takes place AFTER the initial damage or aggression is already completed. Basically, “yeah, you can drive drunk – until you kill some one, at which point you’ll go to prison.” It ignores situational hazards that are better prevented with government force to prevent greater likely evils, and only invokes more debate over what to do when these individual freedoms clash. You have to have some balance of the two, which is why state solutions are sometimes more “free” than anarchist solutions under certain situations where state tyranny is minimal compared to the tyranny of individuals abusing deregulated freedom at the expense of the freedoms of others. I think that is basically the point Tim’s trying to make.
December 7th, 2006 at 11:36 am
To explain it less ambiguously, look at Somalia.
December 7th, 2006 at 12:00 pm
LIBERTY magazine ought to feature a whole issue devoted to various opinions on future libertarian strategy…
Or if you just give Hacker another $200k, he will provide the top secret solution to all our woes.
December 7th, 2006 at 1:03 pm
For all the cries of “Badnarik should not have hired Hacker” I would suggest that perhaps Badnarik should not have hired any full time campaign management. A professional can provide expertise, organization and full time energy. However, professionals cost money and are used to having money to work with.
A more amateurish campaign would have raised far less money, and it would have fired more shots in the dark vs. doing lots of polling and other marketing studies. However, it would have produced more bang per buck.
Overhead costs keep killing the LP. There are many overhead expenditures that make perfectly good sense for a bigger organization—DC office, 50 state ballot access, fancy database software, etc.—that are ruinous to a smaller organization. The LP needs to think small, to realize its limitations and work effectively within those limitations.
Scientific polling, paid marketing studies, professional management, etc. are excellent ways to determine how to best spend your remaining funds—if you have them. But paying these overhead costs is ludicrous if that’s most of the money you have. Far better to rely on such rough marketing data as a http://www.quiz2d.com/stats and local informal focus group testing.
All this said, I would be extremely interested to know how the Badnarik campaign spent its funds. I do think open book management is appropriate here. Libertarian politics is not capitalism; it is charity. If one buys a car and it performs as advertised, then the purchaser has no right to delve into how the money was spent to produce that car. If one contributes to the local soup kitchen and the homeless are still hungry, then one does have a right to financial accounting.
December 7th, 2006 at 1:06 pm
“Well, Chris, the FEC would at least send Hacker and Badnarik to jail if they fraudulently reported the places at which they spent money. At least you see that money is funneling ambiguously into Hacker’s company.”
Fraud is already illegal. If the FEC were abolished it would still be illegal. Without the FEC, campaigns are still accountable to their contributors. I personally did not like the way the Badnarik campaign handled the campaign finances, specifically with regards to transparency, so I stopped donating. Had they done something different with the money than what they said, then I could file a civil suit. If they were merely pocketing the money, then they could still be prosecuted for wire fraud without the FEC.
BTW, I’ve never claimed Hacker and company were or are committing fraud. What they were doing was perfectly legal, and Hacker was very above board in saying that he wasn’t going to tell contributors anything, which is why the contributions dried up. Had there been no FEC disclosure requirements and no one found out about meals, etc. there would still be the question: What the hell happened to $400,000? The FEC provided very little service in this situation.
December 7th, 2006 at 1:39 pm
I said ’ One that savors free markets and lets individuals alone has lotsa of appeal.’ Meant to say ‘favors’, sorry.
TW says -’ To who? Bullshit. Where is it? it’s been voted against strongly for the entire history of the LP. The historical record says otherwise.’
Answer – To those who actually step out of the two party straight jacket. The historical record has indeed recorded such votes. You ignore my thesis and context with your tired and hackneyed circular argument of LP failure. Just because it hasn’t manifested itself in ‘victory’ doesn’t detract from the fact that third parties are attractive to people with a a particular issue or cohesive movement. I would refer you to a book entitled ” Third Parties in America’ by Steven Rosenstone if you are inclined toward facts rather then heated reaction to perceived failure.
December 7th, 2006 at 1:41 pm
Chris Moore has a very firm grasp of transparency and the FEC. Without the FEC, campaigns who chose to report would likely go through a third party auditing firm like businesses do. Any lies in those reports would make either the campaign, auditing firm, or both liable for fraud. Sometimes people will get scammed, but as pointed out, that happens with the FEC anyways.
Chris also understands why the campaign contributions dried up. Hacker stated that he wasn’t going to disclose the campaign’s plan (get the Democrat to drop out and receive millions of dollars from special interest groups that had yet to be formed). That put off some of the donors. When the bill boards stopped going up, that put off some of the donors. When Hacker made it clear he was not going to disclose what the money was spent on, that put off a lot of the donors.
It’s very simple. And if he realized why the money dried up instead of blaming Mike Nelson, he could have changed his attitude and got the money rolling in again.
December 7th, 2006 at 1:44 pm
No, I wasn’t saying they were or are committing fraud either. But I disagree with saying that the FEC disclosure requirements don’t at least give us a better idea of what what going on.
The question is whether or not the FEC disclosure requirements are a greater evil than an unregulated electoral environment where one can not be sure if the disclosures went to where the campaign says they did. Sure, you could sue under a no-FEC system if you found out concrete evidence that the campaign committed fraud, and if you are willing to risk losing a civil suit to prove that point and to try to reclaim your money.
By creating a basic regulatory reporting system, it makes the fraud into a federal crime instead of one where individuals would have to organize based upon little information, bring class action suits, win, fight a probable appeals process and then maybe get their money back.
While I tend to oppose sweeping overregulation, a very basic level of regulation in most areas to prevent fraud, personal harm/property damage and environmental damage helps keep courts consistent, making rulings based on solid statutes based on rational grounding and for the maximization and defense of liberty, instead of the subjective whims of the judge or jury. And without regulated courts, would it be entirely surprising that the judge and jury could be paid off?
This is the problem with the Non-Aggression Principle and with anarcho-capitalism. You can say “don’t commit force or fraud,” as a guiding rule, but interpreting this as law requires better definitions suited to a complex system with many interests that are irrational or corrupt. I used to think libertarians were intellectuals until I realized that many have an incredibly simplistic worldview and assume universal rationality as the basis for a freedom-centric society.
Interestingly, Marx’s ideal of communism seems to have the same basis for an equality-centric society, if a slightly different definition of rationality, and it seems to die in the same trap – that humans are NOT ALWAYS RATIONAL and thus drawing an entire ideology based upon a singular and unwavering principle ignores the complexities of the real world. While I think libertarianism is a bit more in line with human nature than Marxism, it ignores many other values important to human nature (like security, social order, stability and equality) which classical liberalism better addressed but libertarianism has strayed from addressing in full because the entirety of purist libertarian thought somehow believes that all of these issues will be adequately addressed and that freedom will actually be defended in an anarchist society.
Ok, sort of strayed from my initial point, but that tends to happen.
December 7th, 2006 at 2:22 pm
“By creating a basic regulatory reporting system, it makes the fraud into a federal crime instead of one where individuals would have to organize based upon little information, bring class action suits, win, fight a probable appeals process and then maybe get their money back.”
Civil cases and criminal fraud cases are completely separate. If a campaign commits fraud, it is a federal crime even without the FEC —especially if donations pass state lines or the US postal system is used to solicit funds. What’s the difference between FBI agents and/or local authorities investigating a campaign fraud case and the FEC doing it?
Concerning civil cases, if anything, the FEC requirements make it harder for contributors to win a civil case.
“The question is whether or not the FEC disclosure requirements are a greater evil than an unregulated electoral environment where one can not be sure if the disclosures went to where the campaign says they did.”
That is not the question at all. Your question assumes the false belief that FEC disclosure requirements DO tell us where the money went. In this case, it obviously hasn’t, to the tune of about $200,000. So, do we stick with the FEC that allows campaigns to report the minimum required, allows hiding of disbursements via payments to third-party management firms, and fosters a false sense of transparency? I ask what’s the point?
“... and assume universal rationality as the basis for a freedom-centric society.”
I’m a libertarian exactly because I recognize people make decisions for a myriad of reasons, many of which are highly irrational.
December 7th, 2006 at 2:44 pm
your tired and hackneyed circular argument of LP failure.
Which I’ll keep making as long as it happens to be true, which does not invalidate the other valid arguments against 3rd party success. But the LP is a special case, being as until this year, it’s purpose was to recruit libertarians, not elect them, as you well know.
December 7th, 2006 at 3:02 pm
I forget who said it—it may have been Milton Friedman—but it’s applicable here: In a government regulatory environment, maximum performance tends to float downward toward minimum requirements.
We have the FEC. It has specific reporting requirements—and if those requirements are met, the natural assumption is that everything’s kosher. The only time campaign finance matters are brought up as an issue vis a vis a particular campaign is in the context of whether or not the requirements were honestly met by that campaign.
If you meet the FEC requirements, you’re golden, even if you spent the money you raised incompetently. If you didn’t meet the FEC requirements you’re an asshat, even if you spent every dime in the best possible way.
In the absence of the FEC, contributors—and voters—would not have a crutch of faux accountability to lean on. They’d either have to insist that campaigns and candidates who want their support be truly transparent in their fundraising and spending practices (by subjecting themselves to third party audits/evaluations and publishing the results, for example), or they’d have to acknowledge that those campaigns and candidates weren’t doing so. Or, third alternative, they could stop pretending that they care about such accountability (that might very well be the result, detrimental as it woud be).
The FEC allows us to pretend that campaigns are accountable without doing the work of forcing them to actually be accountable.
All that said, I so far don’t see any case for allegations of “fraud” versus Allen Hacker or the Badnarik campaign.
Running on the “this race is winnable” case isn’t fraud, because all races are theoretically winnable and it’s prima facie understood that there’s no guarantee of victory.
Mr. Hacker was avowedly non-transparent from the beginning. He told us he wasn’t going to detail the campaign’s operations and spending, and he didn’t.
When he claimed that a billboard was up, it was. There were even pictures on the web site for those who were interested in the content of the billboards, and the campaign said where they were located for those who wanted to think about whether or not they were effective in terms of number of views, etc.
When he claimed he had a poll that put Badnarik at 32%, he did state that it was a name recognition poll, not a preference poll, even if he didn’t emblazon that fact in 72-point font.
Once again, while he didn’t have it skywritten over Austin, he was fairly clear on the fact that he didn’t plan to spend the money raised on radio or television advertising and such. He didn’t outline a media campaign and then fail to deliver on it. Those who were watching knew that no such media campaign was intended, and those who weren’t watching should have been watching if they were considering contributing.
The meals at Outback and such may or may not have been the best idea, but they were reported in those FEC filings, and any contributor or prospective contributor who didn’t want his money spent on ribeye and bloomin’ onions was free to not write checks, or to stop writing checks (they were also a very small fraction of the campaign’s spending).
It all comes down to two questions:
1) Did Allen Hacker say he was going to do X—X being an item that he could plausibly guarantee, such as buying TV ads, not a non-guaranteeable item such as winning the election—and then decline to deliver per stated terms (i.e. “if we raise $10,000 with this drive, we will do X,” followed by $10,000 in contributions and no X)? If he did, then there’s support for a claim of fraud.
2) Did Allen Hacker (or any responsible campaign member) make false statements after the fact as to how the money was spent? If so, then there’s support for a claim of fraud.
Spending money in ways that didn’t achieve victory, or even in ways that couldn’t achieve victory, is not necessarily a sign of fraud. It could be a sign of incompetence, and/or it could be a sign that things which might have worked, didn’t work for this or that reason. The fact that someone sells you a car that’s a lemon and that you buy a car that’s a lemon is not proof that the person selling you a lemon knew it was a lemon or intended for it to be a lemon.
Barring any hypothetical forthcoming evidence of fraud, the sheer scale of the thing screams “incompetence” to the neutral observer. A full report might swing that estimation toward “things which might have worked, but didn’t work for this or that reason.” It’s up to Mr. Hacker to decide whether or not he wants to try to achieve such a swing, but he should realize that the burden of doing so falls on him, not on everyone else.
Regards,
Tom Knapp
December 7th, 2006 at 3:21 pm
So who keeps the RV?
And what were the other staff members (six total?) doing during this time? Besides eating out and traveling.
December 7th, 2006 at 3:47 pm
Tell Mr. Badnarik that since I already subsidize him through my tax dollars, since he refuses to pay them which increases the burden on the rest of us, he’s already got my contribution.
Sighhh….another LP huckster. More than just changing the platform, the LP needs to get of candidates who are shysters.
December 7th, 2006 at 5:53 pm
“I can make that much money in five seconds! Gosh! Frickin’ idiot!”
It’s so beautiful that my ex lives there!
But yeah, for real here… I think it’s absolutely hilarious how they’ve met their ends. They got their just desserts and now the LP’s gotta rebuild… but it can do that. We’ve had to do it before. But now, I think the LP’s a little more insulated against hucksters and Ponzi schemes.
Paulie, I’m reposting your letter on LFV. That was beautiful, man.
December 7th, 2006 at 5:57 pm
[...] There’s more on the whole Badnarik/Hacker dustup on Third Party Watch. Git on over and check it out. [...]
December 7th, 2006 at 9:22 pm
Tom K.
I think we’re using fraud as a hypothetical more so than as actually accusing the Badnarik campaign of doing so.
The FEC reporting requirement are of course not completely open or accountable, but I still argue they are better than nothing. At least we know how much money went to Hacker’s company, how much was spent at Outback or Chili’s, etc. Having a (supposedly) objective force backed by the force of law to report to at least invites speculation into the fees instead of being forced to rely on the willing honesty of both the campaign and the independent audit agency – because they would be in even hotter water were they to commit fraud.
And it’s also cheaper than paying for an independent audit, which could cut into a huge chunk of a campaign budget. And under the premise “I would not give money to a candidate who does not undergo an independent audit,” unknown candidates with little budgets and thus can’t afford such an audit would be immediately disqualified from your giving list. Sure, you could argue that it’s an investment in more donations from people who see how honest you are, but it assumes you have the money up front. The FEC requirements are not free to comply with, but the cost of them is minimal compared to hiring a high-quality audit company and the work by the campaign is the same either way – keeping track of receipts and submitting them.
Chris, both a criminal and civil fraud would be more difficult to prove without FEC reporting requirements because they give a basis for an objective statuatory definition of electoral fraud. Both the grounds and the fate of your lawsuit and/or a criminal fraud case would hinge entirely on the opinions on the interpretation of the concept of “fraud” instead of on solid legal (field-specific) groundwork. There would be inconsistency among court districts, between campaigns and between enforcement agencies. The judicial system might eventually work out a definition via “legislation through the judiciary” but in what way would this be binding without federal legislation following the guidelines from the judicial system? What if the judicial system mandates disclosure requirements anyway, which requires bureaucratic infrastructure to enforce? As either the definition will remain too vague to develop objective interpretations of electoral fraud or as minimal regulation will happen anyway – on top of the fact that at least we see the direction the money moves, if not the direct report of expenses, which helps us define a more solid criteria for giving – I see the FEC disclosure requirements as preferable to no disclosure requirements.
The argument Tim and I are making is that when you take liberty to the most radical extremes and drop government out of the equation entirely, force and fraud are indirectly enabled and there is diminished infrastructure to combat it. This is why “liberty=reducing government=only value” does not work; because there gets to a point where government is reduced so much that there lacks objective definitions of rights (again see: Somalia). It assumes that the sum of all irrational individual actors who abuse liberty for their own ends and purposes at the expense of the liberty of others will always be outweighed by the sum of all government abuses, even in a miniarchist system designed to maximize freedom. You have to look at the net amount of freedom and realize that the government is not the only actor taking away freedom, damaging health and property, etc. Then you have to develop a government based upon maximizing freedom AND minimizing the net abuse of freedom by all actors involved in the real world, be they government, corporate, non-profit organization, gang/mafia or individual. Simply saying “no force or fraud” and expecting all solutions to come from that statute is not enough to do this adequately, as sometimes a little force here prevents a worse force or fraud.
December 8th, 2006 at 12:02 am
Tom Knapp wrote:
“Barring any hypothetical forthcoming evidence of fraud, the sheer scale of the thing screams “incompetence” to the neutral observer. A full report might swing that estimation toward “things which might have worked, but didn’t work for this or that reason.” It’s up to Mr. Hacker to decide whether or not he wants to try to achieve such a swing,”
That’s a reasonable position.
“but he should realize that the burden of doing so falls on him, not on everyone else.”
Non-sequitur.
Anyway, I always appreciate you more when you try to inject logic into the discussion. Hopefully, one day you’ll succeed and a read discussion can be had. (I chuckle as I realize that my best bet in this forum is to look forward to the creative ways in which I’ll be accused of being the only one who makes that impossible.)
Pauly, though, that Nigerian take-off thing… Now that was goddam funny.
0December 8th, 2006 at 12:36 am
Just wondering – do the LP reformers have a position on what buffalo wings would taste like if chickens didn’t exist?
The argument that, under an anarcho-capitalist system, there would be no FEC and therefore no accountability, is quite an eye-opener.
But, the problem might solve itself – especially if there are no candidates running for Congress because there is no Congress (because there is no federal government)!
Of course, mainstream fascists and socialists would look upon the advocacy of eliminating the federal government as radical. So, in the spirit of common-sense moderation, I propose that the federal government be entirely eliminated EXCEPT for the FEC!
I’m still not sure what lesson I am supposed to learn from Somalia, though. Is it that everything runs smoothly until the UN or some other nation attempts to install a central government in Somalia? Maybe the Somalis just need an FEC.
December 8th, 2006 at 1:02 am
Sean,
to be fair to Badnarik I thought that he was unemployed when he failed to file taxes. As has been mentioned by many he probably had no tax “liability” anyway.
Since I read about how his book has been a smashing success for the publisher, he does his “classes”,etc- That probably isn’t the case anymore. Though dpending on his expenses he still might not have much of a tax liability, if any.
December 8th, 2006 at 1:17 am
Nick,
When I read your article, the first thing that comes to mind is Leonard Read’s classic essay “I, Pencil”. In it, the author details how much complexity and cooperation go into making even the simplest of manufactured goods.
People can and will co-operate in the absence of government regulation. We’re all guided by self-interest, and the human tendency is to build structures that tend to make honesty easy and dishonesty difficult. The government doesn’t fund Underwriter’s Laboratories or the ISO:9001 certification boards, but they’re universally relied upon and extremely credible. I think a some private-sector agencies like that, modeled along the lines of the FEC could do the FEC’s job better and more cheaply.Perhaps each campaign would feel the need to have 2 or 3 oversight auditors to ensure the appearance of credibility.
Looking at the present Hacker situation (which may or may not involve fraud), wouldn’t you rather have a couple of privately funded auditing reports to look at? I know I would. I think this could be done cheaply, and if it had been done for this campaign we would know whether Hacker is or isn’t a crook. That would be far better than our present state of affairs.
December 8th, 2006 at 2:05 am
Allen Hacker wrote (in response to Tom Knapp):
“Non-sequitur.” (in reference to “It’s up to Mr. Hacker to decide whether or not he wants to try to achieve such a swing, but he should realize that the burden of doing so falls on him, not on everyone else)”.
Allen, you may want to know what words mean before you use them: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_%28logic%29
If you decide to try to swing public perception in a certain way, it is clearly your burden, not the rest of the world’s burden. I’m a bit shocked that you think the conclusion is faulty.
Allen Hacker continued:
“Anyway, I always appreciate you more when you try to inject logic into the discussion. Hopefully, one day you’ll succeed and a real discussion can be had.”
Allen dismisses Tom’s entire post as a failed attempt to be logical because of the above. What a convenient way to avoid facing criticism!
December 8th, 2006 at 2:40 am
Matt,
Just what IS our current state of affairs, and how is it more so now as distinct from every election-cycle cannable-fest since ‘74?
I mean, someone always bites off a double or triple mouthfull, and takes a lot of heat for it. Sometimes it’s been uglier than others, but there’s always a whipping boy and he’s always been whipped for presumption instead of what he really did wrong.
I know what I did wrong, and I wouldn’t do it again. And unless I tell you the most wrong thing I did, you nor almost anybody else will ever guess it.
Our current state of affairs is that no one politely asked me to explain anything. Some follow-on commentators have politely explained to me that they think if I answered the questions it would all work out. But the simple fact is that they weren’t questions at all until it was too late, and then they were asked as though the people asking them thought they owned me and could tell me what to do.
I apologize that I am not and refuse to be an enabler.
Our current state of affairs is that we are a gaggle of antisocial misfits who think we own each other and can dictate each other’s thoughts, methods and actions. We desperately lack mutual respect, each of us overestimates both our abilities and our value to the world, and worse, in every way including these, and despite or most precious desires, we are absolutely normal.
We are not different, we are not special, as a group we’re just as stupid as any other, we inflict and suffer more peer pressure on each other than a gaggle of Heathers (see the movie), and we are meaner to our friends than most people are to their enemies. It’s probably a good thing most of us don’t have children, because (a) they’d grow up just as damaged as any other long-term abuse victim, and (b) it would take longer for Darwin to rid the world of our folly.
Nobody here is without culpability in our current situation.
Of course, as to the more immediate slice of our current situation, wherein you guys are all making yourselves nuts by overamplifying each others’ fears, suspicions and desperation, well, all it would have taken to prevent that would have been for anybody at all to stomp on the first lie. And all it will take to put an end to it now is relax and see what comes out of the report.
Of course, none of that is going to work so long as the report isn’t read with an objective eye, the information isn’t considered through an undecided mind, and egos and posturing don’t define the response.
I expect exactly three people here to do that, five to make the supreme effort not to, and most to get confused by my refusal to write shallowly in sound bytes.
This can’t forever remain about which of five or nine guys is best, while the fighting they do makes sure they’ll never have to build a bigger clubhouse.
We all like to think the libertarian world would be better the further it went. How idiotic must we be to ignore that no matter how beautiful and logical you think the theory is, we don’t have any more government than badly-behaved people invite.
And the essence of our situation is that we demonstrate enough rudeness, vile manners and bad behavior on one discussion thread than the public ever needs to hear about before it dismisses us as psychos.
Read this thread from the top down again. Note that Austin asks that it not go too negative right after he positions a fundraising appeal as begging. It’s a subtle thing, but enabling to those who don’t need a lot of encouragement to become a pack.
Then notice how I was responding to the commentary. I genuinely wanted real discourse. But it quickly became impossible as my responses were hacked and twisted and it once again became mostly about me and very little about what happened.
And it’s been the sewer since then.
Sure, the first time Austin did subtle positioning thing I came at it directly, not realizing that accusers and complainers, no matter how subtle, are off-limits here, and I got slammed. So I apologized for not knowing the rules, developed a decent relationship with Austin, and set out to be more gentle with the folly.
But here, you don’t get a first chance, and my best efforts were ignored by people who couldn’t recognize the apology and move on like gentlemen. At first I thought I could just stay out of it and it would run its course. But No, people started calling me and demanding that I defend myself against the outlandish accusations that were going on over here.
So I dropped back in after learning that these blogs are becoming archive resources within the fabric of the internet and that things long since disposed of are continually dredged up and a whole new bacth of inquisitors wants answers to something that happened before they got their fist keyboard. Don’t believe it, ask the Red Cross how many times every week it still gets slammed for something it fired a CEO over a decade ago. And it’s always discussed without regard for the fact that it’s not current.
Fine, I decided, let’s dance. Let’s see this through to its logical end: let’s pound these inventive and libelous accusers until they either put up because they have real evidence (Not!) or shut up and desist, like honorable people all over the world are expected to do. Or at least until it bacame obvious that they weren’t credible.
Imagine my surprise after Mike Nelson admitted right on the blog, after being carefully questioned by Tom Knapp, that he had in fact been on an agenda to destroy the Badnarik for Congress campaign and me in particular, and when Tom asked for reasons why and got attacked himself… {{whew}} and yet people who were right there at the confession are still parroting Mike’s rhetoric and accusations even now, feeding you late arrivals into thinking that something that has been settled is still a real concern.
I’ll write the report, never ever said I wouldn’t. But no one gets to tell me when and how. And I can promise you, no one is going to like what it says. Not you, not Mike or Tom or Steven or the LP or even me.
Because as Jim Morrison used to say, No one here gets out alive.
That’s our current situation. No one here gets out alive. Show me a single LP presidential candidate who wasn’t shredded without decent substantiation just because somebody wanted it done differently or by somebody else or both.
I thought we had a group that was ready to win. I thought the public was pissed enough to consider us. I thought the candidate and money was there to do it, and that it would take a lot but was doable.
I still think it could have been done had only a few things been different, not the least of which being the LP’s tendency to tolerate members who eat its young and murder the reputations and motivation of its warriors.
On those points, and others as well, I was wrong. Mostly, I was wrong in thinking that the self-appointed spokespeople for a group whose entire premise depends on universal respect would have trouble demonstrating any at all.
I thought that a charismatic candidate, a big-money list and an angry electorate ripe for the only intelligent political philosophy ever devised might add up to victory. But I was wrong there too, because I forgot that death in this party comes from a thousand cuts delivered by associates and carried in on the wind by well-meaning friends who should never have bothered the candidate with countless mentions of concern over baseless rumors just because I wouldn’t divulge my strategy too early and wouldn’t tell social muggers how much I was paying the staff after they all almost quit because of the beating and naming on the internet they were suffering simply because they accepted paying positions.
I was definitely wrong in thinking that the socialistic tendencies of this group would pass from the conversation when I reminded them the staff weren’t their slaves.
But a few of them have never been in it for honesty, truth and the American way, because they only care about destroying anybody who might have enough integrity to see their absence of it.
Others are just plain schizoid, caught between their intellectual libertarianism and they dictatorial demeanor.
I was wrong to think that just because a person called himself a libertarian meant he believed in other people’s liberty as much as he demanded his own.
I was wrong in expecting sanity.
0December 8th, 2006 at 2:48 am
Tom Bryant,
Try to get with the continuum before you start playing grammarian.*
I bear the burden of my assertions, I have no argument with that. I also hold that others bear the burdens of theirs.
Nowhere have I ever asked that others explain my stuff. “[Allen] should realize that the burden of doing so (try to achieve such a [change in public perception]) falls on him, not on everyone else” is non-sequitur because it doesn’t refer to anything I’ve ever said or expected.
0December 8th, 2006 at 4:13 am
torah:
You asked:
“So who keeps the RV?”
Which RV is that?
0December 8th, 2006 at 7:23 am
Allen,
I hope I haven’t sounded like I’m attacking you. If I had evidence that you did anything untoward, I would be spewing bile. As it stands, I’m only asking questions. I’m not calling you a crook, but some people are. Maybe you can stop them by posting the campaign expense summary on the web. I hope you will, I hope the campaign’s 100% clean too, If it is, you’ll hear no more from me. I’m not pulling my hair out over the election results. I know people like free porridge. I know libertarians like to fight, especially on the web. I enjoy a little of this myself, but if you post everything and it checks out, I won’t have another bad word to say. Promise.
December 8th, 2006 at 10:19 am
“The argument Tim and I are making is that when you take liberty to the most radical extremes and drop government out of the equation entirely”
Tim was implying that those who railed against Hacker AND believe in eliminating the FEC are unprincipled hypocrites. That is clearly not the case. You are making valid arguments for the continuation of the FEC IF one assumes that “greater good” should be the goal of government. I like transparency, I just don’t believe it should be forced at the point of a gun.
Once again, we are not going to agree because we start from different assumptions about what government should do. You know … you’re a nazi commie statist and I’m a radical everything-is-black-and-white politically inept anarchist.
December 8th, 2006 at 10:38 am
“We desperately lack mutual respect, each of us overestimates both our abilities and our value to the world, and worse, in every way including these, and despite or most precious desires, we are absolutely normal.”
Respect is earned.
December 8th, 2006 at 10:51 am
Allen,
You should check out the link to non sequiters. It an illogical conclusion, not a lack of reference. Tom’s conclusion, as you admit, was correct. There is nothing illogical in what he has said. I’m not sure why you insist that his logic is flawed.
You have been asked polited about the expenses. I had asked you before the election, and I defended the campaign on various blogs and at libertarian meetings. I toed the “hey, lets wait and see what happens, but in the meantime don’t hurt the campaign” line over and over again.
As a contributer and a defender of you, I feel burned by the request of 200k in order to write a report. Now i understand from your last post that you will write the report regardless. That is cool with me, I understand folks are busy and the report will come out when it ocmes out. I just wish you would have come right out and said that instead of playing the blame game here.
As you said, you bear the burden of proof. When you come here and make claims that group X or person Y caused you to fail, we want to see something of substance to back it up. Your report isn’t ready, so you don’t have that available, and it makes you look really bad.
This fundraiser was a mistake, but don’t compound it anymore by staying on these blogs. Get the report done when you can, and let the facts speak for themselves.
December 8th, 2006 at 11:00 am
Allen: you said “big money list.” Therein lies the error. A bit of insider information on the Libertarian Party: a very large fraction of the party membership has been recruited by presidential campaigns. They see presidential campaigns as a means to get the word out. Getting the Libertarian candidate into the presidential debate in order to have a Hollywood/Galt’s Speech moment is their dream. LP News has promoted this view for decades, because it has worked to raise money.
Those who treat the LP as a real political party intent on actually winning elections are a vocal and active minority. They disproportionately show up for conventions, thus are not reflective of the fundraising base.
When I was on the SPT the issue of using national fundraising power to actually win some state legislative elections was brought up. Ron Crickenberger said it had been attempted, but few were willing to donate to such an effort.
When Harry Browne swung by Northern Virginia, the crowd that showed up was several times the size of the Virginia LP convention that year. It was a big, impressive event. Much money was raised.
But in the end, most of the Browne campaign money went into airplane tickets and other overhead expenses.
So, the list you had was a mix of people who automatically give the the LP presidential candidate, and included many people who had been burned repeatedly by grand promises with lousy results. The list you had had limited fundraising potential.
Furthermore, longtime Libertarians have been treated to many, many hype filled fundraising letters. Perry Willis is a true master. So is Michael Cloud. Your secret plan fundraising letter seemed pallid by comparison. (This is not an insult; they are GOOD.) So, you had a fundraising list containing people who had been through some truly manic cycles of hype and disappointment.
I was excited when Michael decided to run for Congress. I had asked presidential candidates to run lower down the ticket. National focus on a legislative race is what the LP needs to do if they are going to play with the big boys. I would have preferred state house over Congress, but that is wishing too hard.
While excited by the prospect, my donation record is pretty paltry ($45 in 2006; don’t remember if I gave any before that). The primary reason is the large amount of time and money that I put into the LRC. Another is the high cost of fundraising I witnessed. These high-dollar efforts would have made sense had the pool of available money been larger.
————————
Addressed to all:
Regarding the tie-in between the various reform efforts (spending/organization vs. issues), there is a connection. At the 2006 LP National Convention, I identified three major factions:
1. The reformers, who wanted to have a more moderate platform in order to broaden the base.
2. The protesters, who believe that the purpose of the LP is to get the message out and change minds. (i.e., Ernie Hancock)
3. Those in denial, who believe the problems that the LP faces are not enough publicity, incompetant campaign management, a conspiracy to keep us off the ballot, etc.
Either of the first two factions could be right, albeit not within the same organization. The third faction is just plain wrong. To raise the kind of money needed to win, to get respectful press coverage, requires having a much larger base, and getting that larger base requires having a more palatable message. Should the message be broadened, and the base grown, high overhead operations will make sense. THe cost of some meals at Outback Steak House for hard working activists will be small potatoes.
The other logical options is #2. Don’t try to be big and broad based. Have fun and get publicity on the cheap by doing street theatre for liberty.
December 8th, 2006 at 11:44 am
The problem with claims that the FEC could be privatized and made entirely voluntary is that, historically, political campaigns have resisted to the last extreme any and all attempts to reveal the sources of their war chests. This has led to rampant bribery and subornment and made prosecutions for corruption vastly more difficult.
It’s not enough to make corruption illegal; you also need a system that allows you to prove the charge in a court of law. The FEC is not very effective at all, and it’s an active hindrance in some areas, but it’s the best method found so far.
December 8th, 2006 at 12:33 pm
Tim was implying that those who railed against Hacker AND believe in eliminating the FEC are unprincipled hypocrites.
no, I’m pointing out that libertarians who use a government service funded by what they claim is “theft by taxation” over and over again ( as was done in the 2nd Harry Browne Campaign vis a vis hornblower and now Badnarik are EXACTLY hypocrites, because they turn to this service repeatedly even when they claim to desire to abolish it ( which is a seperate issue) and in the next election year use it to find information they desire to know.
Hacker has nothing to do with it. I think the FEC is another overreaching, bloated, wasteful government dept. that should not be a third as big or expensive as it is, and should BUTT OUT of non- federal election campaigns where dollar amounts dont justify their involvement. What that level is is a subject for another time.
but seeing FEC reporting used by people who claim to desire to abolish all government is exactly that. Hypocrisy. It’s not like a road you have to use to get to work. You have the option to not use it, but this is the 3rd or 4 th time I’ve seen libertarians go hug the FEC figures after an election to get access to information they desired to know, and at the same say they want all government eliminated.
The FEC is a real pain in the ass. it should not even be involved in any non federal campaign. It should be 1/3 the size and cost it is, like almost all government.
but it provides a service that REALLY PRINCIPLED LIBERTARIANS seem to use a lot.
December 8th, 2006 at 1:12 pm
Tom Bryant,
I did come right out and say it. I said that if I didn’t get paid, I’d be busier and the report would take longer to deliver. If you’re fine with that, I’m fine too. I also said I didn’t expect to be paid. So why sis I mention all the numbers and not just the ones that need paid? I thought people should know the whole picture, just like you do. I just have a different idea as to how to present it than some here have.
As for the non-sequitur, discussing it too long might be one, too. I’d prefer to wrap it up by just saying that when a statement indicates a position, and that position is based on or posits a conclusion, pointing at the statement and saying non-sequitur indicts the entire departure from context, not just the words. The statement was a declaration of something, conclusion or belief, call it what you lke, that does not follow from what was actually said by me. Literally, non-sequitur means, “it follows logically—Not!”
If you have more to say on the matter, please don’t feel that I was trying to close you off, by all means say it, But I won’t debate this one further.
0December 8th, 2006 at 1:17 pm
Allen, you appear to be suffering from Paranoid Schizophrenia.
On another note, I think this bears repeating:
From the FEC reports disbursement to Articulate Campaigns:
10/2005 – 6,500
11/2005 – 4,000
12/2005 – 3,000
01/2006 – 8,000
02/2006 – 1,000
03/2006 – 5,000
04/2006 – 21,500
05/2006 – 22,500
06/2006 – 13,750
07/2006 – 14,500
08/2006 – 18,500
09/2006 – 5,000
10/2006 – 11,000
TOTAL: $134,250
December 8th, 2006 at 1:18 pm
Matt,
I appreciate that. You are among the follow-on group, then, who did ask politely but did so or got here too late after the abuse had begun, to see an immediate gratification to your request.
But it’s not just my stubbornness in not letting abuser have what they want easily, it’s the sheer scope of the thing.
As I’ve said, it certainly can’t be done here, (a) it’s too big a report and (b) it won’t be addressed as a whole. So it has to be done in a more appropriate venue, and it can’t be done until it can be done.
So when you suggest, as several others have, that I just go forth with the report, don’t make the mistake of assuming that anyone, including me, knows the date and hour of its passing.
Thanks.
0December 8th, 2006 at 1:21 pm
Bottom line: Badnarik, and all the suckers that donated $430k to this scam, got screwed – big time.
December 8th, 2006 at 1:27 pm
Mike N,
You were bad, you confessed. Stop trying to obfuscate those important facts with ad hominum and the already-discredited repetition of incomplete information.
You’re typical of California liberals: you seem to think that if you tell lie often enough, it will become true. Goebbles, too, now that I think of it. Well, it won’t, no matter how many unfortunates you trick into beleving it, it’s still a lie.
The bottom line is, you were bad. You were rude to Ron Paul’s staff, you lied to me about it, and then you tried to destroy the Badnarik campaign and me personally to preempt the truth from coming out or being taken seriously if it did.
And you’ve confessed in open blogging.
There’s no question. You have no credibility. Your name will become synonymous with Benedict Arnold, and people will forever be embarrased to have thought you were their friend.
0December 8th, 2006 at 1:28 pm
Paranoid Schizophrenia. Seek help.
December 8th, 2006 at 1:32 pm
Allen:
Look people have asked you many times throughout this thread to open your books and show an even more detailed summary of your spending than the FEC report. Whining about the fact that we aren’t polite about the way we ask you or getting all defensive at how people could dare to attack your credibility and the job you did is skirting this request through diversionary tactics.
YOU and Michael are the ones in the hot water, not us. YOU are the ones requesting money. And nobody but YOU who could have dragged that campaign that into debt. Mike Nelson certainly didn’t do it. Many candidates got much, much further than Badnarik with zero budgets. Maybe this is why nobody is treating you cordially, nor should you expect anyone to.
You have in no way justified why any person should even waste a single cent to help you. Nobody is fooled by your dangling some “magic solution report” carrot over our heads.
I suggest if you want people to treat you cordially, a huge dose of honesty and humility would go a long ways. Open the books, apologize for your errors and write up the report without any conditions attached. If you ran an honest campaign with honest mistakes and we have taken our criticisms too far, I will be the first to apologize. But your deterrence from transparency is only making us all even more skeptical and questioning about your honesty, because it really looks like you have something to hide.
Maybe you just don’t want your enormous ego to be hurt. If your worried about barbs, get out of politics and go “start another million-dollar company.”
I would be the first to agree with the whole “the LP has failed due to personal acrimony between the membership” argument you make, but there’s a distinction between counter-productive ideological acrimony and criticism over the management of a campaign which most of us see as inept and possibly even fraudulent, given that the truth has been eclipsed behind your ego and your lack of transparency. Had you been open from the beginning (and I assume for Mike N. and others this goes further back than just the Badnarik campaign) instead of diverting attention away from your failure and diverting criticism away from yourself, instead accepting the criticism and turning your failures into lessons learned, I think the way most of us are approaching you and your call for more money might be rather different.
As you yourself said, the internet is an archive, and you’d better recognize that none of us here will probably ever trust you or contribute to any campaign you are involved with until you act like a man with any dignity. If you don’t want this campaign and the fallout to haunt you forever, I suggest an immediate change of course in both your attitude and your strategy. Until you come fully forward with us and explain how possibly the best funded campaign in the LP this year went into debt, how the disproportionately high expenses paid to your company and you were justified given the monumental failure of the campaign, etc. you have zero right to whine when we call you out.
December 8th, 2006 at 1:33 pm
Hacker says:
“Our current state of affairs is that no one politely asked me to explain anything.”
Okay, I will ask nicely:
Oh sweet sugar-plum, teddy bear, fuzzy wuzzy, sweetie, muchkin, please, oh please, with lots of sugar and chocolate on top, will you be so kind as to tell us where all the money went?
Pretty, pretty please Allen?
Or do you need another $200k first?
December 8th, 2006 at 2:02 pm
Allen Hacker,
I know this is Ad hominem but,
You’re a dick.
December 8th, 2006 at 2:17 pm
Allen,
You’re comparing people who ostensibly care quite a bit about liberty to Herr Goebbels and Benedict Arnold. I know you’re backed into a corner here, but that’s worse almost anything else that’s been said on this thread. I know you’re under pressure, but we need something. We’ve tried you in absentia. That, unfortunately, is how message boards work. Now, you need to throw open the books and make your appeal. This should, I believe, precede any more requests for funds.
Tim and the other FEC-huggers,
Whenever free people do anything or observe anything in an unfree society they open themselves up to charges of hypocrisy. Most of it is ridiculous. Your FEC claim certainly is that!
December 8th, 2006 at 2:24 pm
Nick,
You’re not listening. If you’re not listening now, when will you be?
I don’t have to be nice to rudeness. Demanding, or even suggesting, that I be nice to rudeness is enabling rudeness.
This is not about my ego or arrogance, it’s about the arrogance of people who accuse people without basis, and the thoughtlessness of those who buy into vapor-charges.
I am not on the blogs to render a report. That will happen elsewhere. I’m here to expose the thoughtlessness and intellectual dishonesty that masquerade here as inquiry. I’ve done that repeatedly, culminating in the confession of Mike Nelson and the exposure of Darcy Richardson.
But the net has short-term amnesia, new people hear old discredited accusations and pick them up in the middle of the conversation rather than so some research, and here we go again.
The real disappointment is that a lot of people saw Mike Nelson’s confession but chose to discount or deny it and keep their focus on me. It’s a damn shame that people will defend criminal abuse of speech and won’t stand up to the real enemy within.
I’ve given you guys every decent respone the conversation deserved, including an apology or two, and every slam it invited. If people want a higher level of discourse, all they have to do is engage in it, as you have here. (Except for the part about ignoring what I wrote just above, the bit about how people keep coming along too late and asking me to do what can only gratify the bad behavior here.)
The report will happen. People who are paying attention will understand everything. Those who just want to look good at the expense of others will just keep doing what they’ve always done, and those of you who continue to enable them will keep getting what you’ve alwats gotten.
It’s all very simple, really, I’ve seen it from the beginning of the LP. Every local, regional, and now, net group of LPers has its own couple of hell-hounds who drive sensible people away, leaving the LP forever stripped down to a core of die-hards and the few who make their task impossible.
In the world as they control it, you have 3 choices: (a) be one of them or one of their defenders/enablers, (b) be a dogged die-hard and keep banging your head against the walls they’ll never stop throwing out in front of you, (c) quit.
I won’t quit, and I won’t take either of the two usual paths. I’m doing something new in the LP, standing up to the destroyers. It’s what I decided to do, it’s what I’m doing, and it’s what I will have done.
Now, it’s your turn to choose: join the destroyers, try to make it work in spite of the destroyers, quit in frustration and/or exasperation, or stand up to them.
Choose.
0December 8th, 2006 at 2:31 pm
Schizophrenia (SKITS-oh-FREEN-ee-uh)—-one of the most damaging of all mental disorders—-causes its victims to lose touch with reality. In the paranoid form of this disorder, they develop delusions of persecution or personal grandeur.
December 8th, 2006 at 2:32 pm
Matt:
Think about what you’re saying. You tried me in absentia? You’ll choke on that star chamber before I’ll accept a directive from it, do you understand, my friend? Get your head of of the fascist spitoon before you drown!
Dieved:
You find what you’re looking for. Turn me around; I have your lunch right here.
– - –
My god, we’re all so concerned, and so witty here! Yep, this is what’s going to save liberty.
No wait, 35 years of it, and look where we are now. Nobody under 40 even knows what’s been lost since the LP was started.
Star chambers! Defending slander and libel as freedom of speech! Subversion! Treason! Ad hominem! O my!
Tell me again, Togo, when we meet the enemy, he is whom?
0December 8th, 2006 at 2:39 pm
Mike Nelson:
Thank you so much for admitting to even more! Now we know why you never check the facts or bother to need any to make your accusations. Your delusions of grandeur are all you need.
But why am I even responding to you, a confessed saboteur and now a self-identified lunatic?
Okay, you haven’t really confessed to being a luntic, that was just me, practicing down in case I ever go truly nuts and decide I wanna be you. What you haveve just shown is what the world looks like through your tortured soul.
I pity you.
0December 8th, 2006 at 2:41 pm
Schizophrenia (SKITS-oh-FREEN-ee-uh)—-one of the most damaging of all mental disorders—-causes its victims to lose touch with reality. In the paranoid form of this disorder, they develop delusions of persecution or personal grandeur.
December 8th, 2006 at 2:52 pm
Allen, surely you can use some of that $134,250 that you have sucked out of the Badnarik campaign (so far) to hire a good mental health professional. Paranoid Schizophrenia is a controllable disease.
I would recommend a lobotomy… for the sake of society.
December 8th, 2006 at 3:17 pm
$134,250 equates to a 31% commission on $430k. Not bad, considering the the donors bought a lump of coal.
December 8th, 2006 at 4:41 pm
Wow…
Allen Hacker badly mismanages a campaign (I don’t believe there was any fraud or pocket lining going on), and donors want a report of what the money was spent on.
This isn’t some holy crusade to stand up to the bad elements of the LP. And this isn’t a money making scheme by Badnarik and Hacker either. No one here is mentally impaired, and no one here is a Benedict Arnold.
The way I see it…
Hacker knows he screwed up big time, and its only natural to not rush into a public report of the screw up.
In the mean-time, folks are enjoying accusing Hacker of a lot of crap about the money and where it went.
Because Hacker is not ready to own up all the details, he instead dodges and fights back. The attackers know that this makes him look incredibly more guilty. The public turns on Hacker, making him even less ready to own up to all the details in the report. The cycle continues.
This won’t end until either folks stop accusing Hacker of fraud/pocket lining or Hacker shows that the money was spent in good faith.
The only way the former will happen is when Hacker accounts for the money, and the only way the latter will happen is when Hacker accounts for the money.
The ball is in your court Allen. This will go on until you make your move. And because you have a huge question mark next to your credibility until the report is done, no one is really going to buy the “holy crusade against the bad elements in the LP” rhetoric.
Mike Nelson,you sure know how to get a rise out of Hacker and he makes himself look foolish, but you’re much more productive when you ask the question on all of our minds “where did the money go?”
December 8th, 2006 at 4:57 pm
Most of it is ridiculous. Your FEC claim certainly is that!
no, it’s exactly spot on. But it’s not worth arguing over ad nauseum.
December 8th, 2006 at 5:23 pm
Tom,
Perhaps you overlooked it:
http://thirdpartywatch.com/2006/12/06/badnarik-begs-for-another-200k/#comment-74925
December 8th, 2006 at 5:37 pm
Detailed spending is available at the FEC:
http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/dcdev/forms/C00414615/252351/sb/ALL
http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/dcdev/forms/C00414615/244585/sb/ALL
Glanced through this. Unless I missed something huge, this is an order of magnitude+ less than the $600,000 that the campaign allegedly cost.
December 8th, 2006 at 5:41 pm
Because the LP has depended on so many hard-working volunteers, there has always been a suspicion (envy) of those few libertarians who manage to make a living (or just get paid what is, in effect, less than minimum wage) out of their involvement. “Why should Perry Willis get $XXX; I write good fund raiser letters for my state party and I get nothing. Willis must be a crook!” If you are satisfied with the product, it doesn’t matter what the producer made on the deal. If you aren’t, stop buying it. If you aren’t sure, don’t buy until you are convinced you’ll be satisfied.
Mr. Badnarik and Mr. Hacker presumably had a track record in the LP.
Like government or charity, the closer to home you spend your LP dollars the better you’ll be able to watch them.
December 8th, 2006 at 5:44 pm
Haven’t read past this yet to see if these have been answered, so bear with me if this is redundant.
Is “Articulate Management” Hacker’s company?
Yes.
And why exactly did they need a $3,054/month office? Surely there is cheaper commercial property?
A lot of commercial property can only be rented yearly or multi-year. Finding month-to-month office space, especially on short notice, can be extremely difficult in many markets. Allen also referred to shared housing, so it may be that they were living there as well.
Or why all the publicity consultancy seemed to be like a money vacuum with no results?
It could have conceivably had results, although in this case the results seem to bear out your point.
Or why roundtrip travel to Browne’s memorial service was a valid campaign expenditure?
I guess a case could be made that they were networking among fellow libertarians to aid in later fundraising, but I would consider it a stretch.
Or why Hacker and Badnarik seemed to live off “business meals” – which took place about every single day?
Because they were doing this full time. I have no problem with that part.
December 8th, 2006 at 5:46 pm
I suspect the report will contain a great deal of valuable marketing data. If so, I predict that the LP will not make good use of that data. After all, Austrian economists don’t believe in science, and “principled” libertarians don’t believe in compromise with the electorate.
Polling, focus grouping, etc. are excellent overhead tasks to spend money on before doing broadcast outreach—if you have the money left over to make use of such information. Who knows, it may be that he has enough data to show that an additional $400K or so could have won the election, incredible though that may seem at first glance.
It could be that the primary misjudgement here was in his understanding of the LP donor base. LPers have been burned so many times that secret plans, and campaigns that do little outreach early on generate suspicion—of fraud to some, of high ratio of fundrasing+overhead to production costs to others.
If my conjecture is correct, I would say that my own enthusiasm for this campaign would have been greater, and I might have dug harder to donate more. But, it is also possible that talk of polling and listening to the voters would have turned off a great many other donors. The secrecy might have been warranted.
December 8th, 2006 at 5:54 pm
dont forget that libertarians would kill the FEC, and your knowledge of such things would be not quite as detailed as a result. basically none.
so what is it – no FEC figures, no public oversight of elections or that just maybe that some public institutions have value ( the opinion of the value in this case immaterial) ?
I dont approve of all FEC functions, but I LIKE knowing what campaigns and candidates spend with donor money.
what a bunch of unprincipled SOB’s. There’s maybe 3 among you that would not POSTURE to abolish the FEC yesterday if the discussion was raised.
Well, if the FEC ceased to exist, so what? The biggest reason why it is needed now is because government has so much unneccessary control over our lives, and thus government elections are much more important (and much more expensive, and more corrupt) than they really should or could be.
Second, suppose that government spending and regulation continued unabated, but all we were able to get rid of was the FEC. This is quite unlikely, but let’s assume it took place just for the sake of argument.
Consumers (donors) would in many cases demand information about campaign spending practices before donating to campaigns. Some would seek independent verification from disinterested third party reporting services.
Campaigns seeking to maximize their contributions would then furnish this information to the public and/or independent agencies. Other campaigns might elect to forego transparency in favor of privacy. Those who seek accountability in their private campaign donations would then presumably forego donating to said campaigns.
After all, the money is yours until you contribute it to a candidate, and once you do, it becomes the private property of the campaign. Why should the government meddle in this private exchange?
It is no different than donating to a charity, subscribing to a magazine, or becoming a member of a church.
How you spend your money is your business. If you don’t like how a campaign is spending money or not knowing how they do – don’t give them any!
Why should it be any more complicated than that?
December 8th, 2006 at 5:56 pm
Just read an email exchange that would make you cry. a $430K treasure-trove worth of tears
Forward me a copy, if you would please.
December 8th, 2006 at 6:06 pm
“It could be that the primary misjudgement here was in his understanding of the LP donor base.”
Carl is a smart man.
Secret plans in the LP don’t go over very well. They may have their place in some campaigns, but only if you have a trusting, faithful donor base, and a proven and verifiable track record of success and a reputation for getting bang for the buck.
December 8th, 2006 at 6:10 pm
Well, Chris, the FEC would at least send Hacker and Badnarik to jail if they fraudulently reported the places at which they spent money. At least you see that money is funneling ambiguously into Hacker’s company – in an unregulated electoral system with no FEC, you would have to take the expenditures the campaign claims to be making as being honest – what incentive would they have to be honest when they could claim they spent the money one way, actually spent it another, and get away with it, even if you found out about it. The FEC does a lot of crap, but realistically we have to have an organization to run federal elections and set standards to make them consistent with each other, and prevent fraud campaigns that would go unaccountable without any election laws whatsoever.
I disagree.
Getting rid of an inefficient government agency which purports to give accurate information about campaign spending would increase the demand for competing private reporting agencies, along the lines of Underwriters Labs in the product marketing field:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underwriters
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_Reports
Certainly some campaigns may then elect not to provide requested information to such agencies, releasing possibly fraudulent data direc tly to their potential contributors.
Others may self-report to third party agency verification, and others yet may open up their books as they go.
There will even be some campaigns that will operate on the black box “trust me” principle.
The fact is that all of these disclosure/non-disclosure methods will have to compete for a purely voluntary and self-limiting discretionary donation base.
Those who won’t cut it in the disclosure department will be placed on a copetitive disadvantage basis with more open and honest campaigns. Of course, the trade-off might be protecting trade secrets and campagn strategy which they do not wish to disclose to their competitors.
To the extent that the market for this information exists – which it clearly does, for which you need no more evidence than the comments in this thread – a free market of competing campaign reporting agencies would meet it more efficiently than the FEC.
December 8th, 2006 at 6:26 pm
Allen:Pauly (sic), though, that Nigerian take-off thing… Now that was goddam funny.
Mike N.: LOL. Paulie and Tom and cracking me up. This is too funny.
I’m glad we can still get y’all to agree about something
December 8th, 2006 at 6:45 pm
no, I’m pointing out that libertarians who use a government service funded by what they claim is “theft by taxation” over and over again ( as was done in the 2nd Harry Browne Campaign vis a vis hornblower and now Badnarik are EXACTLY hypocrites, because they turn to this service repeatedly even when they claim to desire to abolish it ( which is a seperate issue) and in the next election year use it to find information they desire to know.
Of course we use government services which are discretionary, not just roads. They might include universities, libraries, and even medical clinics which get the bulk of their money from medicaid, medicare and state equivalents.
On the flipside, a true free market in any of these services does not exist precisely because of the regime interference in these markets.
If the government taxed everyone to provide cheap public cafeterias in every neighborhood, it might well put fast food joints out of business, leaving only high-end fancy restaurants in business.
At that point I might choose to partake of the crappy food and lousy service provided by the government at my expense, since they’ve artificially limited my other options. Does this make me a hypocrite?
I submit that it doesn’t.
December 8th, 2006 at 6:54 pm
From one of Hacker’s “updates”:
“Of course, one must never underestimate the way of things. It’s not like Michael can just stand on a corner waving a sign, “Honk if you love Liberty!”. (Although, if I asked him to do it, he would!) It’s going to take a real strategy, real performance and real follow-through.”
Hmm… I believe I saw a video of Michael doing just that. I wonder what happened to this “real strategy, real performance and real follow-through” that Hacker referred to…
Oh I know, it was that ridiculous Plan “B” that entailed begging the Democrat to drop out of the race…
December 8th, 2006 at 7:00 pm
Allen,
You were tried in absentia in THE COURT OF PUBLIC OPINION. I don’t have a star chamber, and neither does anyone here. What we do have are opinions and educated guesses. You’re making this more personal than it would have to be. Yes you’ve been attacked. You’ve been criticised and your ethics have been called into question. It’s called speech. We’re libertarians, we’re into free speech, remember? Right now we’re using ours to goad you into giving us some answers. Nothing but cold hard numbers will end this.
btw, paulie described the FEC situation perfectly.
December 8th, 2006 at 7:26 pm
More Hacker madness here:
http://thirdpartywatch.com/2006/09/21/the-badnarik-campaign/
December 8th, 2006 at 7:29 pm
“I suspect the report will contain a great deal of valuable marketing data. If so, I predict that the LP will not make good use of that data. After all, Austrian economists don’t believe in science, and “principled” libertarians don’t believe in compromise with the electorate.”
a)
Wow, life sure used to make a lot of sense until I read Mises and all of a sudden I didn’t believe in science anymore! 46 pages of praxeology later and poof! Not even physics remain, What economic theories do I have to believe in to get my science back? It’s confusing out here!
B)
think the “compromise with the electorate” niche has been filled already. Two large, wealthy, corrupt political parties are compromising so fast and hard that we libertarians could never keep up. Let’s play a game we can win, like principle.
December 8th, 2006 at 7:52 pm
I submit that it doesn’t.
I submit that it does.
December 8th, 2006 at 7:58 pm
“I submit that it does.”
And I don’t particularly care.
December 8th, 2006 at 8:01 pm
Wow, life sure used to make a lot of sense until I read Mises and all of a sudden I didn’t believe in science anymore! 46 pages of praxeology later and poof! Not even physics remain, What economic theories do I have to believe in to get my science back? It’s confusing out here!
In # Fuzzy Thinking: The New Science of Fuzzy Logic (1993). Hyperion. ISBN 0-7868-8021-X, author Bart Kosko relates anecdotally how mainstream (non-Austrian) economists use the preponderance of mathematical formulae in their work to prove that they are “scientific”: the more formulae, and the longer and more, complex, the better. In fact, he compares economists competing in their use mathematical formulae to rams battering each other with their horns.
On the other hand, he says that “hard scientists”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_science
use formulae sparingly, when necessary, and compact and efficient use of formulae is considered wise.
Perhaps Carl can comment on this, since he is a Physicist.
For a short synapsis of fuzzy logic theory see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuzzy_logic
December 8th, 2006 at 8:02 pm
I submit that it does.
Evidence? Logic? Facts?
December 8th, 2006 at 8:03 pm
Chris, I’d be interested in your take on this
http://thirdpartywatch.com/2006/12/06/badnarik-begs-for-another-200k/#comment-75014
as well.
December 8th, 2006 at 8:07 pm
I dont feel like playing tonight. I got other things to do. I got a opinion, so do you.
December 8th, 2006 at 8:13 pm
Play anytime you like. In the meantime, there are other folks here, perhaps even some that share your opinion, and they’re welcome to contribute too.
December 8th, 2006 at 8:30 pm
“Perhaps Carl can comment on this, since he is a Physicist.”
I’m sure Carl will comment as well, but in a sense, he is right that a lot of Austrian economics (and more specifically anarcho-capitalist economics) are not founded in science. (Of course that does not mean that proponents of such do not believe in science.) From what I can tell, most of these approaches start from moral principles, though I believe David Friedman has tried to stray away from this.
Keep in mind that I am not an economist, but from my view as a scientist, works in economics should determining how people ACTUALLY behave and interact. This is observational and scientific. However, modeling behavior is damn near impossible since the number of variables are incredibly large.
A scientific model is only as good as the accuracy of its results. You can fit ANY set of data with an equation, but a model that does not make. Your equations have to predict future behavior, and a good model will do this.
I believe Carl’s complaint about much of Austrian economics is that their models do not predict ACTUAL behavior, but prescribe to humans behavior they SHOULD exhibit. Of course, the argument can be made that left unfettered by government, humans would behave in the manner they claim. The counter-argument is that humans DID form government, and left unfettered, they’d probably do it again. The question is: Why? I’m not sure economics can answer this question any more than physics can answer why gravity exists.
Of course, I can be a moral anarchist and still be a scientist. There is no conflict. But I cannot claim that my anarchism is founded in science, because at some point I will always have to make a judgment of value, and value is subjective.
December 8th, 2006 at 8:37 pm
“economists use the preponderance of mathematical formulae in their work to prove that they are “scientific”: the more formulae, and the longer and more, complex, the better.”
To specifically address this, I can only repeat: a scientific model is only as good as the accuracy of its results. If it cannot predict future behavior, then it is pretty much worthless.
I’m not sure mainstream economists actually do claim that the more equations they use the more scientific their work, but if one does/did make such a claim, then s/he is a fraud.
December 8th, 2006 at 8:38 pm
“Oh I know, it was that ridiculous Plan “B” that entailed begging the Democrat to drop out of the race…”
Maybe they should have bribed the Democrat to drop out of the race with the $400,000 plus that the campaign raised. This likely would have produced better results than what they ended up with had the Democrat taken the money and dropped out.
December 8th, 2006 at 8:39 pm
” believe Carl’s complaint about much of Austrian economics is that their models do not predict ACTUAL behavior, but prescribe to humans behavior they SHOULD exhibit. Of course, the argument can be made that left unfettered by government, humans would behave in the manner they claim. The counter-argument is that humans DID form government, and left unfettered, they’d probably do it again. The question is: Why? I’m not sure economics can answer this question any more than physics can answer why gravity exists.”
On explanation that can account for the difference between actual and expected human behavior is the Christian idea of Original Sin.
December 8th, 2006 at 8:53 pm
“I dont feel like playing tonight. I got other things to do. I got a opinion, so do you.”
Tim, at times you are guilty of the same charges you level against others. You have called me (and many others) an unprincipled hypocrite because my opinion disagrees with yours. I have never made a disparaging remark about you. I merely disagree. I’m sorry someone in West Virginia called you a Nazi Statist. I didn’t and won’t.
I like Nick Wilson. He makes some good arguments founded on premises I do not particularly agree with, so we sometimes arrive at different conclusions. I think he realizes we start from different assumptions and respects that. I can respect him, specifically because he has never said a disparaging word about me personally.
You’re generally pretty good about that as well, but sometimes whether you realize it or not, you make sweeping generalizations about those who disagree with you. I probably do too, I guess. Though I try not to.
December 8th, 2006 at 8:57 pm
“On explanation that can account for the difference between actual and expected human behavior is the Christian idea of Original Sin.”
Sure. But that is not science.
Science can not explain WHY people do the things they do, just as science cannot explain WHY the universe is the way it is.
December 8th, 2006 at 9:20 pm
Agreed
It is, however, internally consistent
December 8th, 2006 at 9:23 pm
The Christian narrative, that is. Science too, I guess.
December 8th, 2006 at 10:12 pm
You folks are such a bunch of whiners. This is why the LP will never win anything, you are way too busy eating your young.
You gave money to a campaign with no preconditions and now you want to complain about how that money was spent and the lack of results. Give me a freaking break. No party does this and expects to be successful. You may have spent your money unwisely, but next time maybe do a little more due diligence.
Give Hacker some slack, I am sure he tried his best and had the best of intentions, no one goes to work for an LP congressional campaign for the money or the glory.
Oh my God, they had dinner at the Outback Steakhouse!! FRAUD!!
Oh my God, he expected to be paid for his services rendered and time spent on the campaign and the candidate agreed to this arrangement!! CHEATER!!
December 8th, 2006 at 10:17 pm
You folks are such a bunch of whiners. This is why the LP will never win anything, you are way too busy eating your young.
You gave money to a campaign with no preconditions and now you want to complain about how that money was spent and the lack of results. Give me a freaking break. No party does this and expects to be successful. You may have spent your money unwisely, but next time maybe do a little more due diligence.
Give Hacker some slack, I am sure he tried his best and had the best of intentions, no one goes to work for an LP congressional campaign for the money or the glory.
Oh my God, they had dinner at the Outback Steakhouse!! FRAUD!!
Oh my God, he expected to be paid for his services rendered and time spent on the campaign and the candidate agreed to this arrangement!! CHEATER!!
People really need to reconsider their priorities. I am sure you all could be doing something much more constructive, maybe even something that would push the liberty agenda forward. You all should be ashamed. This thread is pathetic and ridiculous and reflects poorly on all lovers of liberty everywhere and is a slap in the face to those who were willing to open their pocket books for a dark horse candidate that couldn’t have expected much more than what they got. Spread the word and the rest will follow.
December 8th, 2006 at 10:53 pm
Mike Nelson, the “great” champion of liberty, you had a supposedly “libertarian” blog that bashed the only libertarian in the race. Oh yea, the alternatives were so much better. You did such a great service to the cause of freedom. You should feel so good about what you’ve accomplished. Oh wait, you didn’t accomplish anything except to foment more hate and divisiveness while destroying any coherent message that might have been conveyed. The Badnarik campaign was at least in the trenches doing the dirty work while you sat on your high horse picking off easy targets with absolutely no upside. Congrats. You set the cause of liberty back another few years.
December 8th, 2006 at 11:45 pm
A couple of thoughts:
Someone above refers to Mr. Hacker being “in a corner.” That’s not the case. He could walk away right now without answering a single question or responding to a single comment, and he’d be no worse off than he already is.
Granted, I’m not seeing things his way at the moment ... and maybe I never will. But he’s not running and hiding, nor has he lost any particular freedom to act or inform, or not, in the manner he decides to.
Elsewhere, someone paints him as persecuted, and then compares the matter to “the Willis Affair.” So far, I’ve seen precisely no similarities.
Perry Willis has publicly confessed to violating the terms of his employment by the LNC as the LP’s executive director, concealing that violation from his employers by having his renumeration for work on a presidential campaign routed through a third party contractor, and abusing his position of trust for the purpose of delivering the LP’s presidential nomination to a candidate whom he explicitly states he does not believe would otherwise have received that nomination.
That’s a pretty tall confession and it makes it clear that Willis did not just “get slagged for making money.” It’s also very different in substance from any allegations versus Mr. Hacker.
Regards,
Tom Knapp
December 9th, 2006 at 12:41 am
Allen,
I could answer your answer to my letter with the letter printed over again, as you still seem to miss the point and all the points in the letter are still relevant.
Even if Mike Nelson wanted to “destroy” your campaign Benedict Arnold-style because he’s got personal issues, nobody but YOU drove the best funded campaign in the Party into debt. Once you account for that, maybe we can have a cordial dialogue.
You know why I didn’t give any money? It’s not because of anything Mike Nelson said. It was because I wasn’t seeing any results, nor was I seeing any poll numbers to show that he even had a remote chance. Blaming Mike Nelson for your failure to fundraise in the party, much less for the loss of the election is a paper-thin diversion from your failure to produce results with the money you had. In fact, you seem more disappointed by the fact that you couldn’t raise more money because of Mike Nelson’s “sabotage” than the fact you didn’t turn the half of the money you did raise that didn’t go to paying for fundraising expenses or to paying for your company into producing something with measurable or proportional results.
You’re right. You don’t have to be nice to rudeness. You can walk away. And we don’t have to give you any money. We don’t have to like you. We don’t have to be nice to egoism or diversionary tactics. So yes, we can drive this thing into the ground, or you can open your books and quit looking like your just grasping for money/massaging your wounded ego. That’s all we’re asking. When you do this, maybe we’ll start listening. Until that point, you are in no position to complain about our suspicions and the fact that they aren’t based on any evidence – you are the one who has to show us the evidence if you want to “get out of here alive.”
Regarding your valiant “standing up to the Big Boys and defying all the failed options” mindset, you’re going to be standing alone and thus won’t get very far until you sort this thing out. Your track record hasn’t exactly been one of credibility. There are many of us who are doing this already, and none of us want anything to do with you until you dig yourself out of your hole.
The ball’s in your court. None of us owe you anything until you throw it back to our side with real numbers and an honest re-assessment of what went wrong and why the campaign went into debt.
December 9th, 2006 at 1:16 am
You folks are such a bunch of whiners. This is why the LP will never win anything, you are way too busy eating your young.
You gave money to a campaign with no preconditions and now you want to complain about how that money was spent and the lack of results. Give me a freaking break. No party does this and expects to be successful. You may have spent your money unwisely, but next time maybe do a little more due diligence.
Give Hacker some slack, I am sure he tried his best and had the best of intentions, no one goes to work for an LP congressional campaign for the money or the glory.
Oh my God, they had dinner at the Outback Steakhouse!! FRAUD!!
Oh my God, he expected to be paid for his services rendered and time spent on the campaign and the candidate agreed to this arrangement!! CHEATER!!
People really need to reconsider their priorities. I am sure you all could be doing something much more constructive, maybe even something that would push the liberty agenda forward. You all should be ashamed. This thread is pathetic and ridiculous and reflects poorly on all lovers of liberty everywhere and is a slap in the face to those who were willing to open their pocket books for a dark horse candidate that couldn’t have expected much more than what they got. Spread the word and the rest will follow.
December 9th, 2006 at 1:30 am
Again, if Hacker was never paid, who the hell was? I think ( though I could be wrong) most of us who saw a $400,000+ campaign that spent NOTHING on anything other than overhead and Fundraising(( for Findraising)- assumed that the high expenses INCLUDED Allen’s fees.
For all the accusations of Allen wastng money, IMO it looks much worse if Allen was really never paid AND there are still unpaid vendors.
this is a big WTF.
December 9th, 2006 at 2:15 am
James:
This isn’t about the “LP getting anywhere.” Hacker came to us begging for more money when he already presumably mismanaged the first batch. Until he proves that he did not mismanage the first batch – or at very least did not funnel a majority of it into self-profiting purposes, none of us owe him a dime or a bit of respect. (In fact, none of us owe him a dime anyway.) HE was the one with outstretched hands.
It’s like the homeless guy begging for money, claiming he will buy food and medicine for his sick child but then spending it on beer and drugs instead. Certainly most don’t want to be fooled again by him after we saw him staggering around drunkenly after we gave him money in good faith last time. Sure, we can’t prove that he spent OUR money on the beer nor could we actually see him go to the liquor store – or maybe he was just sick and it was just the cough medicine he bought making him tipsy – but until he proves he bought cough medicine with our money, why should we give him money and why shouldn’t we rebuke him for his apparent dishonesty when he comes to us the second time – until he shows us the receipts? Until he can prove to us that he’s for real with his intentions, none of us have to believe him and naturally none of us want to give him any money.
More importantly, Hacker HAS damaged the LP more than all of our whining on this forum and others about him combined. This will seriously hurt future donations to candidates, as most people don’t want to get burned twice. If anything, our “whining” (depending on where you stand, perhaps it can be called “constructive criticism”) is showing our resolve not to let ineptly managed campaigns with excessive overheads and costly un-professional campaign managers continue to drag down the party.
December 9th, 2006 at 12:14 pm
Tom: I brought up Perry Willis, but I was not trying to link this with the “Willis Affair.” I was pointing out that the LP fundraising list has already been mined by Perry Willis, who writes incredibly compelling fundraising letters.
Chris, etc: I have personally been accused of “scientism” by some of the bloggers at LewRockwell.com. In particular, I wrote a couple of articles about a year ago for freeliberal.com pointing out how one could be a natural rights libertarian (in the sense of treating initiation of force as the highest/only evil) and still advocate some government, including taxation. My argument was based on the scientific observation that in civilized lands anarchy quickly degenerates into civil war, slave trading, conquest and/or dictatorship—conditions of greater force initiation than a modern welfare state. Thus based on these observations, it is reasonable for a libertarian to be a small government advocate.
Note that I did not say you had to be a small government type; there are anarcho-capitalist libertarians like David Friedman (who is very much not an Austrian) who take data and consequences seriously and make a respectable case for anarchy. I was just saying that one could be a “noninitiation of force is the only political value” libertarian and still allow for some government/initiation of force as the means to minimize this particular evil.
This touched off a firestorm in the Austrian anarchist community, especially from Stephen Kinsella of lewrockwell.com. In our resulting email conversation I was accused of “scientism” and was lectured on the limits of the scientific method (how dare I look at the historical record when I could stick to these nice golden axioms), referred to some Hans Herman-Hoppe essays on the power of apriorism over science etc.
The Austrians try to extrapolate their way to the truth, starting with “obvious truths.” The problem with this approach is that their obvious truths do involve some approximations, and as any good scientist knows, extrapolations are much more sensitive to error than interpolations.
Fuzzy logic is all about applying this bit of wisdom to logical extrapolations vs. mathematical extrapolations. It is about allowing some flex to your syllogisms to fit reality.
Historically speaking, local monopolies on the initiation of force have overwhelmingly predominated. There are economies of scale here that make stable anarchy an uphill battle. This is not to say that such is impossible, only that it is challenging, and that the burden of proof is on the anarchist. In other words, minarchist libertarians should not be accused of being “unprincipled” for sincerely believing that minarchy minimizes the initiation of force.
The Austrians, however, don’t give a hoot about data. They have managed to derive away monopolies.
December 9th, 2006 at 2:49 pm
“Give Hacker some slack, I am sure he tried his best and had the best of intentions,”
I don’t know what Hacker’s intentions were, but the fact remains that the campaign raised over $400,000 and very little was spent on outreach, and what little outreach they did was pretty lame. “Smile if you love liberty” is freakin’ retarded.
December 9th, 2006 at 2:57 pm
Andy,
What are your business, political and educational qualifications for offering up this criticism?
0December 9th, 2006 at 4:16 pm
“Andy,
What are your business, political and educational qualifications for offering up this criticism?”
As if a person needs “qualifications” to point out that “Smile if you love liberty” is retarded.
December 9th, 2006 at 4:18 pm
Allen, what are YOUR qualifications?
http://articulatecampaigns.com/ac_clients.php
does not list any clients besides Badnarik.
Your “blog”’s most recent entry is Friday, September 16, 2005
December 9th, 2006 at 4:19 pm
The “Security, Property, Prosperity” billboard was just as lame. That’s the type of CRAP that a Democrat or Republican can get away with but will NEVER do anything for anyone running as “third party” candidate.
The outreach that this campaign did was laughable. No wonder you all only got 4% of the vote. The $200 donation that I sent it was obviously wasted.
December 9th, 2006 at 4:34 pm
Andy is probably not qualified to comment, since in all likelihood he’s never received $400,000 in contributions (plus $200,000 in alleged debt) to get a candidate 4% of the vote – less than some paper candidates in nearby districts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niche_marketing
Also see
“Loyalty business model”
December 9th, 2006 at 4:45 pm
Andy and Doc,
There’s a lot of opinion passing through here some valid and some not, and if I ask a question about the source, I have just as much right to a reasonable answer as those asking me respectful questions.
You giving me shit back shows that your opinions are among the worthless.
0December 9th, 2006 at 4:51 pm
badnarik.org now says…
“According to C-SPAN, our 2006 Texas 10th Congressional District campaign results were 7,603 votes for 4.31%. This compares quite favorably against our 2004 presidential campaign results for Texas as a whole, which were 38,683 votes for 1%, or just under 1,075 votes per congressional district with a lower turnout.”
Yeah, that’s true, but what’s missing in this picture?
Well, for one thing, Allen managed to spend ~400,000 FRN (plus 200,000 alleged debt) this year in ONE congressional district.
There are 435 Congressional districts in the US.
The equivalent spending for the Presidential campaign would have been
$175 million or so. Plus 87 million debt.
Had Badnarik for President had that kind of money and still only received 4% of the vote, I think LP members would not have considered that a success, nor would anyone else.
December 9th, 2006 at 4:52 pm
“In other words, minarchist libertarians should not be accused of being “unprincipled” for sincerely believing that minarchy minimizes the initiation of force.”
I agree. The difference, though, is that you value the net reduction in the initiation of force. Anarchists (ZAPers) value zero initiation of force. You are principled, you just do not subscribe to the anarchist principle.
Personally I still sit on the fence between minarchism and anarchism for exactly the reason I mentioned before: throughout the history of mankind people have formed government of some form or another, whether it be dictatorial via force, or “republican” via force. The evidence does clearly indicate that man in groups tends towards government. Does it make a monopoly on force morally right? That’s another question and one that is not answerable via science or history.
I personally can not initiate force against another in good conscience, nor can I enlist a third-party to initiate force on my behalf.
“This is not to say that such is impossible, only that it is challenging, and that the burden of proof is on the anarchist.”
Again you are correct, to an extent.
I’ll try to illustrate: Apples fall if dropped from trees. A group of apples could claim that falling is a morally bad thing. These Anfallchists devise the Zero Falling Principle and suggest to all other apples that this is the moral ideal. Unfortunately, apples just tend to fall from the trees. It’s what they do. You are correct when you say that the burden of proof is on the Anfallchist to prove that even local groups of non-fallers are possible. But they do not have to prove that the moral principle is right—they accept it as axiom.
The difference between the minfallchists and the anfallchists is that the latter do not believe it morally right to personally initiate a fall, no matter the consequences. The former believes that in order to reduce the NET number of falling apples, some falling must be initiated. One group advocates individual morality, while the other advocates a collective morality.
December 9th, 2006 at 4:54 pm
“There’s a lot of opinion passing through here some valid and some not, and if I ask a question about the source, I have just as much right to a reasonable answer as those asking me respectful questions.
You giving me shit back shows that your opinions are among the worthless.
0”
I’m sorry, did I offer an opinion? I just stated facts and asked a question.
Did you answer it? If you decide not to answer it, what do you think other people may reasonably infer from your lack of response?
December 9th, 2006 at 5:01 pm
“throughout the history of mankind people have formed government of some form or another, whether it be dictatorial via force, or “republican” via force. The evidence does clearly indicate that man in groups tends towards government. Does it make a monopoly on force morally right? That’s another question and one that is not answerable via science or history.”
1800: “throughout the history of mankind people have owned slaves of some form or another, whether it be chattel via complete ownership, or some less direct form of involuntary servitude. The evidence does clearly indicate that man tends to enslave man. Does it make slavery morally right? That’s another question and one that is not answerable via science or history.”
December 9th, 2006 at 5:03 pm
Doc,
Butt out of a question that wasn’t addressed to you in the first place, your’re a negative value in the transaction.
You can play your silly word games with yourself.
0December 9th, 2006 at 5:09 pm
“Mike Nelson, the “great” champion of liberty, you had a supposedly “libertarian” blog that bashed the only libertarian in the race.”
I have never had a blog in my life. I have written for HoT before, and not a single post of my bashed this lunatic Hacker or Badnarik. You are clueless.
December 9th, 2006 at 5:11 pm
Allen, if you would like to have a private discussion with Andy, you can email each other.
In the meantime, you are both posting on a public forum.
BTW I asked YOU a question.
It would seem to be a perfectly legitimate question given the topic of this discussion.
You further opened yourself up to it by questioning other people’s qualifications, and it would have been a legitimate question even if you hadn’t.
But please, keep not answering: people will just answer it for you in their own minds.
Who’s silly again?
December 9th, 2006 at 5:13 pm
The lengths Minke Nelson will go to are astounding.
No, his posts on HoT didn’t bash us, he did that in his comments on HoT, TPW and Knapp’s blog.
He honestly believes that what he writes (or does) in one role has nothing to do whith what he writes (or does) in another, no matter that they’re on the same general subject or in the same exact venue.
Why do you think he has such a fascination with schizophrenia?
0December 9th, 2006 at 5:19 pm
Doc,
You’re either intellectually dishonest or incompetent.
You did in fact state an opinion, and then postured that you didn’t.
You butted into a response that had nothing to do with you because
(a) you think Andy is incompetent to handle it himself,
(b) you were just looking for a place to shit,
(c) you’re incompetent, or
(d), because you didn’t respond to what I said to you about your comment, that you were giving me shit, and now you think you can posture that I’m not answering your illegitimate question, I choose that you are intellectually dishonest.
You may resume playing with yourself at any time.
0December 9th, 2006 at 5:24 pm
Good job in pointing out niche marketing. Instead of trying too hard not to offend people, the Badnarik campaign SHOULD have focused on reaching out to people who ALREADY agree with libertarian ideas and who are distrustful of the Republicans and Democrats.
Perhaps Badnarik could have written up an impeach Bush resolution and gotten people to sign it as a petition/contact list. He could have said something like, “Elect me to Congress and on my first day in office I’ll present these articles for impeachment on the House floor. I’m the only person in the race that has the guts to give Bush what he deserves.” Badnarik’s impeach Bush resolution could have also been posted to the internet which could have resulted in more traffic to his campaign website.
Would this offend the Republicans in Badnarik’s district? Sure it would, but so what, these people aren’t going to vote Libertarian anyway. The only attempt at “pacifying” Republicans that I would have made would have been to point out the many ways that Bush has betrayed what are supposed to be conservative ideals. I would have made a big deal over FEMA confiscating guns from innocent people in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. In fact, this would have made a great TV commerical. I would have also made a big deal out of how government spending has increased at the fastest level in decades under Bush and how McCaul has done nothing to stop it.
Millions of people hate Bush, including a large percentage of the people who live in Austin. I know that only part of the district that Badnarik ran in included Austin and that a lot of the district stretched out into a rural area where there was a higher percentage of Republicans, but keep in mind that 40% of the people voted for the Democrat and 4% voted for Badnarik, and this does not even take into account all of the people who live in that district and didn’t bother to vote (which brings up the question of how many new voters did the Badnarik campaign register?).
I listened to Badnarik when he was a guest on the Alex Jones radio show (www.infowars.com) and I thought that he did a good job up until they started talking about 9/11. At this point it became apparent that Michael did not want to talk about 9/11 being an inside job as he became strangely silent. Alex said that Michael “winked” at them and they later said something to the effect of “His campaign advisors have advised him to not talk about 9/11.” I’ve got a feeling that Michael KNOWS that 9/11 was an inside job, there’s even an on-line petition that he signed that posted at www.911truth.org that calls for a real investigation of 9/11. So why PUSSYFOOT around? He should have just come out and said something like, “The government is obviously lying about 9/11. Muslims didn’t make World Trade Center Building 7 fall down when Building 7 was not hit by a plane. Muslims didn’t make NORAD stand down. The insider stock trading on 9/11 didn’t lead to Muslims, it lead to the CIA. Muslims are not the ones who are benifitting from 9/11, the benificiaries are the US government and their New World Order cronies. This country is being turned into a police state and Bush’s Reichstag Fire is being used as the pretext to accelerate this process. We need a real, independent investigation of 9/11 followed by criminal prosecutions. Elect me to Congress and I’ll do everything I can to see to it that the real perpetrators behind 9/11 are brought to justice.”
Would such a statement about 9/11 have caused controversy? Sure they would, but it also would have created PUBLICITY and it would have gotten a lot more people interested in the campaign. Over the last few years the 9/11 Truth Movement has grown rapidly while the Libertarian Party has shrunk. I attended the big 9/11 Truth Conference in Los Angeles which had a crowd of over 1,200 people. This conference was held around the same time period as the LP National Convention in Portland which probably didn’t even attract 300 people. One of the speakers at the convention was retired Air Force Conel Robert Bowman who was running for Congress in Florida as a Democrat. Bowman recieved over 40% of the vote which is over 10 times the percentage of votes that Badnarik recieved. Bowman had some good issues – mostly on the war and civil liberties – but the rest of his platform was typical leftist crap like socialized medicine, living wage, Affirmative Action, etc… It sure would have been great to see Michael give a firery libertarian speech at this convention.
December 9th, 2006 at 5:24 pm
Allen:
In your comments on this blog you have alluded to managing winning campaigns in the past.
When and where did these campaigns occur and who were the candidates?
Were they expected to win? If not, what did you do to turn those campaigns around?
You also claim that you have some sort of unique genius in the marketing and building of organizations.
None of this is elaborated on your website.
I’m mildly curious to know the details.
Right now, pretty much the only things I know about you are that
1) you managed a campaign that cost a lot of money and performed well below all expectations.
2) that the spectacular failure of this campaign is actually hurting other libertarian fundraising efforts
3) that you have not explained where all the money you raised went, yet are asking for more
4) that many people consider you pompous and rude.
Of course you can keep claiming that the burden of proof is on everyone else. But then, you’re the one asking for more money.
December 9th, 2006 at 5:25 pm
“You did in fact state an opinion, and then postured that you didn’t.”
What opinion did I state?
December 9th, 2006 at 5:26 pm
“(d), because you didn’t respond to what I said to you about your comment, that you were giving me shit, and now you think you can posture that I’m not answering your illegitimate question, I choose that you are intellectually dishonest.”
Why is it an illegitimate question?
December 9th, 2006 at 5:26 pm
“Allen, if you would like to have a private discussion with Andy, you can email each other.
In the meantime, you are both posting on a public forum.”
Exactly, this is a public forum so everyone can contribute to the discussion.
December 9th, 2006 at 5:31 pm
“(d), because you didn’t respond to what I said to you about your comment, that you were giving me shit, and now you think you can posture that I’m not answering your illegitimate question, I choose that you are intellectually dishonest.”
What shit was I giving you?
If my question was illegitimate, why was your question to Andy legitimate?
December 9th, 2006 at 5:38 pm
“(a) you think Andy is incompetent to handle it himself,
(b) you were just looking for a place to shit,
(c) you’re incompetent, ”
You make inferences like that because I asked what your qualifications are?
Wouldn’t it be perfectly logical to ask what your qualifications are when
1) You are the topic of this thread
2) Lots of people think you mismanaged a lot of their money
3) You are asking for more, and claiming to be an expert
whose wisdom would benefit us tremendously and would be worth
paying a lot of money for
and
4) When other people argue with your strategy you question THEIR qualifications?
Now, suppose just for a second that I or someone else reading might be considering sending you some money.
Would the tone of your responses to me and Andy
1) Make people on the margin less likely to send you money?
2) Make people on the margin more likely to send you money?
3) Have no effect?
By the way, unlike Allen, who thinks he is in a private chat here, I welcome responses to any and all of my questions from other people, especially if Allen continues to ignore the questions and would prefer to call me names.
December 9th, 2006 at 5:42 pm
Andy,
You said it: contribute. Doc didn’t, he got slammed, and now he’s pretending. But it’s too late. He has no credibility with me and will not be getting an answers from me.
I have nothing to lose by pounding all the whacko critics into the dirt on this blog. There is absolutelty nothing any of you can try to take from me that you haven’t already.
I’m not cornered, I’m not desperate, I’m not even angry. I’m just going to destroy you with your own fun, let the world watch you drown in your own venom, sit back and smile.
And do you know that the net result will be? No report any time soon, because I’m too busy to write it, what with all the bug extermination I have to do.
OR…
You could all just shut up for 24 hours (betcha can’t do it) and then I’ll consider emailing Trevor the summary report outline for one of his first articles.
The clock is ticking, let’s see who wastes yet another opprtunity for everyone to actually know something.
0December 9th, 2006 at 5:43 pm
“You’re either intellectually dishonest or incompetent.”
Can you provide any evidence for either conclusion?
December 9th, 2006 at 5:49 pm
“Doc didn’t, he got slammed, and now he’s pretending. But it’s too late. He has no credibility with me and will not be getting an answers from me.”
But Allen, you ignore one thing: I don’t care if I have any credibility with you.
I have nothing to prove and nothing to sell.
I’m just asking questions and pointing out facts. You can dispute the facts if you wish, or not.
You can be assured that other people are asking the same questions.
You don’t have to answer them. But if you ignore them, what do you think people will conclude?
I don’t care whether or when your report comes out. It’s not a favor to me.
Which of the following is more likely to be correct:
The longer it fails to come out, the less likely you are to get any more donations.
or
The sooner it comes out, the less likely you are to get any more donations.
?
Allen, in all honesty: whose credibility is really more at stake here: mine or yours?
December 9th, 2006 at 5:52 pm
“And do you know that the net result will be? No report any time soon, because I’m too busy to write it, what with all the bug extermination I have to do.”
Why do you HAVE to do anything?
“You could all just shut up for 24 hours (betcha can’t do it) ”
Of course I could, although I have no control over anyone else.
But why should I? So that you will “consider” mailing out an “outline”?
December 9th, 2006 at 5:53 pm
“Andy,
You said it: contribute.”
Yes, I contributed $200 to the Badnarik for Congress campaign, but this was BEFORE I knew how the money was being wasted. I understand that there are lots of campaign costs that are not “sexy” but come on, $400,000 plus and the best outreach that you all could come up with was two lame ass billboards and a bunch of naive (from an outreach campaign standpoint) people standing at an intersection holding “Smile if you love liberty” signs (as if the billboard wasn’t lame enough).
The only lesson that I can see from this campaign is how NOT to run a campaign.
December 9th, 2006 at 5:57 pm
Hacker spews:
“And do you know that the net result will be? No report any time soon, because I’m too busy to write it, what with all the bug extermination I have to do.”
Oh you mean this top-secret, cure-all report you are begging people to pay you $200,000 to write? I really don’t think anyone is biting their nails in anticipation….
December 9th, 2006 at 5:58 pm
Andy says:
“Yes, I contributed $200 to the Badnarik for Congress campaign, but this was BEFORE I knew how the money was being wasted.”
If I were you, I would ask for a refund.
December 9th, 2006 at 6:02 pm
“There is absolutelty nothing any of you can try to take from me that you haven’t already.”
Well, there is that $200,000 that you are asking for.
And perhaps the possibility of gaining or regaining the respect of many people who sent money to Badnarik For Congress, or might perhaps consider sending money to some other effort you manage in the future, if that ever happens again.
“And do you know that the net result will be? No report any time soon, because I’m too busy to write it, what with all the bug extermination I have to do.
OR…
You could all just shut up for 24 hours (betcha can’t do it) and then I’ll consider emailing Trevor the summary report outline for one of his first articles.”
One possible translation: Allen is going to hold his breath until people stop asking him questions such as where their money went or what his qualifications are.
If anyone else asks him, he will take his toys and go home.
I wonder if Allen ever employed this strategy in the past? Perhaps when he was a child on the playground?
If so, was this strategy successful?
How did its success measure against that of Badnarik For Congress?
December 9th, 2006 at 6:07 pm
I would be interested in sending links to these blogs to any future clients (suckers) of Hacker’s so that they can see the level of professionalism of the nutjob they just hired….
Hacker, please update your client list on your website.
December 9th, 2006 at 6:08 pm
“Oh you mean this top-secret, cure-all report you are begging people to pay you $200,000 to write? I really don’t think anyone is biting their nails in anticipation….”
Sounds like the “top secret” campaign plan that they had that was obviously so successful.
I assumed that they had a real plan and that Hacker really knew what he was doing. That’s why I sent in a $200 donation. Had I known then what I know now I wouldn’t have sent them anything.
The “top secret” plan of trying to get the Democrat to drop out of the race was as absurd as the “Smile if you love liberty” billboard. What incentive did the Democrat have to drop out of the race? By the logic used in this campaign, every Libertarian candidate should drop out of the race.
December 9th, 2006 at 6:11 pm
In his letter Allen writes:
“Well, once the bills are paid and I have the freedom of mind to compile everything, you’ve sponsored a final report and a libertarian manifesto for the future. An analysis and a plan, if you want them. From a top consultant in his field, one who routinely doubles and triples his clients’ operations within the first year or two.”
Well, suppose just for a second that I was on Hacker’s list and actually considering sending him some hard earned money.
Now then, wouldn’t it be a natural question to ask who these clients are?
Especially when they are not listed on his site?
And when the only known client performed far below expectations?
And when Allen is asking other people about their qualifications?
December 9th, 2006 at 6:18 pm
Allen
“Our current state of affairs is that no one politely asked me to explain anything. ”
Have my questions beeen impolite? If so, how?
Do other people here think my questions have been impolite, unreasonable or illegitimate?
December 9th, 2006 at 6:20 pm
Allen
“We desperately lack mutual respect, each of us overestimates both our abilities and our value to the world, and worse, in every way including these, and despite or most precious desires, we are absolutely normal.”
Is it true, as I have read elsewhere, that people tend to see in others what they most see in themselves?
December 9th, 2006 at 6:24 pm
Over $400,000 raised with over $200,000 in debt with a result of only 4% of the vote and Allen Hacker is suprised that a lot of people have questions. WTF?
?
December 9th, 2006 at 8:50 pm
It looks like Hacker himself is guilty of “sabotage”:
http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:06ShqJMWNJQJ:www.elastic.org/~fche/mirrors/old-usenet/scientology+%22allen+hacker%22+scientology+speaker&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=5
December 9th, 2006 at 8:53 pm
From link above:
“Through Scientology truthfinding rites and practises, and through his contact with decent people in Scientology, Allen became more and more aware of himself, of his past as a spiritual being before this life,
meaning earlier lives.”
“And he suddenly went out to preach that gospel, solely to not have to face his past evil to Mankind.”
“Allen can now not stand the company of decent people anymore, and that’s why he now supports the very ugly, the very evil, the very degraded.”
Truly bizarre.
December 9th, 2006 at 10:38 pm
You contributed to a campaign with a specific message, you lost, no sense complaining about it now. Do you see the Santorum or Ford campaign contributors whining about it weeks and weeks after? No, because they knew what they were getting into before they wrote the check. Get over it, you were beat by folks who had a better message (more suitable for general public consumption) and a greater groundswell of support.
The whining on this site from those who didn’t do anything except sign a check and rant on websites is totally ridiculous. Go try to run a campaign on th LP ticket and report back. Or, maybe be even more productive and create something to contribute to civilization.
December 9th, 2006 at 11:55 pm
might as well lock the thread, it’s jumped the shark big time.
December 10th, 2006 at 12:54 am
:-)
I knew you guys couldn’t do it. You just have to have the last word. It was never about me, it’s just you kids loving the sound of your own keyboarding.
Look how far Mike Nelson had to go—all the way to Koos Nolste Trenite, writing fresh out of the insane asylum.
Koos and Mike are very much alike. They both got found out and did everything they could to destroy me. Koos ended up in the nuthouse, and Mike ended up with doc holliday.
Perfect.
0December 10th, 2006 at 2:57 am
Are the two Allen Hackers the same guy?
It’s not that uncommon of a name.
December 10th, 2006 at 4:38 am
Hacker,
You’re the only person here destroying yourself. You’re also destroying Michael. If Michael will be in debt for the rest of his life and you will have to fill out forms for the rest of your life and go exterminate bugs for a living (and/or go start a million-dollar company) because none of us will give you any money, you’ve only cut off your own legs by your obfuscation of the dialogue and going on the offensive instead of answering our questions without excuse, ego or blame-gaming.
None of us are losing anything (well, except for those poor souls who already donated to this campaign), but your doing a really good job at unifying us all against you. So thanks for that much at least. Nothing unites libertarians like a common enemy. And, like I said earlier, at this point I’m not even devoting any more time to the LP anyway so frankly I don’t give a damn even if your worst predictions come true.
But let’s consider that this was an expensive learning experience. We’ve all asked you, in a varying range of tones, to please answer a few simple questions:
How the best funded campaign in the party went into debt?
Why anyone should give you any more money when you haven’t proven that you didn’t mismanage the first batch?
What qualifications do you have that give you the “seeing power” to write an eye-opening report worth $200,000?
The fact that you refuse to even address these questions, instead focusing on how rude some of us are being only reinforces my drunk homeless guy metaphor I made in my last letter. When we call you out for your apparent inconsistency you just start yelling at us and calling us names, instead of either admitting you have a “drinking problem” or showing us the receipts to prove that you “didn’t buy beer with the money you said was going to your sick child.” That naturally only makes everyone even more suspicious.
Your career is over until you fix these things. You are the only one losing, not us. Many people here will certainly join Mike N. in “sabotaging” any of your future campaigns until you prove that you have any credibility and trustworthiness and aren’t all talk and no show. I don’t know if it’s too late already.
December 10th, 2006 at 5:54 am
Nick,
You just don’t get it, do you? None of you do.
You’re a tiny and eventually insignificant bunch of bigmouths who’ve shown that you haven’t the slightest idea what it is to live as a libertarian.
You guys came out spouting that I have to answer to you. No libertarian in his or her right mind would ever presume that he owns someone else and can tell him what to do. Not for even a moment, much less the several months you phonies have been doing it.
You don’t understand the nature of free speech at all. Your freedom of speech is not unlimited. There are and have always been consequences to lying, libel and slander, as Mike Nelson will learn directly and the rest of you may be lucky enough to learn by his unfortunate example.
The great irony is that you are the nails in Nelson’s legal coffin because you are proof that his lies were taken seriously enough by enough people to seriously damage the campaign. And now here you are, threatening to use the force of lies to destroy some innocent future LP candidate if you learn that, what, I’m helping him or even just associated by friendship? That’s not libertarian, that’s fascist.
What you are doing here is evil, and the real libertarians reading this are thanking me for standing up to you and exposing it.
You’re lucky, you know. Before the pledge, before government, people who set out to destroy others with lies were soon beaten into dog food. You should be on your knees thanking the government for being there. It was, after all, designed to protect your life from the consequences of your actions. Not every person you mistreat will have signed the pledge, you know….
You also don’t understand that while your freedom to speak is not unlimited, my freedom to remain silent is infinite. I was never obligated to tell you anything, and the longer you insist that I must, the more people will see that you are a phony, a fascist, and now, by your own words even, a potential saboteur. Of course, it’s already too late for you to get any answers from me to you. You blew that possibility the first time you acted like you owned me.
Surprise: I am what a free person looks like. You just can’t tell me what to do, but you will be punished for trying. None of your sophist theories prepared you for this, did they?
You will choke yourself to death with your own words in this arena because you’re just too stupid to undersand that you are not running this show. I’ve been baiting you for days now; I’m going to bait you until the cows come home, and you’re not going to be able to stop because you just can’t see the error of your way. I may play you along until you’re old and gray, but I am never going to answer any question you ask: you have disqualified yourself from any response from me except contempt and derision.
So this is the way it is when you get out of line in a libertarian society: your own words cut you to the quick.
By your actions I know you, and I have already made certain that you will not recover from your crimes here. Your only hope at this point is to back off, get right with the truth, and hope to whatever you’ve substituted for God that I’ll forget about you.
0December 10th, 2006 at 6:18 am
Allen,
The fact that people are united against you isn’t enough to prove libel. Also, I doubt you’ll be able to disprove very much of what has been said. As always, I hope for a pleasant surprise.
Also, I doubt that any of us have very much to fear from you. If we do, then this will only get more and more interesting.
December 10th, 2006 at 6:23 am
Mike N: “From the FEC reports disbursement to Articulate Campaigns:
10/2005 – 6,500
11/2005 – 4,000
12/2005 – 3,000
01/2006 – 8,000
02/2006 – 1,000
03/2006 – 5,000
04/2006 – 21,500
05/2006 – 22,500
06/2006 – 13,750
07/2006 – 14,500
08/2006 – 18,500
09/2006 – 5,000
10/2006 – 11,000
TOTAL: $134,250”
In addition to the $134,250 paid to Allen Hacker’s firm mentioned by Mike N.—- a true hero if the LP ever had one—- it appears that an additional $12,500 was paid to Articulate Campaigns for the period from October 19 thru Nov. 27. According to the latest Badnarik filing, the Post-General Report which was posted on the FEC website on Friday, Hacker’s company received payments of $5,000 on October 27, $5,000 on November 1, and an additional payment of $2,500 on November 9.
Those could all be legitimate, but they vastly far exceed any other expenditures during that period. In fact, during that same critical period—- the final two weeks of the campaign—- the Badnarik campaign spent less than a quarter of that amount on advertising – - – $3,774.25 for radio ads. Of course, there wasn’t any TV advertising. Most campaigns dump every last cent into last-minute ads.
Glad they had their priorities straight.
The most curious thing of all, according to this latest FEC filing, is that the campaign debt is listed as $11,753.09—- not the $65,000 that Hacker alluded to in his latest fundraising appeal. What gives? And you can probably guess who the biggest creditor is. It’s the Libertarian Party, stuck with $8,500 in unpaid bills from the Badnarik folks dating back to April.
Go to the FEC website and check it out for yourself.
December 10th, 2006 at 6:36 am
Matt,
You’re a nice guy, but you’re not a lawyer. You should have read everything I’ve said on this blog about libel before you made any pronouncements. I’m happy to help you out a bit, though. I don’t have to prove it by their unison, I have the proof in Mike Nelson’s posts. He said what he said, it matches the definition, and I really don’t even have to prove that there was damage to me because of the specific type of libel it was. But I certainly can use the echos others give his libel to increase the damages manifold.
Nobody has anything to fear from me. It’s yourself you should be afraid of, if you decide you’re one of them. Mike Nelson has something to fear from the law, but he had his chance and chose to go too far, so I have to enforce it or there’s no integrity to the concept.
Everyone else among “them” is merely testifying against himself in your court of public opinion.
And please, don’t be offended when I suggest that you stop generalizing. “People” are not united against me, “a few people” are united against me. Most are not, and many are united with me.
“People” are tired of what these guys do and how they’ve held the party back so far that it looks like a retard. “People” are glad I’m wrecking their game. At least, the many people who write and call to encourage me in this dirty little war.
Nobody likes that it had to happen, but now that it is happening, some people have actually reached out to express hope for the first time in years, decades, that the LP might get cleaned up and grow up.
That’s me, I’m the cleaner. I’m here to sweep away the dirt, kill off the infestation, cut out the cancer, drive out the fascists who kill the very hope those people have begun to feel again.
It’s my hobby for the next two years at least, given that I won’t be doing what I had planned for that time….
You might consider helping. Or at least, staying on the sidelines and not getting caught up in something that just isn’t you.
Thanks for listening.
0December 10th, 2006 at 6:43 am
Truth Seeker,
Your numbers are right. But your context is lacking. And not all the invoices are in yet.
Read back through the blog, everything you need to know is here and on HoT. Of course, you’ll have to wait for HoT to ome back online. Probably happen sooner than later, now people are getting back to work after the election.
Just don’t jump to conclusions. The other guys who’ve done that around here aren’t looking too smart just now. And looking much worse later.
And No, don’t bother asking me to explain the numbers here. The bigmouths have already disqualified this venue from getting any answers. You’ll just have to wait, and be where the report does come out. Which isn’t going to happen, naturally, until the campaign is closed.
Sorry, but I’m not the guy to take it up with, they were the ones who got all enthusiastic about making rules.
0December 10th, 2006 at 7:41 am
Allen,
Thanks for your reply. I’ll patiently wait for your post-election analysis. I guess I’m just surprised that in this day and age there are any vendors out there who can afford to wait five weeks—- or longer—- to submit invoices for more than $54,000. Geez, they must be really patient folks…
December 10th, 2006 at 8:57 am
Either that, or they’re part of your deceptive scam.
December 10th, 2006 at 9:04 am
Allen.
Are you KIDDING me? You aren’t scaring me, you’re cracking me up, man.
Baiting me? Yeah, I guess a good sleazeball can bait enough people into giving him money for absolutely nothing at all. But you’re even inept at that!
First of all, Mike Nelson and I are not friends to say the least. If you follow Hammer of Truth at all, you might remember that he thinks I’m a retard statist for co-founding the Libertarian Reform Caucus to throw out the pledge, which, by the way, I never signed because I don’t agree with it.
In fact, I think you may be the only thing Mike and I agree on, maybe besides Eric Dondero. I didn’t even pay attention to his post – I didn’t know crap about you, so I was not going to rush to any judgement. All the conclusions I have drawn about you came not from anything Nelson said, but between what I saw as a failing and poorly managed campaign and the sniveling piece of self-inflation and money-grabbing posted at the top of this page.
It’s not libel to form opinions about you. And it’s not libel to say that someone’s actions look suspicious, that someone seems to be incredibly inept, that someone looks dishonest because he is begging for money yet not giving anybody any answers on why he needs money in the first place, that someone has an ego that could eclipse the sun, or anything else I’ve said. I never accused you of fraud – I only said your deterrence to answer the concerns of people on this forum made you look like you had something to hide. And you continue to do so, so nobody’s mind is changing.
Of course the freedom to remain silent. There’s no legal action from my side trying to force you to speak. I am in no way intruding on your liberties. You can be as silent as you bloody want. But YOU asked US for money. What? You expect us to give it to you unconditionally? You think you don’t have to address any of our concerns and call both people who donated to Badnarik and people who didn’t bad names – and suddenly – oh, hey, here, let me whip out my wallet and give Hacker $200,000 to write a report that nobody gives a crap about, that won’t solve any of the LP’s problems and probably wouldn’t be honest anyway because he would continue to evade taking personal responsibility for the campaign’s failure. Oh, let me feel sorry that he’s gotta go kill bugs now because he drove a campaign for a supposed “fiscal conservative” $200 grand into debt and doesn’t have the trust of anyone in the party he wants to manage campaigns for. Let me be sad that Badnarik is going to be saddled with debt for the rest of his life because he ignored the concerns of the Libertarian community about him hiring you (and their warnings proved true) and let you rack up so much debt.
I guess we’ll have to let history bear out who wins this fight. I certainly ain’t hurting from it. I owe you nothing, I’ve lost nothing and I don’t see that myself or anyone else here begging for answers has intruded on your personal sovereignty, violated your rights or said anything illegal. And Mike’s “sabotage” comment was not illegal, as it was figurative and not criminal sabotage, so look forward to losing your lawsuit and being even further into debt.
Maybe you should charge it on the campaign and then come begging us for more money.
December 10th, 2006 at 9:31 am
I guess we’ll have to let history bear out who wins this fight.
nobody. nobody “won” the Harry Browne 2000 campaign dustup either.
December 10th, 2006 at 10:26 am
Excellent rebuttal by Nick Wilson. Actually, it’s a felony to ask people to contribute to pay off an imaginable campaign debt that doesn’t exist. It’s called fraud.
December 10th, 2006 at 10:51 am
Undercover Anarchist had it right on December 6th!
December 10th, 2006 at 1:39 pm
Hmm… Good idea.
December 10th, 2006 at 1:43 pm
Nick,
You’re on a bandwagon that should never have been launched. No, you’ve not made direct accusations, you’ve just added your voice to those who have. You’ve demanded answers to questions that no one bothered to ask before accusations were made but never sustantiated. No one has a duty to respond in a biased forum.
Even though, I actually did try to respsnd at first, and all I got was word-twisting and ridicule. That confirmed the invalidity of the so-called discussion.
Clean up the forum, see what happens.
Of course, to do that you’ll have to surrender your own slavish devotion to your opinions, and I doubt you can do that. If you can, I salute you. And some miracle will have to happen that rehabilitates Mike Nelson and the widespread impulse that moves people like MLB to jump into bad water.
As for Mike Neson, there’s nothing figutative about setting out to destroy an activity with lies and a reputation with false declarations, and then admitting it publicly. No amount of ‘jes kinnin’ is going to reposition the facts of what happened. I see you forgot to reply to the no-absolute free speech part.
BTW, watch out for those generalizations.
0December 10th, 2006 at 1:46 pm
Paranoid Schizophrenia.
Schizophrenia (SKITS-oh-FREEN-ee-uh)—-one of the most damaging of all mental disorders—-causes its victims to lose touch with reality. In the paranoid form of this disorder, they develop delusions of persecution or personal grandeur.
Seek help.
December 10th, 2006 at 1:47 pm
Truth Seeker,
Too bad you didn’t ask that question instead of putting it up as sarcasm.
A vendor who doesn’t yet know the total amount due because the service is not yet completed would wait to submit. The election has come and gone, but people are still working to dispose of furniture and other assets, raise money and pay off the bills, file reports, etc.
This is just one example of what frustrates me, that you guys attack and ridicule without considering everything involved.
0December 10th, 2006 at 1:50 pm
MLB,
That’s a cute litle addition to the poison in the water. Toss out an irrelevant truth and see if one of the provacateurs will pick it up. And, of course, Mr. Paranoia jumped right on it.
Reconsider your intent. And your unintended consequences.
0December 10th, 2006 at 2:51 pm
“I see you forgot to reply to the no-absolute free speech part.”
Actually I think I responded quite clearly to that part. Nobody here has violated free speech limits and nobody here is forcing you to talk. It’s not like we’re holding rusty nails to you throat and threatening to stab you if you don’t talk. You can leave the forum and the conversation will eventually die down.
But if you’re going to be so bold as to ask us for money and then demand we shut the hell up when we start inquiring about the previous finances and where they went, you deserve all the flak you’re catching. And if you’re going to cover up all the proof that – if what you say is true – would redeem you, how can you get upset when we think you’re hiding something? It’s merely a logic based accusation, as that is all we have to go on because you are avoiding disclosing anything, because we are lobbing accusations at you, and so on.
And thus we’re in a catch-22 that only you can get us out of. I can’t clean up the forum. I already said if you just answer my questions and show me the data, and they reinforce what you say, I’ll be the first to apologize. I’m giving you an out here, because I can understand our ganging up on you is probably why you’ve shut down and gotten so defensive. Maybe the way you’re acting now isn’t how you really are – I’ll even give you benefit of the doubt.
But you have to prove why we should listen to you before you can make any pretense of expecting us to treat you with respect after the way you’ve approached the campaign, this recent plea for help, the people who did give money to Badnarik – and inadvertantly you – who you just called names for raising valid questions, etc.
And until you can prove that you didn’t spend hundreds of thousands of campaign dollars hiring experts on “How to Contain the Mike Nelson Sabotage Threat” or for personal counselors to nurse your wounded ego, nobody has any reason to take you seriously when you say “You won’t be fooled this time around – trust me! I’m serious!”
December 10th, 2006 at 4:04 pm
Nick,
That’s the biggest problem with the pledge, and I can’t believe you, of all people, seem to have missed it. You’re talking as though the only type of force that exists is physical—rusty nails, physical restraint or punishment—stuff like that. But pushing somebody to do what you want against their will by defaming them with endless innuendo based on nothing more than presumption and your demand that he do what you want, that’s force too.
Sure, I could leave. But it wouldn’t end, you’re wrong. Every time I try to do something there will be Mike & the boys, er promises already made, trying to destroy it regardless of its potential to the world, because they don’t care about making things better, they only care about being right. Which is all you’re doing right now.
Or, as you said, you could just not contribute to the campaign. But beyond that, there is no mandate that you try to make a case out of mere possibilities, and yet that is all you’re doing. Which is why it is you, in fact, who is looking bad here. We all know you’re better than that, and many of us are sorely disappointed in you. You’re embarassing the LRC.
It’s possible to assume anything about anyone. And it’s possible that someone might have other reasons for not replying, which reasons have nothing to do with the accusations but are legitimate nonetheless. By your approach, people have to lay themselves and others bare at the drop of a hat just because somebody with an agenda, or some Johnnie-come-lately, takes an interest.
You’re like a tabloid-TV fan. You heard a question, and now you just gotta know, right now, the way you want it, regardless of decorum or respect for your fellow man.
Let me make it simple for everyone. A bunch of you guys got to the threater late, and now you’re arguing with the usher to start the movie over. The answer is No.
0December 10th, 2006 at 6:54 pm
Let me try another constructive suggestion, based on having been Badnarik’s National Mobilization Facilitator in 2004, and thus a member of the not-quite-inner circle (for example, I was given no money.)
There was a banquet at the 2004 National Convention. There was a fundraiser at the banquet emceed as I recall by Barbara Goushaw. (I was not there.) As I recall, and several members of the inner circle such as 2004 treasurer Geoff Neale and 2004 Publicist Steve Gordon will recall in more detail, the campaign believed that it was owed a substantial sum (my memory is $25,000) of additional funds by the LNC on a somewhat complicated basis. When last I asked, close to election day, the campaign still thought it was owed that sum. Perhaps that has since been cleared; perhaps the debt is still owed.
December 10th, 2006 at 8:33 pm
“We all know you’re better than that, and many of us are sorely disappointed in you. You’re embarassing the LRC.”
No, this is exactly the kind of thing the LRC is trying to avoid for the party – inept campaigns and unelectable candidates. When the party takes a radical, ideological stand, the members gravitate to ideologues instead of to candidates. I like Michael – he’s a good guy and I’m sure he works hard – but he’s not that great of a candidate and had no qualifications to run for President. When the party runs people for positions they have no qualification for, it hurts the party in the long run. I felt like his whole fundraising campaign for the House race was based on the fact that because he ran for president, he’d have more national name recognition than most of our other candidates, and thus would get more vote totals in his district. Didn’t work, and it was a misstep to expect it would – I could have told you that months ago.
But either way, my intolerance of your apparent ineptitude and your evasion from answering any questions comes not as much from my reformist tendencies as from a serious gut feeling after reading the letter at the top of this page. I have little tolerance for hypocrites or scam artists or people who don’t come forward to take responsibility for their actions, so my immediate impression of you through the letter set me against you. Maybe the letter was just poorly worded. But since then you’ve done nothing to convince me that you AREN’T any of the above and a lot to convince me that you ARE.
And your film metaphor was pretty lame. Everyone’s been asking to “start the movie over” because you misaligned the film from the beginning and the picture was showing up sideways. And you’re getting angry and defensive at us for our demands.
December 10th, 2006 at 10:23 pm
Nick,
Simply, to make demands not founded in a contract is unlibertarian.
And if you’ll re-read your own words just above, you might find you’ve just admitted yielding to prejudice and trying to shunt the responsibility onto me.
That’s not the way it works. If you make an accusation, you have to prove it. If you merely state an opinion, that’s your prerogative.
To say that you think I should have budgeted, spent and focused differently, in a different race with maybe even a different candidate, that’s your opinion and I respect it. To use words like evasion, hypoctie and scam artist requires that you justify what you say.
You’ve not met that burden in any way, and your fears, prejudices and suspicions do not obligate me in the least.
To accuse me of evasion, you must first establish that there was an obligation to answer. There isn’t.
To call me, or imply that I am, a hypocrite, you must show evidence of duplicity. You haven’t.
To call me a scam artist without being able to prove it would be a crime, and merely to imply it, simply dishonorable.
Face it. You guys have taken a wrong turn, and I’m your mentor toward getting back on track. I know you don’t like it, but you appointed me and I am trilled at the prospect of helping you find your way, one way or another.
0December 10th, 2006 at 11:27 pm
Allen:
I think Mike Nelson has acted oafishly, and I believe that accusations of fraud should not be made lightly.
That said, he did less damage to the Badnarik camaign than you have stated. He has done more damage more recently by getting under your skin and bringing you towards (not all the way to!) his level. He’s got you so riled up that you are attacking people who have not made churlish attacks.
His accusations may have cost the campaign a few tens of thousands at most. The remaining dry-up comes from factors I have described previously.
——————
You have made a truly audacious claim: that with $750K vs. $400K Badnarik could have gotten close to ten times as many votes. The burden of proof lies on you to back up that claim. This is not a moral or legal obligation. It is simply the price of not looking silly (or worse) to those who have heard your audacious claim (an audience wider than this web site).
I have stated in previous posts several speculations on how you might have a basis for your claim. I have defended you better than you have defended yourself to date. I look forward to your report (whenever it is) to see if you do indeed have a credible basis for your claim of extreme nonlinearity in your results as a function of dollars raised.
December 10th, 2006 at 11:56 pm
I was willing to give Hacker the benefit of the doubt until he stated:
“Face it. You guys have taken a wrong turn, and I’m your mentor toward getting back on track. I know you don’t like it, but you appointed me and I am trilled at the prospect of helping you find your way, one way or another.”
This is bordering on megalomania and the LP nor the freedom movement need nothing of the kind.
Quit while you are both ahead, or at least cut your losses because Allen Hacker and Mike Nelson are both burning bridges in this thread.
December 11th, 2006 at 1:16 am
“Simply, to make demands not founded in a contract is unlibertarian.”
So asking you to answer questions with out any threat of legal or physical force if you don’t is unlibertarian? By that reasoning, to demand for us to be nice to you after you ask us for money is unlibertarian, as we are not bound by any contract either. It’s not like we’re violating your right to remain silent.
“trying to shunt the responsibility onto me.”
Um, remind me – what responsibility do I have to “shunt onto you” again? Oh, yeah. To give you money and shut up with the prying questions. I forgot.
“To use words like evasion, hypoctie and scam artist requires that you justify what you say.”
Evasion from answering our questions is not a crime. You have been doing it and can do that all day and no one can do anything about it. That doesn’t change that that’s what you’re doing, and I don’t think anyone here needs any more proof on that beyond the fact that we’ve all asked you the same questions over and over again and you still refuse to answer them.
Hypocrite – that’s easy. You called me “a phony, a fascist, and now, by your own words even, a potential saboteur” without any proof whatsoever and now you’re expecting me to prove things that I never said about you but implied that hurt your feelings – for one thing, I never said you were a scam artist, only that your evasion makes you look like one. That’s purely a subjective opinion, though.
And your last post also reaffirms your repulsive egotism which turned me against you and made me not trust you from the beginning. It’s kinda sad, because the only person you seem to be fooling is yourself.
And I never said I would be a “saboteur,” either (the actual quote was “Many people here will certainly join Mike N. in “sabotaging” any of your future campaigns until you prove that you have any credibility and trustworthiness and aren’t all talk and no show.”) You’re the one twisting the language here to try to make yourself out to be the victim, and that’s why you will lose any legal action you take against Mike “Boorish” Nelson or anyone else who hurt your feelings.
Then again, it is highly possible that all the time people are spending making you waste time responding to this forum and “mentoring us back on the right track” is potentially “sabotaging” your efforts to find potential new “suckers” to potentially defraud in a potentially personally-enriching scheme, as the possibility is high that you screwed up the Badnarik campaign by possibly driving it into the ground with debt but possibly don’t want to own up to it and are now potentially trying to use your potential past ineptness for your own potential monetary advantage. But I don’t know anything – that’s just a possibility. Maybe if you showed me some concrete facts, I’d could potentially say more concrete things and possibly would make opinions more in line with the way you see the situation. Potentially.
Note: What I’m saying is not what I’m actually saying. Political legalese is so much fun, ain’t it?
December 11th, 2006 at 1:47 am
Agreed. 100%.
December 11th, 2006 at 2:51 am
Carl,
You are indeed a reasonable person, and you have made your arguments well. But I disagree that I lose anything in standing up to bullyism, whether it’s to the bully himself or to the subsequent appeasers.
It’s a bad-cop/good-cop thing. First the bad cop maligns one, and when one stands up to him, the good cop comes over and whispers in one’s ear, “Look, what he wants is reasonable after all; just give up what he wants—you can say you gave it to me—-and all this goes away.”
It will not work. Despite the best intentions the good cop may have, he’s in league with the bad cop and anything he gets is the bad cop’s victory.
I’ve been watching this game since the beginning of the LP. It has destroyed the potential of the LP and if it’s not terminated now, the LP is dead.
It’s touching that they’re willing to give me the credit (blame me) for their results after they’ve worked so hard to get them.
I continue to be astounded and amused that otherwise seemingly intelligent people would think that it’s okay to follow-on as agents of aggression. More so that you would make so eloquently a specious argument which would, were I to yield to it, give the abuse its victory, however circituously gained.
I go back and forth between reason and bluntness, between kinship and derision with these guys, because they live there. That is where they communicate, and that is the only place they have a hope of hearing the truth. But I have never approached Mike Nelson’s level, nor do I need to, for I have no desire to rehabiltate him. He’s the one I intend to leave as-is, to remind all in the future what happens to you when you transgress against that which it turns out was never more to you than an object of pretense anyway.
This will continue until all unfounded accusations have passed and all demands akin to ownership and propriety being assumed by any so-called libertarian against any other have ceased.
This is no longer about me and Badnarik for Congress. These guys thought they could start a crusade (actually, drop into lock-step with one that’s older than many of them) and keep control of it, but they were wrong.
They are not writing the script here. They aren’t even writing anything original any more.
It is ironic that they take their primary tactics from government, though, isn’t it? All these echos of “If you have nothing to hide…” and, “social misfit with psychological problems” bring to mind exactly how agents provacateur woud attempt to dismantls anyone who stepped up too tall.
Oh, yes, let’s not forget “megalomaniac”. As if someone who would call someone such a thing wouldn’t have to be one himself to assume the superiority necessary to making the pronouncement.
What if I was just a guy who saw an extroardinary circumstance and realized how to optimize it to give the LP a giant leap forward? Mightn’t it be that no one else saw it too? Might it seem nonsense to those who didn’t get that glimpse?
Were that the case, who arrs, me in going for it or those who make every effort to prevent it, whether they realize that’s what’s happening or not?
Mightn’t it happen that a society could be gradually sculpted from the fears and foibles of men such that its members more effectively hold each other down than identifiable oppressors ever could?
How would you wake your fellow trveler to what they’re doing, if not to stand up to their transgressions and wrongheadedness and try to explain it to them?
0December 11th, 2006 at 4:32 am
I like to compare these blogs to the Jerry Springer show. Actually, I’ve hardly ever seen the Jerry Springer Show but from what I’ve heard about it there was lots of hair-pulling and brazier stretching.
In the end, I can’t remember whether or not everyone decided or not “can’t we all get along?!” But that was irrelevant.
The important point is that hair got pulled and brazieres got stretched ratings were good.
I don’t know whether or not the Jerry Springer Show made America better or worse. Similarly, you might ask yourself whether posting on Third Party Watch makes the Libertarian Party better or worse.
At the risk of revealing my opinion, how about some of you starting a Republican Party Watch or Democrat Party Watch blog.
December 11th, 2006 at 9:28 am
Church of Hacker launches, Hacker anoints self “messiah,” “genius.”
(Austin, TX)
Bug exterminator and former campaign manager Allen Hacker formally launched a church for himself. The fundamental tenets of the church involve paying homage, via offerings – preferably monetary, to the infallibility and infinite wisdom of its Holy Founder, condemning the evils of the devil Mike “Saboteur” Nelson, and repeating a mantra of “Property (for Hacker), Security (for Hacker), Prosperity (for Hacker).”
The Church of Hacker held a opening ceremony, but unfortunately for the founder nobody showed up, except for one or two concerned citizens wondering what was happening.
71-year old Mae Brown recounts her experience, “I was just passing by the church when I heard someone inside screaming ‘Sabotage!’ over and over and over. I went inside to see what was going on and there was this creepy guy surrounded by mirrors. He turned to us, saying ‘Alas, someone came to praise my almighty greatness!’ I got the hell outta there quick, I’ll tell ya! What a creepo.”
Some critics are concerned that if people listen to Hacker, the newborn religion might turn into a cult. “It’s got all the makings of a cult of personality. Clearly Hacker has a god-complex and an unwillingness to take criticism. But luckily he doesn’t seem to have much of an audience and certainly not the business adeptness of the Scientologists,” said Dr. Herbert Shmellville, a professor of religion at UT-Austin and author of the book “Self-Worship, Schizophrenia and Esoteric Religion in America.”
One Hackerist ceremony involves the self-proclaimed “Lord” Hacker standing in a room full of mirrors telling himself how talented he is. In another, Hacker photocopies pictures of “the Devil” and throws them into His Holy Fire of Wrath. He also hosts “Smiling for Liberty Sessions” for $100,000 per hour. One of the stranger rituals involves theoretical members worshiping his brass “whatsits the size of the moon”. Hacker claims people have actually participated in these rituals, but the Austin Chronicle was not able to obtain from Hacker any solid proof in the factual accuracy of this statement.
Hacker promises to publish his “Bible of Infinite Wisdom” once he can get enough donors to fund it. “Here, let me give you a little piece of my infinite wisdom, which your money could so graciously buy: ‘Beware the evil saboteur. How would you wake your fellow traveler to what they’re doing, if not to stand up to their transgressions and wrongheadedness and try to explain it to them? Mightn’t it happen that a society could be gradually sculpted from the fears and foibles of men such that its members more effectively hold each other down than identifiable oppressors ever could?,’” he read from his “First Gospel.”
“And there’s much more brilliance where that came from, because I’m a heaven-sent genius. It’s a weird specialty that depends on a peculiar talent, of which I seem to have a remarkable share of. This is not about your hard-earned hundred bucks, it’s about the world getting the desperately missing wisdom whose absence has been stifling it all these years. Ultimately, it’s about the future of freedom in our world for the next ten thousand years. Go right now to www.churchofhacker.org and click that Donate button as quickly as you can.”
But not everybody believes Hackers’ intentions are pure. “He’s slimier than a car salesman,” said Joe Blow, donor to the Libertarian Michael Badnarik’s failed campaign for Congress which Hacker managed, leaving it saddled with $200,000 in debt. “He messed up the Badnarik campaign and now is looking for new suckers to defraud of their money and flaunt his own ego. You’d probably never even get the Bible anyway if you fell for his tricks.
Hacker answered by declaring, “Whoever said that is a libelous swine with no proof – and they’re attacking my personal freedoms and violating the limits on speech, setting out to destroy an activity with lies and a reputation with false declarations.”
When the Austin Chronicle asked him to respond to concerns that he mismanaged the Badnarik campaign, he replied “No. I don’t owe you any answers. But I will say the saboteur devil Mike Nelson is the primary reason why Badnarik lost, another sign of the chronic infection that has been keeping the LP anemic and unhealthy all along. Now I am starting a church to mentor the world back on the right track from the path of evil Nelson led it on and to reinforce the fact that I am the messiah for all the forces of liberty in the world.”
Hacker also threatened to put the Austin Chronicle on his “List of Fascist Libelous Saboteurs” if the paper published anything critical of his campaign. “What you are doing here is evil, and your readers are thanking me for standing up to you and exposing it. I now know who the devils are, how they do what they do, how they are enabled, and why they get away with it.”
“I am thrilled at the prospect of helping the misled find their way, one way or another. The people have taken a wrong turn, and I’m their mentor toward getting them back on track. Give me money, and I will devolve my eternal blessings upon you.”
The Chronicle contacted Mike Nelson for comment, and he responded by farting into the phone.
December 11th, 2006 at 10:22 am
ROFL!
December 11th, 2006 at 12:03 pm
The parts I made up weren’t even that funny. The real comic gold was in the quotes taken directly or slightly altered from his own mouth.
December 11th, 2006 at 12:06 pm
That was one of the funniest thing I have read in years. It is still making me laugh. Pure genius.
December 11th, 2006 at 12:36 pm
“The Chronicle contacted Mike Nelson for comment, and he responded by farting into the phone.”
My favorite line.
December 11th, 2006 at 2:19 pm
Do you ever think that Allen Hacker is delaying his report intentionally to egg people on?
If he does have an inflated ego, this is just feeding into it by making him the most talked about person in the LP.
I don’t believe he lined his pockets or committed any fraud. I think the campaign was misrun, but what can we expect when the LP doesn’t have any top notch campaign managers rushing forward to work for us?
Let’s lay off him a little bit and wait for the report to come out.
December 11th, 2006 at 3:16 pm
Perhaps he has a masochism fetish….
December 11th, 2006 at 4:59 pm
Are the two Allen Hackers the same guy?
It’s not that uncommon of a name.
Judge for yourself.
This was emailed to me.
http://www.success-talk.com/host6.asp?hd=20
New host Allen Hacker talks about his up coming program, the State of Aescir. He explores his understandings of the Galactic Consciousness and how we each play a role in it.
===================
Does this have anything to do with the “ten thousand years of freedom” thing?
“Ultimately, it’s about the future of freedom in our world for the next ten thousand years.”
-AAH
December 11th, 2006 at 5:00 pm
This was also emailed to me.
http://www.aescir.net/
check out FAQs, glossary, and site map.
Still haven’t found a client list, though.
December 11th, 2006 at 5:01 pm
Last email I received: re Hacker
Apparently, Allen was a former Vegas Scientology staffer who was kicked out of scientology and tried to start his own cult. He promoted himself as a “group” but in reality it was only him.
(link posted by Mike Nelson yesterday)
“The former Las Vegas Scientology Staff Allen Hacker,
calling himself the “Speaker” for
his one-man Acceptance Services Mission “Group”, – it
consists only of one person, himself, and zero assets – has already been declared Suppressive
due to his public support of
the known anti-social-personality Dennis Erlich.
(see RI-ACT-57, enclosed)
December 11th, 2006 at 6:10 pm
Doc,
you forgot this other email you sent me…
Allen’s resume.
Among other things, he invented and trademarked the socratic method (!)
who knew?
http://www.lawfulgov.org/founder.htm
December 11th, 2006 at 6:55 pm
Yeah…well…I’m not really sure what to say now…just wow.
Wow.
Scientology, State of Æscir, wow…
Now I understand the meaning of his statement that he and Michael didn’t share the same world views.
I think that his report is going to be a hoot read if its anything like the books he has on his old sites.
Good god.
December 11th, 2006 at 7:14 pm
Nick, that was some genius.
December 11th, 2006 at 7:23 pm
“Face it. You guys have taken a wrong turn, and I’m your mentor toward getting back on track. I know you don’t like it, but you appointed me and I am trilled at the prospect of helping you find your way, one way or another.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcisism
December 11th, 2006 at 7:25 pm
“The great irony is that you are the nails in Nelson’s legal coffin because you are proof that his lies were taken seriously enough by enough people to seriously damage the campaign. And now here you are, threatening to use the force of lies to destroy some innocent future LP candidate if you learn that, what, I’m helping him or even just associated by friendship? That’s not libertarian, that’s fascist.”
When I first read Mike Nelson’s accusations about the campaign wasting money I assumed that Mike was overreacting. I (unfortunately) ignored Mike’s allegations and sent the campaign $200 anyway. Now it looks like Mike Nelson was right. I don’t think that Mike Nelson had much effect on the campaign. A lot of Libertarians don’t even know who Mike Nelson is and have never even heard of Hammer Of Truth. The campaign had already raised plenty of money before Mike Nelson posted his allegations. A lack of tangable results hurt the Badnarik campaign far more than anything Mike Nelson did.
A lot of Libertarians donated money to the Badnarik for Congress campaign (myself included) and the results were very disappointing. The campaign raised over $400,000 and now has $200,000 in debt. The evidence indicates that very little money was spent on outreach to the public, and from what I’ve seen of the outreach most of it was lame. So why is Allen Hacker suprised that people have questions?
Exactly how much money was spent on outreach and how does that money breakdown?
Exactly how much money did Allen Hacker get paid and what was the rest of the campaign staff paid? I’ve got no problem with anyone making money, I just think that it is reasonable to expect results in return.
What happened to the DVD that the campaign promised to produce and spread through the district?
How many new voters did the campaign register?
How many mailers to voters in the district did the campaign send out?
How many door hangers did the campaign put on people’s doors?
How many pieces of campaign literature were handed out?
Did the campaign print any ads in newspapers and if so how many and what was the cost?
How many inquiries did the campaign recieve and what did they do with those inquiries?
Why did the campaign shy away from promoting bold issues in favor of wishy-washy “Smile if you love liberty” and “Security, Family, Property” messages? Did anyone here become interested in the Libertarian Party because of empty slogans? Empty slogans may work for establishment politicians but that is only because they are establishment politicians. These are not the type of messages that cause people to rally behind a “third party” candidate.
Why did the campaign only spend $3,000 and something on radio ads?
Why did the campaign not produce any TV commercials? Television is still the most powerful medium for communication and even though people who were not in the district would have seen the ads it would have still lead to more inquiries for the camaign and the Libertarian Party as a whole.
Why is Allen lashing out at those who ask questions about how a campaign that raised so much money and had so much potential ended up doing so poorly?
December 11th, 2006 at 7:30 pm
There’s also this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_Personality_Disorder
see also “Superiority complex” as well as ‘Hubris” AND “Malignant narcissism” as well as “Megalomania”
Wikipedia has good articles on all these subjects which can be compared with Allen Hacker’s statements in this comment section and his webpages linked above.
December 11th, 2006 at 7:34 pm
Diagnostic criteria
At least five of the following are necessary for a diagnosis:
1. has a grandiose sense of self-importance
2. is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love
3. believes that he or she is “special” and unique and can only be understood by other special people
4. requires excessive admiration
5. strong sense of entitlement
6. takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends
7. lacks empathy
8. is often envious or believes others are envious of him or her
9. arrogant affect.
December 11th, 2006 at 7:35 pm
“To the extent that people are narcissistic, they can be controlling, blaming, self-absorbed, intolerant of others’ views, unaware of other’s needs and of the effects of their behavior on others, and require that others see them as they wish to be seen.”
December 11th, 2006 at 7:36 pm
“People who are narcissistic commonly feel rejected, humiliated and threatened when criticised. To protect themselves from these dangers, they often react with disdain, rage, and/or defiance to any slight, real or imagined.”
December 11th, 2006 at 7:37 pm
“Though individuals with NPD are often ambitious and capable, the inability to tolerate setbacks, disagreements or criticism makes it difficult for such individuals to work cooperatively with others or to maintain long-term professional achievements. The narcissist’s perceived fantastic grandiosity, often coupled with a hypomanic mood, is typically not commensurate with his or her real accomplishments.”
December 11th, 2006 at 7:38 pm
“The interpersonal relationships of patients with NPD are typically impaired due to the individual’s lack of empathy, disregard for others, exploitativeness, sense of entitlement, and constant need for attention.”
December 11th, 2006 at 7:41 pm
“Superiority Complex refers to a subconscious neurotic mechanism of compensation developed by the individual as a result of feelings of inferiority. The term was coined by Alfred Adler (February 7, 1870 – May 28, 1937), as part of his School of Individual Psychology.
Those exhibiting the superiority complex commonly project their feelings onto others they perceive as inferior to themselves. Accusations of arrogance and cockiness are often made by others when referring to the individual exhibiting the superiority complex.
Behaviors related to this mechanism may include an exaggeratedly positive opinion of one’s worth and abilities, unrealistically high expectations in goals and achievements for oneself and others, vanity, extravagant style in dressing (with intention of drawing attention), pride, sentimentalism and affected exaltation, snobbism, a tendency to discredit other’s opinions, forcefulness aimed at dominating those considered as weaker or less important, credulity, and others.”
December 11th, 2006 at 7:42 pm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fictional_narcissists
See if you see any similarities to Allen Hacker.
December 11th, 2006 at 8:13 pm
I guess some of us should have done some serious opposition research on Allen Hacker and his connection with Badnarik’s campaign (yes, it’s a good idea to to opposition research on your own guys—that way you don’t get surprised).
Yes, the Allen Hacker associated with the Badnarik campaign would appear to be the same Allen Hacker associated with “ASC Missions Group” and “Aescir.” And he hasn’t even been secretive about it. See:
http://allenhacker.blogspot.com/2005/08/badnarik-for-congress-announcing.html
... and note that “ASC Missions Group” is the top link in the right sidebar. If you do a whois on that group’s domain, the address is the same one used in that blog entry for Badnarik’s campaign. As a matter of fact, “Articulate Management”—the recipient of many of the Badnarik’s campaign’s expenditures—would appear to actually be one of the cult’s subdivisions, The Aescirian Institute for Articulate Management.
We should probably consider ourselves LUCKY that Badnarik only got 4%. 4% sucks, but if he’d pushed 20%, we’d probably have awakened one morning to the headline “Scientology renegade infiltrates Libertarians, takes donors for $400k.”
Tom Knapp
December 11th, 2006 at 8:21 pm
“We should probably consider ourselves LUCKY that Badnarik only got 4%. 4% sucks, but if he’d pushed 20%, we’d probably have awakened one morning to the headline “Scientology renegade infiltrates Libertarians, takes donors for $400k.”
I’d have considered 20% of the vote in that race to have been a decent accomplishment.
December 11th, 2006 at 8:37 pm
Ditto.
December 11th, 2006 at 10:44 pm
Andy,
Yes, 20% would have been a decent accomplishment.
But, the Rs and Ds aren’t idiots. If Michael had actually pushed up into the 20% range, McCaul would have whacked him back down to size—the 4% he got, or maybe even less—with a “California Cult Offshoot Takes Over Libertarian Congressional Campaign” media feed.
In retrospect, we’re probably lucky that he never pushed above 10% in pre-election polling—we’d likely ended up seeing the same 4% (or less) and a major media embarrassment for the party.
Regards,
Tom Knapp
December 11th, 2006 at 11:51 pm
Hahaha. No way
I was only kidding about the cult thing! I don’t even believe it… hahaha…that is HILARIOUS!
It’s not about your hard-earned hundred bucks, it’s about the world getting the desperately missing Scientology healing whose absence has been stifling it all these years. Ultimately, it’s about the future of the Eleemosynary Trust in undetectable sub-fabric of the universe for the next ten thousand years. Go right now to dubya dubya dubya dot aescir dot net/gov/index dot html and click that Donate button as quickly as you can or else Xenu and his Galactic Confederacy will smite you down, as they did with the human race when they brought billions of people to Earth in spacecraft resembling Douglas DC-8 airliners, stacked them around volcanoes and blew them up with hydrogen bombs.
Now we know why the apparent schizophrenia goes untreated, at least. Because psychiatrists are behind a worldwide conspiracy to attack Scientology and create a “world government” run by psychiatrists on behalf of Soviet Russia.
December 12th, 2006 at 1:54 am
I’m not saying that Allen is crazy, but I am saying that there’s nothing funny about mental illness. Let’s just start trying to draw lessons from this. I can think of a few:
Google before you hire.
Demand accountability and a gameplan before donating.
Avoid Scientologists and other charlatans.
Don’t slavishly imitate the major-party expense account habits.
Buy media spots.
Don’t threaten to sue.
Get a better slogan than “Freedom, Prosperity, Security”
December 12th, 2006 at 3:02 am
(continuing Matt’s list)
Don’t spend all day on blogs if you don’t have a clue how to interact with the public. (tends to scare away supporters/donors)
What the hell does “Smile if you (heart) Liberty” mean? Who am I supposed to vote for?
A bunch of nuts on your staff wearing V for Vendetta masks will not win you votes – for god’s sake don’t video tape it and put it on your campaign website.
Did somebody mention buy TV spots?
Support your supporters (yard signs for example).
If you are going to tout a top secret plan, then by all means make this “plan” at least somewhat intelligent.
Blowing 31% of your donations on salary is not a good way to attract more donations. FEC reports are public.
————-
I will take my $200,000 now. I accept all major credit cards.
December 12th, 2006 at 8:33 am
Hacker, you don’t have to say another word. Everything is explained now. Seriously – all my questions have been answered.
Mike N., I think I can go so far as to say we’re all retroactively saddened that you didn’t discover this sooner. You didn’t even need to say anything about sabotage – these quirky little nuggets of joy out of Hacker’s own mouth in a very public setting would have worked quite nicely on their own. I REALLY feel sorry for everyone who gave anything to this campaign. And Tom K.’s quite right. This would have crushed what little reputation the LP has had the campaign actually been more successful.
Oh man. I can’t get over how funny this is.
December 12th, 2006 at 12:04 pm
This is funny like a slippery transplant kidney squirting out of the surgeon’s hands and on to the operating room floor. So yes, it is a little funny, but mostly, it’s just sad.
December 12th, 2006 at 3:15 pm
Interesting stuff, these last posts. As I recall, Michael Badnarik is into TM, so there is some compatibility.
Many self-improvement systems are actually induced mental illness. It is not healthy to always be confident or be positive. It is not good to transcend all negativity or get past all the doubters. Success in these disciplines is equivalent to the mental illnesses described above, albeit more readily reversable.
This is not the only instance of a connection between the LP and New Ageism. Mary Ruwart’s “Healing Our World” is written the style of a New Age book and has endorsements by a collection of New Age Gurus. Michael Cloud is a lesser Tony Robbins, repackaging Neuro Linguistic Programming techniques under his name. And then there is Robert Anton Wilson…
Yes, there are bits of wisdom buried in the New Age corpus—sandwiched in between loads of meaningless verbiage, repackaged same old, spurious trademarks, incredibles overstatements, and outright nonsense. One should make sure one’s BS detector is fully charged before delving into such literature.
December 12th, 2006 at 4:21 pm
Just some numbers for you to compare the Badnarik campaign with that of Minnesota’s Tammy Lee:
Funds Raised: Badnarik around $400K, Lee $205K.
TV Presence: Badnarik none, Lee several major cable ad buys in the Twin Cities market.
Debt at end of campaign: Badnarik $200K, Lee $10K (and that is a loan she made to her own campaign).
Vote Totals: Badnarik 4% in a district that leans hard to the right, Lee 21% in a district that leans hard to the LEFT.
One campaign ran money into the ground while the other was probably the best third party Congressional campaign run in the country. Can you guess which is which?
December 12th, 2006 at 5:35 pm
Jason,
Was Lee in a 2 or 3-way race?
December 12th, 2006 at 5:38 pm
Nevermind, found it:
* Keith Ellison (DFL), 56%
* Alan Fine®, 21%
* Tammy Lee (I), 21%
* Jay Pond (G), 2%
Not bad.
December 12th, 2006 at 6:01 pm
My questions have been answered as well. Funny & sad.
Lesson to take away from this – the LP needs real campaign managers.
December 12th, 2006 at 6:09 pm
2004 TX CD-10 Results:
Michael T. McCaul
REP182,11378.61%
$2,927,850 spent
Robert Fritsche
LIB35,56915.35%
$0 spent
Lorenzo Sadun
W-I13,9616.02%
N/A spent
2006 TX CD-10 Results:
Michael T. McCaul(I)
REP97,72655.28%
$1,146,043 spent
Ted Ankrum
DEM71,41540.40%
$72,061 spent
Michael Badnarik
LIB7,6144.30%
$411,146 spent
December 12th, 2006 at 6:12 pm
(oops, this may be easier to read)
2004 TX CD-10 Results:
Michael T. McCaul
REP
182,113 votes
78.61%
$2,927,850 spent
Robert Fritsche
LIB
35,569
15.35%
$0 spent
Lorenzo Sadun
W-I
13,961
6.02%
N/A spent
2006 TX CD-10 Results:
Michael T. McCaul(I)
REP
97,726
55.28%
$1,146,043 spent
Ted Ankrum
DEM
71,415
40.40%
$72,061 spent
Michael Badnarik
LIB
7,614
4.30%
$411,146 spent
December 12th, 2006 at 6:14 pm
Sources:
http://www.opensecrets.org/
http://elections.sos.state.tx.us/elchist.exe
December 12th, 2006 at 6:46 pm
The fact that Ankrum nailed down 40% of the vote in a district that leans very hard to the right (I used to live in Katy, most of which is now in TX-10 so I know this from experience) is VERY telling in contrast to the numbers posted for Badnarik. Looking at those numbers I’d really focus on the disparity between Ankrum and Badnarik. While it’s true Ankrum carried the banner for the Dems and that obviously beats being a third party candidate, he also didn’t run with any real backing from the national Democratic Party. As a result, Ted Ankrum still put Badnarik to shame in this election, far more so than McCaul did.
May 31st, 2007 at 6:01 pm
[...] The case of Michael Badnarik’s “campaign” for U.S. Congress ending last month is a hilarious case in point. He raised over $400,000, claimed he could win, and got … 4 percent of the vote. He’s now begging for another $200k and it turns out his “campaign” “manager” is starting his own Scientology-like religion. [...]