Our Interview with Shane Cory
In November of 2005 we had the chance to talk with Shane Cory, then the Libertarian Party’s Chief of Staff. Since that time, Mr. Cory has been promoted to the position of Executive Director.
Once again Mr. Cory has agreed to talk with Third Party Watch. In the interview that follows he shares his take on a wide variety of issues—including the 2006 elections, Bob Barr joining the LNC, the failure of the Badnarik campaign, and what’s in store for 2007.
————————————————————————
TPW: Would you consider 2006 a good year for the Libertarian Party? Why or why not?
Cory: Overall, I would say that the LNC did well. In 2005, I would say that we merely survived but this year we started to turn the ship around. Financially, we started the year with a bleak forecast. We had a very large stack of bills to pay (about $150k), an upcoming convention that typically impacts other donations, plus a loss of revenue due to the essential elimination of membership dues (about 35% of our income).
As of our latest financial report, we have whittled this down to a near-current $35k or so. This is the lowest amount of debt the LP has carried in many, many years.
Setting aside good signs of financial responsibility and decent fundraising, I would say that the party as a whole didn’t do too hot.
There is no putting lipstick on our election results this year. We ran too few candidates and of those candidates, not many received even a moderate level of support (man hours and money).
This led to incomplete campaigns. Some candidates did well with media but didn’t have the volunteer resources/time for fundraising efforts. Others did well with fundraising but generated no media. In talking to our Candidate Tracker coordinator, Sean Haugh, we realized that basically not a single well-rounded campaign had been run.
Let me be clear in saying that this is not a failure of our candidates, but of our organization. Being a candidate alone is a Herculean task. Being a candidate who books the media, stuffs the envelopes and handles the accounting is impossible. From the national level to the local level, we have to do a better job of offering support to our most valuable assets, our candidates.
With that said, some of our affiliates did a heck of a job this year in recruiting and supporting candidates. In particular, Texas and Indiana set an example that we should follow on all levels.
————————————————————————
TPW: The Texas CD-10 race saw Michael Badnarik spend a half-million dollars to achieve only 4% of the vote. This result seems more in line with “paper” candidates who don’t even campaign. Personally, what do you think went wrong in that race?
Cory: That’s the half-million dollar question. Badnarik’s campaign spent $450k so far and got 4.3% of the vote. . . about $59 per vote. It’s clear something went wrong in this race. Something went wrong in more than 600 other LP races this year as well.
Of course this particular campaign is unique in the amount of money raised and how it was spent. I think it should be looked into so that we can figure out what went wrong and how we should avoid it in the future. When he’s ready, I’m sure Michael will sit down at some point down the road and help construct an accurate post-mortem on the campaign. A post-mortem of the campaign for historical purposes would be a benefit to the LP. This is not to say that we need a new report about what’s wrong with the LP and how we should save it (that’s a four word report for me . . . Less Talk, More Work).
————————————————————————
TPW: There seems to be growing talk among some in the party that LP candidates just can’t win, no matter what happens. How do you feel on the matter? Do you think that the party should continue to make electoral success a primary objective?
Cory: The only way that we cannot win is if we stop trying. I say the entire premise of that argument is damned ridiculous. What else are we supposed to do? Hang out at intersections with signs screaming at passing cars?
We are a political party. Our job is to find and elect Libertarians.
We are not a think tank, lobbying firm, educational organization, book club or debate society. We are not Jack’s inflamed Church of Libertarianism. We are a political party.
If we do anything aside from moving forward with our mission statement, we are fools for doing so.
We have both hands tied behind our backs by the FEC. If we wanted to do any of the above, we could be a 501( c )3 or ( c )4. We could accept unlimited funds and corporate dollars.
If an LP member feels that we shouldn’t run candidates and should focus on education outreach or anything else, then he or she should support CATO or another libertarian non-profit.
We have too few resources to apply to anything but getting candidates, getting them on the ballot and putting up a good fight.
————————————————————————
TPW: Bob Barr’s addition to the LNC made a great deal of news. How did that come about and do you think Congressman Barr would consider taking on a greater role in the future, either as the 2008 Presidential candidate or in some other capacity?
Cory: First, I believe that Bob has clearly stated that he won’t be running for any office.
How this came about is pretty simple (despite the many rumors to the contrary).
I asked Bob to officially join the party as a member and he did.
When I learned that there was a change in the position of Region 4 Rep, I called up the alternate and asked him if he had considered Bob Barr as the new representative. He said no but thought it was a great idea and asked me to gauge Bob’s interest.
In discussing the position with Bob, he asked my thoughts and I gave him the long list of cons and the one pro . . . it would benefit the party and add some leadership that we desperately need.
After the state chairs in the region met and made an offer, I sat down with Bob again and, despite the many cons of the job (trust me, being an LNC member is a sacrifice of time, money and sanity and we should be grateful that we have qualified people willing to do the job), he accepted without hesitation.
Bob Barr has been a supporter and advocate for the party for years. He spoke at our 2004 and 2006 national convention, he endorsed Badnarik for president, he was a major donor to at least three LP candidates that I’m aware of, and controls one of only two PACs that funded the LNC in 2006 (the other was the Rob Kampia’s PAC with MPP). Not to mention all of his work on privacy and other issues.
The LP’s relationship with former Congressman Barr has been built over the years by numerous people, especially former Executive Director Joe Seehusen.
Essentially, this was a long time coming and I had an opportunity to ask the right questions at the right times.
Yes, some people are upset over his previous or current stances but, I’m sorry, ideology plays no role in the managerial duties of an LNC member. If someone doesn’t like an individual’s views, make sure they don’t get on the Platform Committee.
A few other people take issue with “LPHQ’s influence in the process.” Basically, they say I was too involved in the process. Everything has to be a scandal right? So to clear that up, I was heavily involved in the process. I made the recommendation, twisted arms and influenced everyone I could to make sure that when a former congressman is willing to make a big jump to the LP, we wouldn’t go into Anita Hill hearings over his Nolan Chart scores.
I think time will tell that this was a very good move for the LP. We need leadership, we need experience and the affiliates in his region need the support and influence that Bob has to offer.
————————————————————————
TPW: What is the current financial position of the LNC?strong>
Cory: We’re doing much better as I noted above but we have a very long way to go. We’ll need another $250k for ballot access this year (it’s now a core function) and we need to do some serious prospecting to our own file and outside of our typical circles.
Our existing donor base is phenomenal. They are the true heroes of this party that make everything happen but they cannot continue to carry the burden alone. We’ll be doing all that we can this year to increase our number of active donors as much as possible.
And yes, I did bring back the water cooler.
————————————————————————
TPW: Why was Denver selected to host the LP’s 2008 convention? What other cities were considered?
Cory: Denver got the bid because they wined and dined us Howard Hughes style.
Yes, I’m kidding.
There were many other factors that came into play. The most important factor in my opinion is the level of support coming from the Colorado LP. Combine that with the volunteer efforts of BetteRose Ryan who will handle logistics at this convention and I think we’ll have a winner.
Austin and Cleveland we’re also considered along with a few others I believe. Austin has clout to a great degree thanks to Nancy Neale (our 2004 organizer) being a resident of the college town. I hope that in 2010 we can make it down to Texas.
————————————————————————
TPW: Finally, what are your plans and goals as we enter 2007? Feel free to address both your personal goals as well as those of the Libertarian National Committee at large.
Cory: The LNC established our goals this year which I believe is a great step in the right direction. These goals mesh with what we here at HQ feel is important for the LP, as should be the case.
Some of the goals that standout are meeting our reserve requirement, i.e. being financially responsible; building our donor base to 25k (this goes hand in hand with the first); and having 51 operational affiliates.
The last goal mentioned will be our biggest challenge but is the most important in the long run. The national party would be pretty much useless without state affiliates and, conversely, our state affiliates would have a rough time without the national party.
We need each other and need to work to strengthen one another so that we can eventually support our great candidates with well-rounded campaigns.
January 5th, 2007 at 5:05 pm
Sir:
I am greatly pleased to see this interview from Mr. Cory and have been rightly impressed with the actions of the LP over the course of the last year or so.
I am especially impressed that someone with the stature of Bob Barr has joined the Libertarian Party, but more so that he has taken an active role. I only wish more of the so called blow heads did more to promote freedom instead of simply abusing their freedom of speech.
Thank goodness for the good people like Mr. Corey and Mr. Barr. I am especially impressed by what Mr. Barr has said in an interview or two—which is: “the Constitution is under such assault in this day and age. In order to have any chance of saving the Constitution and our civil liberties, we need a party dedicated to that cause.” Obviously, more and more every day the LP is that party!
Keep up all the good work Mr. Cory and Mr. Barr—and to all those who just want complain, I say get active, donate your time or money or both, and concentrate your fight against all those opposed to the LP Principles and the right to free choice, speech, religion, peace and prosperity!
January 5th, 2007 at 5:13 pm
ballot access needs to be studied from a cost/benefit analysis. Dumping absurd amounts of money into getting states on the ballot that wind up voting
January 5th, 2007 at 5:13 pm
ballot access needs to be studied from a cost/benefit analysis. Dumping absurd amounts of money into getting states on the ballot that wind up voting 1~2% for our candidates is just dumb. Me and Bill don’t agree on this of course, but I would rather focus limited resources on States where LP support is stronger as a natural result. I’d rather hit Indiana and Texas hard in addition to other states, even if it costs the LP 50 state access – which we wont have anyway, with WV and Maine being defunct.
In states where ballot access is hard to impossible, a second thought should be made about how much money to dump into those states. I would rather have a targeted somewhat effective 35 state party than a over extended ‘50 state’ party with ghost state parties in 15 states.
January 5th, 2007 at 5:50 pm
The deal is, Timothy, that in order to EVER be a truly viable party, you need 50 states. And althogh NOW there are 15 “ghost parties”, those states having ballot access to a Libertarian listed candidate speaks well for your party, it allows people to see that you are, in fact, viable, and it spreads the word about Libertarianism.
January 5th, 2007 at 6:31 pm
I appreciate Timothy West’s comments!
And, I am very glad that Mr. Cory does not sugar coat the results of 2006. Improved credibility could go a long way.
January 5th, 2007 at 7:20 pm
Tim,
You can’t get candidates elected if you’re not organized in that district.
One of the MAJOR headaches I had as a candidate was that, in the three counties I ran in, one county had no LP organization, another had a moribund organization… and I WAS the organization in the third. I didn’t find out about events until, in many cases, after they ended. I didn’t have people putting out signs. I didn’t really have any support whatever from any level of the Libertarian Party.
Party organization across the board needs to be improved, and improved greatly, if we’re to win elections in any number.
January 5th, 2007 at 7:47 pm
Too bad Shane Cory is a crook like the rest of them who refuses to make Stephen Gordon be held accountable for his role in the hammer of truth scam, nor will he allow anyone to comment on the Allen Hacker/Badnarik for Congress ‘06 campaign spending scandal.
The Libertarian Party is a joke, and I’m sad to say that because I was a member for over 6 years I believe, and a Liberty Pledger for much of that time.
January 5th, 2007 at 8:19 pm
Kris Overstreet is right: We need strong party organization at every level. That, indeed, is a core theme of my campaign. I welcome all your supports.
And for open libertarian discussion, you are all welcome at Liberty for America http://www.LibertyForAmerica.NET .
January 5th, 2007 at 8:19 pm
“Too bad Shane Cory is a crook like the rest of them who refuses to make Stephen Gordon be held accountable for his role in the hammer of truth scam,”
How is Shane Cory a crook? What Stephen Gordon Hammer Of Truth scam are you talking about?
January 5th, 2007 at 8:24 pm
At the risk of getting more mud on the tracks, I have to point out three things:
1) The concern about Bob Barr is not that he does not agree with every issue in the LP Platform, but that his prior record, both in Congress and after, has been marked with taking distinctly Authoritarian stances on most issues (privacy and gun rights being the notable exceptions). If his basic attitudes about “how it should be” have opened to embrace liberty rather than tyranny, this should be made known widely; if he still thinks that the War on Drugs is not necessary but correct policy, the LP made a huge error,
2) Tim is correct that the Ballot Access issue is crucial, and should be focused on supporting parties with viable candidates, not a blanket over the whole 50-state apparatus to cover nearly impossible ballot restrictions, even in states where the LP is nothing but a whisper. Where state LPs have fostered serious campaigns, with experienced candidates (the kind who’ve already run or are running now—at local levels, in non-partisan races (or as Rs or Ds?), built followings in the process, and now can rely on THOSE people to provide their main support-base and get out the vote!) and campaign-workers … there is where there is at least some purpose in helping out—BUT NOT DOING IT FOR THEM!
3) The biggest error the LNC and LPHQ have made in the last two-plus years is not using the mechanisms they received from the previous LNC: most specifically, the project model for self-funding projects operating under the LP fundraising umbrella. The model was a valid one: raise money using LPHQ as a conduit (mostly for legal reasons); focus on a specific intention and make that clear in the appeals; and deliver 10% off the top of each dollar brought in DIRECTLY to the overhead bottom-line at National. Unfortunately, the perfect project to test this out on, Ballot Access, was subverted and de facto lumped into general funds (think Social Security, and every other government program that began with sequestered funds), as the “project chair” chose to ignore the guidelines and boundaries, and merely “spent the rent” (in a couple of states that were once among our most vital affiliates, but even threw away their own hard-earned ballot status in recent times) meeting draconian requirement$ where returns were barely noticeable in Nov. 2004.
I’ve said enough for now … – Steve
January 5th, 2007 at 8:38 pm
I didn’t really have any support whatever from any level of the Libertarian Party.
neither did I in 2000, despite being over 80 REGISTERED libs in the district I ran in – 2 fund raising letters brought in nothing. The only support I got was from dear ol Mom and our Governors Candidate in 2000 who came 400 miles to co campaign with me at our county fair where I had a tent set up.
which comes first, chicken or egg? do you spend huge money on ballot access for states that dont have support at the practical level, or do you get access hoping flowers will grow?
I am suggesting the process be studied for the best cost to benefit ratio for the party, and given my opinion, which may not be correct.
January 5th, 2007 at 9:08 pm
Shane says “If we do anything aside from moving forward with our mission statement, we are fools for doing so.”
What mission statement is he referring to?
January 5th, 2007 at 9:28 pm
First, praise to Austin for getting and posting the Shane interview. As to the comments, too many people assume the ballot access laws can’t be changed. They can be. There is no such thing as a ballot access law that absolutely can’t be changed. Minor parties or independent candidates have court cases on ballot access pending now in Alabama, Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia.
January 6th, 2007 at 12:25 am
Excellent interview!
It makes me proud to have fine folks like Shane Cory and Stephen Gordon at headquarters. I have seen a lot of excellent improvements recently… I used to bitch about the website, but it was fixed. I used to bitch that national did nothing to support candidates etc, and they launched things like the leadership school and candidate tracker. I am left with very little to bitch about.
January 6th, 2007 at 12:33 am
Shane Cory – I just made a donation. Keep up the good work.
January 6th, 2007 at 12:36 am
Vote for T. Lee Horne for LA governor:
http://conservativecajun.blogspot.com/2007/01/who-would-you-support-for-louisiana.html
January 6th, 2007 at 2:36 am
I’m going to agree 100% with Mike Nelson. Shane Cory is a great asset to the national LP. He is very well spoken; tell me again, where was he hired from? He sounds very polished. Based off of this interview alone, I might go ahead and renew my membership to LP News and become a Libertarian again.
January 6th, 2007 at 4:59 am
If Shane is right and the LP learned so much during the 06 campaign, the the Horne for Governor campaign should get incredible support. I hope so. I’ll know what to think of this interview after that election, I guess.
January 6th, 2007 at 8:32 am
The single greatest shift in the LP is the greater acceptance by the rank and file that the LP has got to be a political party and do nothing but politics, and thats the only mission in life it can properly play.
Shane is a excellent ED and SG is a excellent communications/political jack of all trades.
We certainly do NEED party structures at all levels, but since we know we don’t have that in place, we have to make the loudest noise where we already have halfway decent support base and expand outward from those bases.
The LP’s single greatest problem is that it does not have the support base in people, money, and media to have district level orgs in every state. It will take years to achieve this, even given good fortunes and more acceptance as to what makes a libertarian a libertarian in the first place.
January 6th, 2007 at 8:38 am
Hammer of Truth scam? What’s that all about? First time I’ve ever heard there was any scam at HoT.
We at MainstreamLibertarian.com gave Stephen Gordon an Award for Top Ten Libertarian Activist of the Year. His efforts on behalf of the Bob Smither campaign were phenomenal. He’s a first class Libertarian Party activist.
And Shane is a fabulous ED. One of the best the LP has ever had. And I say this as a Republican.
January 6th, 2007 at 8:53 am
I will echo the comments of many who congratulated Shane Cory and the LNC crew on their professionalism. Clearly, they have accepted the fact that we’re a small party with a porous organization/support base and are looking to slowly strengthen it to improve electoral success.
The only way to ensure our failure is in not ever running candidates for office. That stands at the presidential level all the way down to soil and water boards. We simply should be everywhere on the partisan ballot to promote exposure and generate excitement within the local/state affiliates.
Unfortunately, we need to focus our energies at every level and can’t really pick and choose. Running candidates at every level creates synergy and legitimizes candidates both at the top and bottom of the ballot. Granted, our victories will probably come at the local/state level but press and coverage is often driven by top of ticket candidates.
Here in Michigan, I believe running a governor for the first time in years helped all our candidates even though the candidate did not poll great. Clearly, those elected in Indiana were helped by a good sec. of state run. In Texas, running lots of candidates seemed to have a positive effect on their support. Of course it’s impossible to prove causation but it makes sense that the more people you run at every level, the more successful you’ll be.
January 6th, 2007 at 9:05 am
but it makes sense that the more people you run at every level, the more successful you’ll be.
not true. this is the paper candidate effect and that what he party HAS been doing for years. It’s not had much success. Simply having candidates on the ballot just to be there in areas where the LP has no practical support base is wasteful. It’s bottom up time. In 10 years, the LP might have those district level orgs – and thats what it should have been doing since it was founded – but thats all history.
If the history didnt work out, the party should not repeat it.
January 6th, 2007 at 11:10 am
“15 ghost state parties”
Trent,
We don’t have a simple scheme for offline contact here, but which state parties were you referring to? (I can name several, but 15 is a lot.) Please contact.
George
phillies at 4liberty.NET
508 754 1859
January 6th, 2007 at 12:04 pm
Great interview. Thanks TPW for being a place where this sort of information can be found. It would be interesting to see similar interviews with the Greens and the Constitution Party especially if they would be as candid about what is working and what is not.
January 6th, 2007 at 12:42 pm
Nice interview. One quibble.
“We are not a think tank, lobbying firm, educational organization, book club or debate society,” says Shane. “We are not Jack’s inflamed Church of Libertarianism. We are a political party. If we do anything aside from moving forward with our mission statement, we are fools for doing so. ... We have too few resources to apply to anything but getting candidates, getting them on the ballot and putting up a good fight.”
As Susan Hogarth asks, what mission statement is Shane referring to? The Libertarian Party’s mission statement heavily emphasizes running candidates, but it also implies, and in at least one case specifically delineates, other party missions than simply “getting candidates, getting them on the ballot and putting up a good fight.”
The executive director is neither empowered to unilaterally change the LP’s mission statement nor acting legitimately in any departure from pursuing it in its entirety.
Like Shane, I believe that the LP should be a political party—or at least decide what the hell it wants to be, and be something. However, I also understand that political parties have to do more than “getting candidates, getting them on the ballot and putting up a good fight.” Their constituent parts do, in fact, often include, directly or indirectly, “think tanks, lobbying firms, educational organizations, book clubs and debate societies.”
If the entire rationale of a political party was “getting candidates, getting them on the ballot and putting up a good fight,” then the GOP and Dems wouldn’t have had to have primary debates and conventions in 2000. They could have just flipped coins to decide whether to nominate George W. Bush and Al Gore or John McCain and Al Sharpton. It certainly would have been less messy and it would have saved them a lot of money. All those other parts, whether or not they are officially part of the party apparatus, are in fact parts of a party, because they give a party its logic/ideology, its support base and its mechanisms for choosing candidates, etc. They are absolutely as much part of a party as “getting candidates, getting them on the ballot and putting up a good fight.”
Then again, maybe it’s not confusion over the role of the LP which drove Shane’s misstatement, but rather the easy conflation, which many of us frequently fall victim to, of LPHQ/the LNC with the LP. LPHQ and the LNC are also parts of the party … but they are just parts of the party. They aren’t the party en toto.
Regards,
Tom Knapp
January 6th, 2007 at 5:51 pm
I think he’s referring to the scam where almost a year ago, Hammer of Truth solicited over $10,000 donations for a site, LibertyMix.com, which has yet to materialize.
It could also be the scam where Michael Badnarik wrote a letter urging people to donate cash to that same site, and later claimed on Hammer of Truth that he’d never even HEARD of it.
And there is a new scam: Banning someone from LP.org for having the nerve to ask their Communications Director, one of the figures involved with the Hammer of Truth scam, any questions about it.
Hickman, keep fighting the good fight!
January 6th, 2007 at 7:53 pm
It would be interesting to see similar interviews with the Greens and the Constitution Party especially if they would be as candid about what is working and what is not.
===========================
I don’t think doing such an interview would serve the CP’s interests. The goal of Cory’s candor is to defuse anger at LP electoral inefectiveness in 06. From the sound of it, the CP members are ok with electoral inefectiveness but angry at each other. That can’t be fixed in a single interview. Of course an interview or two would be interesting.
January 6th, 2007 at 7:58 pm
Tom is completely correct on what the LP should be doing. If the LNC Headquarters does not want to be a part of that effort, as witness their refusal to supply a list of Libertarian 2006 candidates and contact information, and taking the information down from their web site, that is a problem for the rest of us.
Namely, we had to spend several hours recovering that information from someplace else.
For an alternative point of view consistent with the party’s actual mission statement on what the libertarian Party should be doing, see my book Stand Up for Liberty! available from Third Millenium http://www.3mpub.com/phillies . In particular, I explain what the LP should be doing to develop think tanks, affinity groups etc as a necessary part of getting candidates elected.
George
January 6th, 2007 at 8:11 pm
I am impressed with Shane Cory’s candor and sincerity. I am encouraged about the LP’s effectiveness in 2007 and beyond.
January 6th, 2007 at 9:56 pm
Tim: how many people will be willing to support a party with no ballot access and no candidates where they live?
January 6th, 2007 at 10:39 pm
I know it is a footbal weekend, but I couldn’t wait.
Shane Cory says “We are not a think tank, lobbying firm, educational organization, book club or debate society.
We are not Jack’s inflamed Church of Libertarianism. We are a political party.”
Okay so what does that entail? Does the LPUS put out a newspaper, develop literature, keep an up to date website? Does it put on forums with Libertarian candidates, or put out news releases? Does it raise money for candidates?
Having been a candidate, recruited candidates, worked on campaigns, been a party officer and flunky I would like to know what it was I suppossed to be doing?
I have been getting this for years from others, “we are a party, we don’t do that”. Well someone needs to nail this jell-o donw and tell me what it is we do do.
Personally I thought this was some kind of guerilla warfare and we used everything we could to get the job done, but what the hell do I know. Obviously not much.
MHW
January 6th, 2007 at 11:07 pm
very few, of course. But there’s no fix thats easy if you decide that you now have to do politics instead of recruit “people like you”.
Persue the ballot access issue thru legal means, and when we win, maybe we move greater resources into that state. But I don’t believe having ballot access makes people vote libertarian just because there’s a LP candidate that suddenly appears.
its the chicken and egg. I choose the egg. The chicken was cooked in 1971, when Nolan put politics at the rock bottom of the list for things to consider. Now in 2007 that has to be accounted for by the fact that in most of the country the LP has no infrastructure at the local level.
i may very well be wrong about this. But I haven’t been shown that 50 state access transfers into success for the party. I’d rather spend that money on state level party building where access is present or easy to get.
There’s a middle ground between resources used to get something you need and used to get something you want. Like I aid, me and Bill dont agree on the issue, and he knows more about it than I do. I’d like some input from Richard Winger who knows more about the subject than I ever will.
All I’m saying is that scarce LP resources need to be targeted – and past LP history studied to see if doing what we’ve always done has paid off, in any area.
January 6th, 2007 at 11:33 pm
Bingo! Here is a good start:
http://www.arinsime.com/home.aspx
January 7th, 2007 at 12:00 am
On ballot access, I wonder—and I’m sure Richard Winger will know—whether any presidential candidate has ever gone to court to press a constitutional claim of a requirement for a uniform, reasonable standard of ballot access for all states under the “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government” clause (Article 4 of the Constitution).
I know that candidates have sued this or that state for “unduly high barriers,” but it would be interesting to see a candidate simply go to court versus EVERY state, all at once, that has barriers beyond pro forma identification requirements.
The US didn’t use government-printed ballots (“the Australian ballot”) until the late 19th century, so “ballot access” wasn’t a concern—any party was free do distribute its own ballots, or encourage voters to write their candidates’ names on hand-written ballots, etc.
It seems to me that in changing to the “Australian ballot,” state governments incurred an obligation pursuant to “a republican form of government” to ensure that candidates don’t face undue barriers beyond what they faced before that change.
Such a suit would probably not cost as much as getting ballot access for one party for one election in, say, Ohio, and presumably the candidate could still be working on getting over those barriers in the “easy” states at least, even while suing to tear them down.
Tom Knapp
January 7th, 2007 at 12:07 am
I’m not an expert by any means… but seeing how Presidential elections are really just 50 state-wide elections to choose the electoral college, I would think the states have the right to run them however they wish to.
January 7th, 2007 at 1:31 am
I believe Tom is refering to a part of the Constitution that is, unusually, assigned to Congress to enforce and rpotect.
January 7th, 2007 at 1:52 am
George Phillies,
first of all, an honor to meet you. I hear your an honorable Libertarian, and for that a salute you. I actually wasn’t trying to name out the “15 ghost parties”, someone had mentioned to me that there were “10-15 ghost parties” at the State level in the Libertarian party. I was using this as a credential for cooperation between our two parties.
Matt,
The CP is not happy with electoral failure, and have in fact experienced our first real taste of success (Rick Jore, Montana; Stufflebeam,Indiana).
I am not mad at anyone who left our party. The more competition the better. They seemed to be more Religiously driven, where as the rest of us are more Politically driven. We want to change things through an acceptable avenue. The arguement was over Rape exceptions on Abortion. The fact is, a VERY low percentage of Abortions are performed because the mother is a rape victim. Until we get to the river, I don’t see a point in putting on my swim-trunks. Both the No Exceptionists and the Rape Exceptions/State Right’s Supporters were trying to eliminate 99% of abortions.
Furthermore, I think there are better solutions for this than simply leaving the party. Some people left a party they had been working to build for the past 14 years. To do what? Help raise another party that is smaller, younger, more fringe, and less organized. And furthermore, somewhere down the road,that same party will have the same conflict.
Im not mad, I just think their strategy was pointless.
January 7th, 2007 at 2:28 am
Testing. 123 testing.
January 7th, 2007 at 9:29 am
George, I can name a few of those State Parties that he might be referring too. A few weeks ago, I called up some State LP Chairs to find out if there were any elected Libertarian Party members holding public office in their respective States. Many of the State Chairs responded to me, essentially, “hell, we don’t even have hardly a State Party here, let alone elected officials.
Everyone I spoke too was real pleasant and helpful, but it was clear to me that their State Party was down to very low levels: North Dakota, Mississippi, Wyoming, Nebraska, South Carolina, and though I didn’t speak to anyone in this State, your neighbors up in Maine, as well.
I’d also add, that IMHO, at this point in the LP’s history, if a State Party does not have a single elected official in the entire State, even a Soil & Water Board member or Public Weigher or appointed County Parks & Rec Board member, that State Party is in seriously bad shape.
I mean, c’mon, how hard is it to get someone appointed to a local public office. If they can’t even do that, I’d say the monikor of “paper only” State Party fits pretty well. There are about 10 to 12 states without any elected/appointed Libertarians.
For a full List of Elected Libertarians: www.mainstreamlibertarian.com
January 7th, 2007 at 10:14 am
for clarity, I’m the one that said 15 ghost parties, but it was off the cuff. We do have a fair number of them since UMP welfare was stopped, but I don’t know the exact amount. The ending of UMP and start of zero dues allows the party to easily find out where the activity really is or is not. The LP’s been able to claim 50 states thru ballot access action, but IMO that’s misleading. How many of your state affiliates are active and working? – is a far better judge of the party’s real health.
January 7th, 2007 at 12:08 pm
Any shift to a third party by the average voter is a result of frustration because the two heavies have failed them in some fundamental way. Otherwise they are perfectly fine that Tues. morning picking their most closely associated Donkey or Elephant. Activists and party faithful are driven by ideology and passion. The inception of parties in the new republic was driven by presidential electoral politics. This is history, political science and reality.
If LNC resources were shifted to support a specific arena instead of a broad based effort, it’s failure would be imminent. It’s budget is a bad day for Tiger Woods. It is able to maintain a national office and play some electoral games. Some people are inspired by underdogs and hope. It does not mean that they will win or are the best solution. If a local affiliate enjoys decent ballot access, why should one stuck with insurmountable barriers be ignored and discarded ? Indeed the fight should be brought there if anywhere. That is the purpose of a ‘National’ party.
The expectation that a third party can win in a single plurality system is indeed delusional. Facts and reality simply do not conform to that hope. That assertion should be as resolute as any accusation of the ‘debate society’ vilification. It does not mean that opportunity should be spurned or that a fight is not worthwhile… While the role is not official or predetermined, the reality is that third parties exist to drive issues. Somebody has to stand up against wars, drug prohibition and other areas of social progress or human freedom. Quite simply if you are not tough enough to fight knowing you will only lose, you should go find a nice Republican or Democratic club. At least they’ll give you the pretense you are part of a ‘winning’ team.
January 7th, 2007 at 12:42 pm
My old buddy Tom Knapp raised a good issue. In what activities, aside from direct electoral activities should the LP be engaged?
Since we call ourselves a political party, to not attempt “a good fight” seems tantamount to fraud. If we are telling our potential supporters (especially from outside the party) that we want their votes, time and dollars, it’s implied that we are “in it to win it” and if our motivation isn’t electoral success, then we’ve done them a disservice.
However, many activities which don’t immediately appear to be election related, if fact, are. As an example, developing state affiliates certainly helps election results and is mentioned in the Purposes Section of the LP Bylaws.
Tom uses Shane’s quote about “think tanks, lobbying firms, educational organizations, book clubs and debate societies.” Unless we change our corporate type to a 501C3/C4, how are we to become one of these type organizations? And why would we wish to compete with already established and effective organizations such as IJ, Reason, Cato or von Mises?
We’ve got our unique organizational structure specifically because we are a political party. We also have a unique mission, which is to elect Libertarians to public office.
This doesn’t mean we shouldn’t become involved in educational activities. Educational activities are a vital part of party building and electing candidates. I think we should lobby more (joining EFF, ACLU, et. al. in the recent formal public comment to Homeland Security is a start) than we do; this also helps in electing candidates and party building. We aren’t a think tank, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t hold panels at events or issue policy statements from time to time. We aren’t a book club, but that doesn’t mean we should ignore books—as a matter of fact, I’ve used recent three books (written by Richard Viguerie, John Dean and Ryan Sager, Joe Trippi) often in recent public appearances. We obviously hold debates, with our presidential candidates serving as the primary example. But this does not make us a debating society.
My feeling is that activities such as the examples above are important tools (but so are databases, television commercials, and raising a lot of money) for any political party, but not the primary mission.
It is my strong belief that if we are to call ourselves a political party, then our primary focus should be winning elections (and party building—these go hand in hand). If we are to have any other primary function, then we should strip the word “Party” from our name, as well as modify our slogan to “The Organization of Principle.” To do anything less would be less than honest.
January 7th, 2007 at 12:49 pm
George,
I’m not sure I understand what you are talking about with respect to candidate lists. Candidate Tracker was on the website and listed 2006 candidates (along with website links and other data we collected). We took it down because the 2006 elections are now over. We now have 2007 candidates on the front page. Considering that it is now 2007, this seems appropriate.
With respect to affinity (and related) groups, I generally agree with you. Like the other issues I mentioned above, they are important tools and I work closely with some and even serve on the boards of some others. But they aren’t our primary objective, merely a tool to help us meet that primary objective.
January 7th, 2007 at 1:10 pm
Tom Knapp says: “All those other parts, whether or not they are officially part of the party apparatus, are in fact parts of a party, because they give a party its logic/ideology, ”
Shane Cory says: “I’m sorry, ideology plays no role in the managerial duties of an LNC member.”
From the way the LP is (has been) going, it looks like Shane Cory is winning the argument over ideology.
January 7th, 2007 at 3:45 pm
Steve
I’m not sure I understand what you are talking about with respect to candidate lists. Candidate Tracker was on the website and listed 2006 candidates (along with website links and other data we collected). We took it down because the 2006 elections are now over. We now have 2007 candidates on the front page. Considering that it is now 2007, this seems appropriate.
I gather that he meant that it would be useful if the 2006 candidates were still listed somewhere on the site, so that people interested in helping to build the party could contact them. I seem to recall that in past years, the website did contain more comprehensive candidate information ahead of time as well as after the fact.
January 7th, 2007 at 6:05 pm
Tim
Done correctly, ballot access could be a lot more effective at party building.
As we have done ballot access the whole time I have done it (1998-present) the only incentive is to get the signatures, quickly, and (on many campaigns) to concentrate on raw numbers rather than quality.
In 2000, when the party had a lot of money, most of the people collecting signatures that I met on the road were non-libertarian, mercenary petitioners, many from the Crackhead-American community.
In 2004/5/6, with the party relative less well financially endowed, an increasing percentage of the people I have seen working on LP ballot access are actually libertarian activists. Nevertheless, the incentives of the job make any party outreach we do go against our financial interests.
Ballot access is forced on us by the states, but it can be turned into an opportunity. We are the only LP contractors or employees who spend much of our work time in the field. The rest are all mostly office workers, and most of their job consists of internal administrative tasks. Steve Gordon is somewhat of an exception, since he does a lot of media outreach.
What if the incentives were different?
If ballot access were part of a larger “field rep” position, contractors for this position – essentially, salesmen for the LP - would be paid not just for qualifying states for the ballot, but for a range of other party building activities, for example:
Starting or re-starting state parties.
From there: county parties; city and town parties; neighborhood and precinct parties as the higher levels of organization are filled.
Starting and activating campus clubs.
Giving intro speeches at civic clubs, colleges, high schools, etc.
Being quoted in the media and publishing Letters to the Editor.
Generating membership inquiries and new members.
Persuading members to run for office.
Setting up booths at farmers markets, gun shows, peace rallies, street fairs, etc.
Organizing protests and joining coalitions to organize protests.
Exactly which activities field reps would perform is debatable, as are the measurability of some of these activities, but this is just a general idea.
I presented it to previous LP HQ staff and LNC incarnation and it went nowhere, but I still believe that if done this way, it is entirely conceivable that we could turn ballot access from being somewhat of a treadmill into being a major catalyst for party-building.
The answer should not be to abandon ballot access in the more difficult states. It should be to take the challenge head on and turn it into an opportunity for growth.
January 7th, 2007 at 6:15 pm
Eric L
I agree.
January 7th, 2007 at 6:19 pm
Why is it either/or? Why not combine the two?
January 7th, 2007 at 6:24 pm
Other comments that make sense include Eric Sundwall
http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/01/05/our-interview-with-shane-cory-2/#comment-89861
and
Michael H. Wilson
http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/01/05/our-interview-with-shane-cory-2/#comment-89187
January 7th, 2007 at 6:28 pm
Find the search box on TPW, enter “Allen Hacker” and read the last half-dozen posts and comments. What went wrong with the Badnarik campaign is not exactly a secret.
January 7th, 2007 at 6:45 pm
Paul,
You (or George) can simply contact Sean Haugh (campaigns@lp.org) in order to get such list information.
January 7th, 2007 at 7:36 pm
If the Libertarian Party is really serious about growing (and not ending up in “the dust bin of history”), it will need to move beyond its support for capitalism. Otherwise, it will go down – just like the Democratic and Republican Parties are eventually going to go down (the GOP will be a minor-sized organization by 2012, and misery does love company).
Member: CUIP; GPUS; Unity08
January 7th, 2007 at 7:45 pm
Steve:
I’m not privy to whether George Phillies tried to contact HQ and was not told where to get the list info, or whether he merely assumed it was unavailable because it was removed from the public website.
His comments make it sound as though he tried to obtain the information but was told no – but I have no knowledge of this beyond what he wrote here.
Since he mentions “refusal to supply a list of candidates” and “taking it down from the website” separately, I am assuming this means two separate actions – but of course, I could be wrong.
Thanks for the info on where the info can be located for future reference.
Perhaps it would save George and anyone else interested in that particular question some time, agravation and effort if next to the CT there was a
notice such as For information about our past candidates for office, contact….
January 7th, 2007 at 7:53 pm
Phil
I would say that this would depend on what definition of capitalism you are using. See “anti-concepts and the package deal” here:
http://mises.org/story/2099#6
and
“Against big business”
http://mises.org/story/2099#4
For a more complete understanding, see the whole article:
Rothbard’s “Left and Right”: Forty Years Later
By Roderick T. Long
http://mises.org/story/2099
You can also listen
http://mises.org/multimedia/mp3/asc2006/asc06-Long.mp3
January 7th, 2007 at 8:01 pm
Dear Steve,
Well, no. My campaign specifically requested that we be supplied the list information you are discussing. Quite separately, Seth Cohn asked for the same information, so that the NHLA could invite former Libertarian candidates to visit NH and attend a Gorman campaign school. The requests went to Sean Haugh, who was I understand managing the site. Sean, who is a very highly ethical person, noted that the data was a work product paid for by the LNC and that he would need to ask permission from the National Director. He then indicated—I may have saved the emails in question—that he had asked, and had been told not to release the information to either of us.
Then the data was noted to be gone from the site.
There could well at some date in the near future be an announcement “For information about our past candidates for office, contact…” and as soon as my campaign finishes assembling the information I will make it clear who on my staff Liberttarians with legitimate projects can contact.
George Phillies
http://www.phillies2008.com
January 7th, 2007 at 8:18 pm
And for those of you who like to fine details, since I oversimplified in the prior message (with thanks to Seth Cohn for more detailed support):
At the start, Seth Cohn asked
“Sean, can you provide a contact list (emails are good, snail mails are also good, both is best) of those who ran?”
and Sean Haugh answered entirely correctly
“I don’t know that I am at liberty to provide you with that info
since my work product is property of the LNC. I will ask Shane about this when I see him tomorrow.” Sean then informed Seth “You may have already gotten an answer from Steve, but I asked Shane about this when I was in DC and he said no.”
At about this point Seth and I compared notes and realized that I was looking for the same data that he was, for a project he was not involved in. He was asking for the data for his project, not mine, which he did not know about. It did not occur to me to bother asking National for the data, since as far as I knew National had data for about 20 candidates (and at some point I had asked someone, and unless I misunderstood the National list of LP candidates was very short).
January 7th, 2007 at 8:31 pm
George:
The wayback machine might also be of some service in the future.
http://web.archive.org/web/*/lp.org
However, as of right now it only goes up to 2006.08.23
January 7th, 2007 at 9:21 pm
Paul goes in for a slam dunk: “Done correctly, ballot access could be a lot more effective at party building”.
Hell yes!
I’m a big proponent of billboards. They are cheap and postioned correctly very effective.
One thing I have always wanted us to do was to buy biilboards at the state line of tough ballot access states and let drivers know they are entering a restricted zone using sarcasm to get the word out to the public that their choices are limited.
Forty thousand in advance public relations might be able to turn some screws and save a bunch of time and money in the long run.
MHW
January 7th, 2007 at 11:19 pm
Stephen let me offer some thanks for dropping in and visiting with us and of course hearing what we think.
From my perspective this isn’t as hard as we think, but coming to a consensus as to what should be done, in what order and by whom gets in our way.
I hope that without being rude, but maybe blunt at times, we can offer some ideas.
Thanks,
MHW
January 8th, 2007 at 4:05 am
All this talk is nice, but you folks are missing the boat completely.
You need a grassroots organization. Door-walking. Block-walking. Precinct saturation.
Not saying letters to the editors are bad, but ultimately you need a network. A machine. Stop focusing on just recruiting candidates. Build the fortress first, then man the battle stations with the armed guards and generals.
There’s no support system in place for downtimes; the Democrats host weekly coffee and breakfast meetings every week down here near Dallas. The Republicans are always doing some visible thing in the community.
Grassroots activism is where it’s at.
January 8th, 2007 at 10:15 am
50 state ballot access is a waste of effort unless you have a qualified celebrity presidential candidate to make use of it. Otherwise, the LP would be better off trying to be strong SOMEWHERE. Throughout its history, the LP has adopted a strategy of trying to attain some partial goal everywhere (50 state ballot access, filling candidate slates, having a county affiliate in every county, etc.) as opposed to getting the complete package somewhere (have one kick-ass county affiliate capable of supporting a winning candidate, or a cluster of kick-ass county affiliates capable of supporting a winning state house candidate).
McDonalds started of as ONE very successful hamburger joint. Just one. After this business model was perfected, the model was replicated.
—
Pauli: you are dead on correct about the way the LP does ballot access. Trying to get signatures from people who don’t actually support the party is not only wasteful, it is extremely dishonest.
And frankly, I don’t think it is that much more work to do it right. I actually did a small experiment at the Fairfax County VA fair a few years ago. On Saturday, the petitioners did things the usual way, and at the end of the day were burned out and bummed. On Sunday, I set out issue signs explaining what the party was about in the area that the petitioning was done. Sunday was the better day.
This is insufficient data to prove my point, but is an experiment worth trying again.
January 8th, 2007 at 10:17 am
Again, I think we waste too much time trying to determine the perfect attack strategy with our limited resources. I realize we don’t have legions of volunteers with time and money to spare so rational choices need to be made. However, determining ‘one best’ strategy is impossible because of the nature of politics.
As a local chair, it’s tough getting enough people ready to create a base organization if no one in your community has ever heard of a Libertarian because most exposure comes in the ballot box or at election time only.
Clearly, continuing to run paper candidates year after year will never accomplish anything. But running lots of paper candidates and then a few active races (more every cycle) can create the necessary momentum.
As for Mike N.’s contention that we should support only state races and winnable local races – I think it’s a whole lot harder than you think. Even predicting who the top 3 will be on the ballot in the Republican primary in New Jersey is hard enough. Trying to find a good state level candidate to support in Utah while I’m in Michigan would be difficult. I like the idea of the candidate tracker to try and help but you can see what sort of difficulties there are in funding campaigns when you have no personal knowledge of the candidate/team (Badnarik campaign).
January 8th, 2007 at 10:33 am
Nolan and the gang were young and optimistic. Thirty five years later, it is obvious that 3rd party politics – in the form of actually winning major offices – is futile. Even if a groundswell of libertarian voting materialized,
don’t you think one or both of the major parties would embrace it in order to survive? So, if one wants to continue the LP, the purpose should be
shifted from “winning” to “influencing.” It’s probably too early for Dondero’s “join the GOP and work from within strategy.” They (Dem and
GOP) will not sit up and take notice until LP activity, no matter how few votes it gets, keeps costing them close races.
January 8th, 2007 at 12:37 pm
torah
The LP could certainly use a lot of it.
January 8th, 2007 at 12:38 pm
Carl
But what if 50 state ballot access adds to the goal rather than taking away from it? You never know where the next activist leader capable of starting this kick-ass county affiliate will be from. Maybe somewhere where the state forces us to talk to the public through oppressive ballot access laws?
I say do both. Build a kick-ass county affiliate, sure, but one of its activities can be to help neighboring counties get set up too.
Being organized statewide and nationally – even in a more minimal way – will help a kick-ass county affiliate in a number of ways, including media.
Eric L has it right
http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/01/05/our-interview-with-shane-cory-2/#comment-90440
brought to you by the letter E
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E
January 8th, 2007 at 12:51 pm
Shane says “If we do anything aside from moving forward with our mission statement, we are fools for doing so.”
What mission statement is he referring to? I have asked him this by email (as he had referenced a ‘mission statement’ earlier in a release sent to the Party’s email list), but have recieved no answer. Tom Knapp was nice enough to expand on my question, and Stephen Gordon replied with a lot of talk, but no real answer to that specific question.
So let me rephrase, and hope for a straighforward answer:
What mission statement are those at the LP headquarters working under? The only Party mission statment I know exists in the bylaws, as Tom Knapp pointed out, and as I explain in more detail here:
http://www.colliething.com/2007/01/lp-is-not-just-about-getting-people.html
January 8th, 2007 at 1:58 pm
Steve Gordon writes:
“We’ve got our unique organizational structure specifically because we are a political party. We also have a unique mission, which is to elect Libertarians to public office.”
Incorrect. Our mission is clearly defined in our bylaws as “elect[ing] Libertarians to public office” ... AND SEVERAL OTHER THINGS.
If you (or Shane) wish to make the argument that given the LP’s current limited resources it is only possible/realistic to focus on one part of the party’s mission statement, that’s a subject worth delving into.
Or, if anyone wants to argue that the next convention should ditch several goals and narrow the mission statement down to the single goal of “elect[ing] Libertarians to public office,” that’s not beyond the pale of reasonable argument.
But pretending that the party’s mission statement includes only one mission (“elect[ing] Libertarians to public office”), when in fact it includes several, is just a non-starter. It’s verifiably false, and therefore it should be neither asserted nor implied by party staff.
“Tom uses Shane’s quote about ‘think tanks, lobbying firms, educational organizations, book clubs and debate societies.’ Unless we change our corporate type to a 501C3/C4, how are we to become one of these type organizations? And why would we wish to compete with already established and effective organizations such as IJ, Reason, Cato or von Mises?”
None of the aforementioned organizations are either formally or tacitly affiliated with the LP. The closest one would be Cato, and the LP’s membership dropped a nuclear bomb on what they perceived as a factional dominance by Cato’s principals in 1983.
On the other hand AEI, MoveOn, the Heritage Foundation, People for the American Way, et al, make no secret of the fact that they are creations of, and/or affiliated with, the Republican and Democratic Parties. The LP needs its own such affiliated such organizations and efforts, whether that affiliation is formal or informal. Creating them is a two-way street, but make no mistake about it—the LP lies at one end of that street and has to play an active role in the traffic on it. In fact, while it may have been necessary, the distance that the “Willis Affair” created between the LP and Downsize DC is probably a negative, not a positive.
For a number of years, the LP did some pretty good work in issues politics on the web versus “Know Your Customer” and other government boondoggles and bad ideas. Other groups quickly closed the gap and passed us, but that doesn’t mean that kind of stuff isn’t fully as much a part of the LP’s mission as “elect[ing] Libertarians to public office.”
Elections take place in a particular context. Concentrating exclusively on “elect[ing] Libertarians to public office” and nothing else is the equivalent of building a pig farm or a pork products factory … in Saudi Arabia.
In order for the LP to “elect Libertarians to public office,” the LP —or someone—has to do more than “get candidates, get them on the ballot and put up a good fight.” The other parts of the mission statement don’t just go beyond “elect[ing] Libertarians to public office,” they are critical to “elect[ing] Libertarians to public office,” And pretending those other elements of the mission statement aren’t there will neither make them go away nor make them less essential.
Regards,
Tom Knapp
January 8th, 2007 at 2:03 pm
Let me start by agreeing with Cory about one thing: “The only way that we cannot win is if we stop trying.”
But I must disagree with such a narrow view of mission. In New Mexico we specifically allowed for broader activity in our mission statement: “The purpose of LPNM shall be to move society and public policy toward the ideals embodied in the Statement of Principles by nominating, supporting, and electing candidates for public office; by lobbying officials and governmental bodies; by engaging in educational and informational activities; by general advocacy, and by other means deemed appropriate by LPNM.”
I support 50-state ballot access if for no other reason, because anything less is a step back and we need to move forward, not backward. But we need to do lots of outreach too, especially in odd-numbered years and in area where there are no Libertarian candidates to work for.
And finally, we need at least one good field person – in ADDITION to a ballot access person – for organizing. I had really good luck reserecting dead state parties in the early 90s. I no longer have the temperment for field work personally but there are some folks coming up that might be good at it.
January 8th, 2007 at 2:55 pm
Pauli: 50 state ballot access DOES detract from the goal because it is very expensive. Drop the last 5-10 states from the list and you cut the overall cost to national in half or more.
Question: how many elected Libertarians required LP ballot access to get elected in 2006?
Answer: 0 according to my count. I may have missed somebody, however.
If ballot access is hard, you shouldn’t be doing it. Scarce resources should be put into becoming big enough so that getting on the ballot is easy.—BTW, this critique is not directed at Mr. Corey, it is directed at the LP as a whole. Under Shane Corey, the LP has moved more resources towards other things such as focusing on promising candidates and candidate training.
—Useful data points: how big is the CP compared to the LP? How many people did the run for partisan office compared to the LP? Compare these ratios with the number of partisan victories in 2006.
January 8th, 2007 at 3:07 pm
You missed the boat. I am talking about focusing our limited resources on winning 1 or 2 (max – nationwide) state legislative races per election. It really isn’t rocket science.
Here is a good start:
http://www.arinsime.com/home.aspx
January 8th, 2007 at 3:17 pm
Carl,that is a good question. I hope somene who has the time to compare numbers does so,and posts them here. I’d love to see how many each party ran versus how many were elected. (Although Eric dondero need not apply. I apprecaite his efforts,but Republicans dont need to be included here,and I dont consider Guliani a Libertarian.
January 8th, 2007 at 3:21 pm
I have no proplem with 50 state ballot acces, but cost has to be taken into account.If it cost $250,000 to get the last 5 states or so that is to much.Also if we are looking at paying for the same 5-8 states not being on the ballot every four years then we need to look at that. The strong states should not have to pick up the tab every four years for the same weak states.
Also I do think we should limit the amount of people we run for office. We should not seek out paper candidates.We should run ballot acces candidates and candidates with a goal (WIN,learn how to run campaign,out reach or increase membership etc) But I also know sometimes you have to take what you can get.Notice how well Georgia does and we run very few candidates.This mean we have more resources per candidate and higher quality candidates.
January 8th, 2007 at 3:26 pm
Car:
50 state ballot access can only detract from the goal if it is done the old fashioned way. 50 state ballot access as part of a larger LP sales rep/field rep position would (IMO, of course) add to the goal.
BTW
Pauli is here
http://pauli.net/
I’m here
http://pauliecannoli.wordpress.com/
January 8th, 2007 at 3:45 pm
Doug Craig
Hence my point: instead of looking at it from the standpoint of “what does it cost us,” ask instead: “what opportunities does this provide?” If ballot access stops being about “ballot access qua ballot access” and starts being a part of organizing, campaigning, educating and all the rest simultaneously, it can provide a lot of opportunities. Of course, I predict if this happens, we might start seeing some ballot access barriers go away – the statusquopoly would probably prefer not to give us those type of incentives and/or opportunities.
Paper candidates can play an important support role, including providing ballot access. Sometimes a candidate who starts out as a paper candidate starts getting a lot more active and serious. Often, they provide the only alternative in what would otherwise be a one-person race. If they are not spending resources, they are not taking any away from more serious and active candidates. Quite the opposite, they can make an active candidate look like part of a larger slate, not a lone wolf.
Some paper candidates learn from the experience and become active candidates next go-round.
The whole resource-allocation question, here as with ballot access, seems to be based on static pie budgeting: IE we have a certain amount of money and now we have to decide how to spend it.
In reality, the amount of money we have is a function of what we have done to earn it. Each donation is a separate act, based on the perceived value of the money spent. If the party is more active and earns more donations, it will get more.
That’s why saying that we should focus on a few legislative districts is wrong in my view: if I’m living in Alabama why should I care about how well a candidate does in some legislative district in Utah? Granted, some LP members will care, but most will be a lot more likely to care about resources being spent on something which includes their district, whether it is local or national (50 state ballot access is a national issue).
It does work the other way though – if people perceive that the LP is doing something worthwhile with their contributions at some level, it makes them more likely to contribute to all sorts of LP projects – even an active candidate who is running a promising campaign in some other part of the country.
January 8th, 2007 at 3:51 pm
Useful data points: how big is the CP compared to the LP? How many people did the run for partisan office compared to the LP? Compare these ratios with the number of partisan victories in 2006.
All available at Ballot Access News, along with info on Greens and smaller third parties.
January 8th, 2007 at 3:53 pm
Paulie has an excellent set of points here.
Also, there have been a long series of occasions on which the LP has concentrated large amounts of money into a single race. The outcomes have uniformly disappointed. If you think concentration works, you should be able to list the campaigns from, say, 1994 forward in which we have concentrated, and why in each case the outcome validated or did not validate your claim.
Furthermore, advocates of concentrating our resources in one place should explain how this is supposed to be even marginally possible, given that the larger part of our resources are composed of volunteer labor that is not terribly mobile. [Astute readers will notice the project that is putting this idea into practice: It is the Free State Project.]
January 8th, 2007 at 4:18 pm
Additionally, I’ll provide an anecdotal piece of evidence as to why 50 state ballot access might be a good idea.
In the 1992 general election, I had decided that I was not going to vote for a presidential candidate or party which supports the drug war.
In the primary election I supported Jerry Brown for the Democratic nomination, based on what I considered at the time a sort of Fabian generational/countercultural strategy for takeover of government power.
For much the same reasons, I backed Hunter Thompson’s friend Gary Hart
in 1984 and 1988.
It’s true that Jerry Brown did not advocate any radical strategy for ending the drug war, but he did make some clear statements in favor of decriminalizing marijuana, and I believed he would go further.
When the Democrats picked Bill Clinton for their nomination, I came to understand that the baby boomer generation coming to the helm of leadership positions was not going to produce the type of change I hoped for, and that positive change was not going to come from the Donkey Show Party.
So, I had to take a more serious look at third parties and independents.
Ross Perot, an advocate of house to house searches for guns and drugs, was quickly determined to be unsuitable for my purpose, and I dubbed him, Clinton and Bush Sr. collectively “the three blind mice”.
It so happened that the Libertarian Party was the only party on my state’s ballot which supported ending the war on drugs.
Given this fact, I was more motivated to seriously consider the LP’s case for those positions on which I disagreed with Libertarians at the time than I had been willing to before then. The arguments were now making a lot more sense to me.
I still disagreed or hedged on some of them, but over the next couple of years, I did a lot of reading and debate to come around on those as well, as I came to see them as part of a larger whole rather than separate issue positions.
However, by fall 1992 I was comfortable enough with being closer in my views to the LP - especially on those issues I considered important, such as ending the drug war and cutting the military-industrial complex – than to the three blind mice to vote for Marrou.
I also went on to read through the books listed in the index of “Libertarianism in One Lesson” for further reading, and other study materials.
None of this would have happened if the LP was not on the ballot in my state in 1992.
Of course, those who don’t like me may say this is a good reason not to be on the ballot in too many places, but apply this same idea to a libertarian you agree with more than me, and think about how this works.
January 8th, 2007 at 5:02 pm
Paulie
At one time I was candidate for state house some would say a paper candidate, That would not have been true. I was a candidate with no knowledge about running for office.Of course I got excited and ran a great campaign.I think we need to define paper candidate.In my mind it is some one who is going to run and do nothing but put his name on the ballot.I think some people think it is a candidate who has few resorces. A paper candidates does no interviews. I novice candidate learns this stuff during the campaign and uses this knowledge in a future race.
At the end of the day we still have to take what we are given and work with the resources we have.
January 8th, 2007 at 5:34 pm
For the purpose of my comments, I meant a candidate who will do nothing but put her name on the ballot, or at least very little else.
January 8th, 2007 at 5:36 pm
Paulie: Don’t know where you lived in 1992, but if it cost, say, $100,000 to get the LP on the ballot there just to find you, then it wasn’t the best use of resources. That $100,000 spent elsewhere may have brought in ten or hundred activists like you. We need to do cost/benefit analysis, that’s all that’s being argued in not trying for all 50 states no matter the cost.
A “paper candidate” gets voters used to seeing a LP candidate’s name on the ballot, even if that person never campaigned. I would venture to say most voters don’t know the first thing about many major party candidates who do campaign! If the “paper candidate” just answers the League’s questionaire, he’ll be ahead of many major candidates who “did not respond.” I wonder if anyone has ever compared the vote totals of
“paper candidates” with those who ran themselves ragged campaigning?
January 8th, 2007 at 5:47 pm
Roscoe:
Tried answering your earlier post, but no matter how I tweak it my response does not want to post. Hmmmm.
Regarding your latest:
1) Often, the paper candidates actually do better.
2) If you want to basically write off potential members, supporters and activists in some states, my inclination is to disagree.
I’m an ornery sort of person and like doing stuff just because someone in an illegitimate position of power told me I can’t. If regimist stausquopolists
tell me I can’t even vote for my party, my inclination is to say:
“Oh yeah? Let’s see about that”
and try to make some lemonade out of their sour assed lemons that they are handing us.
I’ve proposed a way to do that; so hopefully one day someone will listen.
I still contend that you just never know where you’ll find an asset that you can’t even imagine as likely being possible right now.
January 8th, 2007 at 6:02 pm
its been my experience that typical LP candidates dont have much community involvement or the typical community network of social clubs/groups from which to build a support base from. I didnt in 2000, having just moved to the area. 2 years later, I had a discussion about it with a local resident who said they would have voted for me if they knew who I was.
Translation: you don’t go to my church, you have no kids in my school, you’re not in the VFW or the Kiwanis Club, etc. and this makes you a stranger. It’s taken almost 10 years here to put down even the most basic of roots and community ties, because working full time far from home and commuting many miles to and from work each day takes it’s toll on local civic life.
I think intangibles like this are far more important than given credit for.
I expect a lot of the LP candidates fall into this category – they are activists, but they are not good candidates for these reasons. They’re too busy trying to survive and work and have a family life – and adding community networking and years of involvement in the social fabric of where they live is tough. And frankly many in the LP dont lend themselves to social interaction naturally, from my personal observation. Thats a hard nut to crack.
I’d be curious to know what others think of my observations. Sometimes it’s got nothing to do with a system – it’s people and their relationships.
January 8th, 2007 at 6:08 pm
Firstly, I would like to thank Third Party Watch for the Shane Cory interview.
Secondly, I would like to notify George Phillies, and all others who may be interested, that I have on my website a list of the 2006 Libertarian candidates (there may be a few missing) along with their e-mail and phone numbers and the election results (I’m currently still not done adding all the election results).
You can view this page here: http://users.rcn.com/k.brennan/2006LibertarianPartyCandidates.html.
January 8th, 2007 at 6:36 pm
Ryan –
That’s pretty impressive work!
Tim –
Yeah, absolutely, good point.
January 8th, 2007 at 7:16 pm
Tim
You are exactly 100% right. If running for office was a college course, the kind of community involvement you described counts for 30% of the final grade. Financial resources, campaign strategy, and tactics are another 35%. Resume experience is at least 15%, another 10% for personal appearance and charisma. And the last 10% is the candidate’s positions on the issues.
Most third party candidates wind up spending 95% of their time worrying about positions rather than qualifications, experience, appearance, and community involvement.
January 8th, 2007 at 7:16 pm
Ballot access, I think, is something that state parties must work on individually. (LPTX is essentially guaranteed ballot access because Democrats don’t bother to run in a lot of statewide races.)
Every state, however, should have a LP chapter. That’s why the George Phillies campaign helped to restore functionality to the Maryland LP. We’re working on other states as well.
January 8th, 2007 at 7:33 pm
Nigel:
When did Maryland not have a chapter? Can you provide more details?
BTW, the factors cited by Tim and Austin are a big part of why I’m supporting
Steve Kubby.
http://kubby.com/
Tom Knapp tells me the new and presumably much better website for Kubby should be up in, possibly, hours, or a few days at the most.
January 8th, 2007 at 7:58 pm
I hate to keep beating on the Ben Brandon Drum, esp. since he’s left the LP, but there’s a huge lesson to be learned there in both what makes good political candidates and what motivates voters. His entire story should be examined, because he showed both what it takes to win against R’s and D’s AND what kind of real issues the public cares about. He took a lot of seniors off the property tax rolls.
Now he’s a R, but while he was in the LP I think he showed the way to relevance for the LP in local and state races. He’s one of the every few LP candidates that got to both win in a 3 way race, get elected, AND got to implement the main issue he ran on and turn it into law. He succeeded where very few LP candidates have, and the reasons why have not been given much airing. I think it would be good to do so – there’s a story there the LP needs to understand.
The LP runs activists as candidates. They often don’t make the best candidates.
We should let activists be activists and actively recruit candidates with the “Brandon factor” – broad community appeal and expertise in the office sought.
and yes, I know it’s easy to say, and harder to do.
January 8th, 2007 at 8:25 pm
Better yet, activists should pursue broad community involvement and expertise in the office sought. That goes against the grain of many (most?) libertarian activists, we tend to be kinda anti-social.
I’m not too antisocial myself, but I travel full time, and I have a ton of skeletons in the closet, and in the living room, front pronch, and all the way out to the end of the driveway, metaphorically speaking of course, since I have no closet, no living room, no porch and no driveway in reality.
But for those who are at least clean and stable enough to not do more harm than good by trying, I would recommend becoming socially involved in the community, not just because it helps run for office later, but because it makes the activist personally more well-rounded and capable of carrying on an argument without sounding extra-stupid to the listener (regardless of how smart that activist actually is).
As they say in AA, “fake it ‘til you make it.”
Also, the LP should expand its outreach to more effectively bring in more people who already have those strengths.
January 8th, 2007 at 9:46 pm
To Austin, Tim, & Paulie,
You’re all right. Essentially what all are advocating is qualified, socially integrated, people who are citizens in their community. Politics is a human phenomenon that is intensely personal. Not dissimilar from high school and electing a prom king and queen, ‘those who know people and are liked, are more successful.’
Of course, getting the necessary human talent and qualified individuals is a dynamic and random process. There is no bona fide way to recruit an activist, candidate, or voter. I’ve found that most find us and how we interact with them makes the greatest difference. Just like that teacher in school may have inspired or motivated you – the base organization does the same.
I believe that only by working to increase our presence and ultimately exposure to voters/public will we ever be successful. As soon as we attain a level of legitimacy (which is not easy) people will come. Candidates, activists, and voters will be drawn to a party that shows it can be successful and is filled with average members of their community/church, etc.
I don’t know that there is any magic formula for achieving that goal. We must always remember that we’re not selling snake oil – it’s freedom. Freedom from taxes, freedom from snooping eyes, freedom to think. All things that most people believe strongly in. We have a great product to sell – we just need to get people to realize that we’re really the only ones seriously selling it.
January 8th, 2007 at 9:56 pm
Mike,
You write:
“I am talking about focusing our limited resources on winning 1 or 2 (max – nationwide) state legislative races per election. It really isn’t rocket science.”
I agree that the focus, where possible, should be on winnable races.
The problem is that it’s not just you and I who get to decide what the focus is where resources are concerned. We can’t just say “the LP gets $X in contributions, let’s put that $X into these legislative races instead of into a presidential campaign.”
Why? Because that $X comes from any number of people, some of whom might donate to a presidential campaign but whom will not donate to a city council campaign.
The LP is going to run a presidential campaign (unless NOTA is nominated). Contributors are free to give to that campaign, or to other campaigns, or to both. The campaigns have to make their cases … neither you nor I can just open an accounts ledger and move everyone’s $X from “Kubby2008” to “ArinSime.”
I hope you’ll continue to make the case, though.
Paulie, I don’t know if I’d say the new Kubby web site is “much better.” It’s actually still quite skeletal. What it is is more focused. The old site has been there for ten years (and looks like it), and has been basically the web HQ for everything Kubby’s done, not just running for president. The new one is at www.kubby2008.com, and it’s only concerned with the presidential campaign.
Regards,
Tom Knapp
January 8th, 2007 at 10:11 pm
2nd part of earlier response to Roscoe. Let’s see if this part will post.
Actually, this was something Nolan realized and wrote about at the time.
Yes and no. They would certainly make libertarian sounding noises (but then again, Reagan made them all the time, and Clinton said the era of big government was over). It’s conceivable that if Libertarians started winning a lot more votes – without significantly changing our views – that major party politicians would adopt some watered down libertarian policy positions to marginally win back our votes.
But, remember, it won’t be as easy for us to do this as for fabian socialists – they were working with the natural inclination of government-as-organism to grow, and with the self-interest of politicians and bureaucrats seeking to expand their own powers, and we are seeking to get them to push uphill against their own interests.
But what if we do score some partial victories? Well, when you’ve moved the ball down the field, the thing is to move it further. At this point, keep pushing for even more libertarian policies from the major parties. (It sounds kinda delusional just saying that phrase).
Some of you disagree, but as far as I’m concerned we have not scored a total victory while the game of politics is still being played and the teams are on the field. While it’s happening, us blades of grass will keep getting torn up by their cleats. So, while the game’s on, there’s always a role for a libertarian team.
The purpose is both, and winning – or even winning the margin of victory, or threatening to – is a major source of influence.
January 8th, 2007 at 10:27 pm
Hmmm….perhaps the problem was the URL? Let’s try this and see if it will post…
Roscoe:
I don’t think it’s futile. The results are just not always as easily measurable as winning elections.
www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/have-hope.html
The Case for Libertarian Hope
is not about big L libertarianism, but the point applies there too.
And, in conjunction with this, it’s worth noting that big Ls do more outreach than most small l outfits, most of which cater largely to people who are
already self-identified libertarians.
There is also that “lever action” ability to make politicians sit up and notice
because we can swing close elections.
January 8th, 2007 at 10:31 pm
There’s so much agreement going on here I can feel my cancer shrinking. Very therapeutic to not have to be at odds with people that should be going in the same direction, maybe with different end points, but at least not sticking knives in each others back while going down the road because of arcane liberteriana.
January 9th, 2007 at 9:28 am
The Sports community is starting to pick up on Wayne Allyn Root’s potential Libertarian candidacy for President. After the Las Vegas Review-Journal article featuring Root ran last week, on-line Betting sites have also picked up the story.
Maui Sports Online
Ticket winner
WinnerOnline.com
Most seem favorably inclined. This is a community, sports guys, that has been severely neglected by the wonkish Libertarian Party. Perhaps with a Wayne Root candidacy, we Libertarians can finally make a connection with the all-important Joe Sixpack.
Eric Dondero, CEO
www.mainstreamlibertarian.com
January 9th, 2007 at 11:07 am
Tim,
Please consider that the term “arcane liberteriana” might actually be a sort of rhetorical knife-in-the-back. So while you are applauding the civility and spirit of working-togetherness here, it feels like you’ve stopped along the way to throw off a gratuitous insult.
Just consider how you would feel if I said something like “Wow; it’s great everyone is agreeing her, and we don’t have a bunch of those reformistas blathering on about which new tax scheme is ‘most libertarian’.”
I do appreciate your effort to make a compliment; but please, next time, try quitting while you’re ahead.
January 9th, 2007 at 12:22 pm
I do consider much of libertarian thought and Ideology arcane – I meant exactly what I said. Privatizing all roads, “austrian aconomics”, the pledge’s true meaning, etc.
ar·cane audio (är-kn) KEY
ADJECTIVE:
Known or understood by only a few: arcane economic theories.
Much of what libertarians debate about constantly is quite arcane when viewed from outside the party. Why so defensive, since I mentioned no segment of the LP?
January 9th, 2007 at 2:57 pm
Eric,
First of all, the sites you mention do not indicate that the “sports community” is taking note of Wayne Root’s possible candidacy. They indicate that the “sports betting community” is. Those are two completely different things. The latter is a small subset of the former.
Secondly, I’ve seen little evidence that either of these “communities” is, or is likely to become, a significant political factor. If they were, then we’d be recalling the deeds of President Bradley (NBA) and/or President Kemp (NFL) right now. The only real connection that any recent president has to sports is that back toward the end of George W. Bush’s reign as a corporate welfare queen, he kept his throne in a baseball stadium.
Sure, there will be some gamblers who are “single-issue voters” on the poker ban and such, and the LP deserves, and should court, their votes. Most Americans, however, give less of a damn about whether the candidate they support was an all-star linebacker, or went 7 for 8 from the free-throw line, or picked the NCAA odds correctly, than they do about what the candidate they support is offering them on a bunch of issues they care about.
Finally, it is simply not in the best interest of the LP for it to nominate a candidate who has already endorsed his opponents (Root has already endorsed a McCain-Lieberman ticket for 2008), and whose positions are frequently at odds with both the historical positions of the LP and with such current trends in American politics as happen to intersect those historical positions.
There are a lot of ways for a political party to get stupid. Nominating Root would encompass many, if not all, of those ways.
Regards,
Tom Knapp
January 9th, 2007 at 3:13 pm
“Finally, it is simply not in the best interest of the LP for it to nominate a candidate who has already endorsed his opponents (Root has already endorsed a McCain-Lieberman ticket for 2008),”
Anyone who would endorse a McCain-Lieberman ticket is not a real libertarian. McCain-Lieberman would be a NIGHTMARE for liberty.
January 9th, 2007 at 8:27 pm
I think the LP ought to take a stronger antiwar stand, especially with Bush’s impending escalation announcement.
Rather than complain and wait for National to do something, the LP Radical Caucus has prepared a press release for local affiliates to adapt and use as they see best – it is available here:
http://www.lpradicals.org/
The press release is for the use of any Libertarian Party affiliate or organization wanting a rapid and forceful response to Bush’s call for escalation in Iraq. Please feel free to place your group’s name and contact information on it and release it to your local media. If you would like to make changes, feel free to do so. No credit need (or should) be given – release this under your own group’s name. The LP should be providing affiliates with platform-compliant, forceful statements on current news events. The LP should be taking a strong antiwar stand. The activists of the LP Radical Caucus offer this release to help LP affiliates make a strong Libertarian statement on current events.
January 10th, 2007 at 12:05 am
“There are a lot of ways for a political party to get stupid. Nominating Root would encompass many, if not all, of those ways.” – Tom Knapp
Excellent comment, Tom. Truer words were never spoken.
Anyone who has written a book titled “Millionaire Republican” — featuring the author standing on a militarized-looking vehicle adorned with rags on a stick and a mansion as a backdrop on the dust jacket — should be avoided like the plague.
Wayne Root symbolizes everything that’s wrong with our country and the fact that he’s even being mentioned as a possible presidential candidate speaks to the current depravity of American politics.
January 10th, 2007 at 12:08 am
The only real connection that any recent president has to sports is that back toward the end of George W. Bush’s reign as a corporate welfare queen, he kept his throne in a baseball stadium.
Au contraire – W has way more sports connections than that!
For example, in his all-boys prep school, he was a cheerleader – not sure if he was the head cheerleader, or just a regular cheerleader.
I think he also dresses in drag for the games, although that could have been photoshopped.
-p
January 10th, 2007 at 12:13 am
Whoops, that should be dressed – that was 40 years ago, and I have no knowledge of W dressing in drag more recently.
A nice picture/cartoon to accompany Susan’s press release:
http://pauliecannoli.wordpress.com/2006/12/29/ted-rall-bush-plan-to-win-in-iraq/
January 10th, 2007 at 8:23 am
Tom, what would you know about the “at odds with the historical roots of the Libertarian Party” my friend? You’re a relative Newbie to our movement. You’ve been around since, what? The late 1990s??
I’ve got 23 years in the Libertarian movement/Libertarian Party. Actually more like 25 since I cast my very first vote in my life for Libertarians in 1982 absentee out on a ship in the middle of the Persian Gulf, and I was telling all my sailor buddy friends to “Vote Libertarian.” So, I’d say that counts as Libertarian activism too. I served on the Libertarian National Committee way back in 1986/87 with such luminaries as Karl Hess, Paul Jacob, Don Ernsberger and Jim Turney. And as you probably know I was Ron Paul’s Right-hand man in his Libertarian Party Presidential race in 1987/88.
You know it always pisses me off how all these Newbies come into our movement and suddenly decide for those of us who have been around for a while “what is and what is not propery Libertarian.” Guys who were in diapers when me and my comrades were out on the streets petitioning in God-awful Western Nebraska to get the LP on the ballot back in the mid-1980s.
As for Wayne Root, those sites I mentioned were just the tip of the iceburg.
Did you take the Wayne Root Media Tour as I suggested?
If not, GO TO WWW.MAINSTREAMLIBERTARIAN.COM right now and check it out.
Root has appeared on Fox News, Fox Sports, ABC Sports, ESPN, NBC, HBO’s Bill Maher and Dennis Miller, Rosie O’Donnell, CSNBC, and a ton of Sports Betting national TV Shows in recent months. Hell, he was just on Fox 4 days ago. A major Television Reality Show is strongly considering him for an episode. And I mean MAJOR!
He hasn’t even formed an Exploratory Committee and his potential candidacy has been covered by the Las Vegas Review-Journal, and arguably what is the Top Sports Betting site in the entire World Ladbrokes.com out of London.
Can “never been elected dog catcher” Phillies or Marijuana guy match that?
January 10th, 2007 at 8:38 am
And Knapp, sorry to break this news to you, but the extremist Anarchist wing of the Libertarian Party DOES NOT get to decide for the rest of us Libertarians what is and what is not “properly” Libertarian.
Last time I checked NOBODY DIED and left you boss.
Were you at Karl Hess’s bedside in West Virginia when he passed away? Did Karl whisper in your ear, “Tommy, my boy, here’s the baton. Now go forth and rule the Libertarian movement. You are hereby King of the Libertarians.”
This is a broad-based movement. It includes EVERYONE from the self-described Moderate Libertarians like William Weld, and Liz Mair over at www.gopprogress.com to us middle-of-the-road Cato Institute, Reason Magazine, Libertarian Republicans and even Libertarian Reform Caucus folks, to the more hardcore regular Libertarian Party members, to the Radical Caucus people like you in the extremist wing of the Libertarian Party, and even to Anarchists like Lew Rockwell and L. Neil Smith.
You seem to want to preserve the term Libertarian for only two groups: Radical Libertarians and even more Radical Libertarians who are actually Anarchists.
There’s such a thing as a Moderate Libertarian Knapp. I suggest you do your homework.
Try telling Liz Mair over at GOPProgress that she has no right to call herself a “libertarian.” Liz is a supporter of folks like Lincoln Chaffee, Chris Shays, and David Dreier. Liz’s definition of a “libertarian” is someone who hails from the Socially Moderate/Pro-Choice wing of the GOP. She is adament in describing herself as a “libertarian.” I’ve seen her in action over at RedState tearing some Social Cons a new asshole for trying to paint her as a “Moderate Republican.” She proudly says that she is NOT. That she is a Proud libertarian. And Liz is significantly more moderate than myself and other RLCers on the issues.
Go ahead, I dare you. Try telling her that you are the self-appointed King of the Libertarians and that you have decided that she no longer has the right to call herself a “libertarian.” I guarantee she’ll snap your head off faster than you can say “V for Vendetta.” She’s quite a tough cookie.
But more importantly Liz scores over 66/66 on the WSPQ. So she has EVERY RIGHT IN THE WORLD to call herself a “libertarian.” Just as much right as you do my friend.
January 10th, 2007 at 8:48 am
Here’s a solution for ya then Darcy. Don’t nominate Root. Let him run as a Republican or on the Reform Party ticket.
Nominate “Never been elected Dog Catcher” Phillies or the Marijuana Guy, and see how many votes the Libertarian Party gets.
Let’s remember something here. You all are coming off the horrible Michael Badnarik Campaign with 370,000 votes. You all screwed the pooch on that one, passing up two minor celebs Aaron Russo and Gary Nolan, for some guy who had never held elective office, never graduated from college, never served in the Military, and had zero life accomplishments or resume.
Hey, ya know Russo only Produced one of the Greatest Comedies of all time: Trading Places with Eddie Murphy.
And Wayne Root is only one of the Top Sports Betting Oddsmakers in the Nation, having gone 8 for 9 in the Bowl Games. And he only gets on National TV just once or twice a week.
Forget all that. Go for the gusto. Yeeeeaaaaah Baby! Gotta have that obscurity. The more obscure the better.
Let’s go for 200,000 votes this time. Hell, throw caution out the window.
The more extremist and obscure Libertarian Party Presidential candidates can be, the better, right?
In fact, forget “Never been elected Dog Catcher” guy and Marijuana Dude, and let’s just nominate Carol Moore
Hey, she’s principled. She’s an Anarchist. Pure as the snow before the huskies go. And… She’s a woman.
Carol Moore for President 2008!! Because the Marijuana Dude and “Never been elected Dog Catcher” guy are too famous!
January 10th, 2007 at 8:52 am
Hey Knapp, whatever happened to your Boston Tea Party?
Why are you concerned about the Libertarian Party anyway? Shouldn’t you be working on gerting your BTP a candidate? Didn’t you officially quit the Libertarian Party a couple years ago to found the BTP cause the LP was not “extremist enough” for you?
Who will the BTP running for President in 2008?
Or did the group already go defunct? What’s the matter? An extremist version of the Libertarian Party just not attracting enough adherents to make if viable?
Hmmmn. Seems to me that would indicate to a lay person that THERE IS NO CONSTITUENCY FOR EXTREMIST ANARCHIST VERSION OF LIBERTARIANS.
Just a thought.
January 10th, 2007 at 9:15 am
If Root is going to make a bid for the nomination is he planning on being at any of the state conventions?
BTW Oregon’s convention is in March so maybe you can get the word to him and get him to show up there. How about it?
MHW
January 10th, 2007 at 11:10 am
If you want to form your own opinion of Mr. Dondero and whether his opinions resemble libertarianism or not, he was a call-in questioner when I appeared on Blog Talk Radio Liberty Cap Live with Todd Andrew Barnett, now archives at
http://blogtalkradio.com/hostpage.aspx?show_id=9322
I believe readers will enjoy the rest of the interview, and will get a clear impression of Mr. Dondero.
January 10th, 2007 at 11:24 am
Tom, what would you know about the “at odds with the historical roots of the Libertarian Party” my friend? You’re a relative Newbie to our movement. You’ve been around since, what? The late 1990s??
Knapp’s been around longer than that, but even if had just discovered the movement yesterday, he could stll read the links I posted in this thread way back on January 7th, 2007 at 7:53 pm and know more about our historical roots than Eric has been able to gather in a quarter century.
Reading Is Fundamental!
January 10th, 2007 at 11:29 am
Can “never been elected dog catcher” Phillies or Marijuana guy match that?
http://lastfreevoice.wordpress.com/2007/01/03/kubby-in-the-news
http://lastfreevoice.wordpress.com/2007/01/09/kubby-2008-update/
January 10th, 2007 at 11:31 am
But more importantly Liz scores over 66/66 on the WSPQ. So she has EVERY RIGHT IN THE WORLD to call herself a “libertarian.” Just as much right as you do my friend.
She can also call herself Marie Antoinette, the Queen of France, just as convincingly.
Does she believe in and consistently apply the non-initiation of force principle?
I think Moderate Republican is, in fact, a more accurate description.
January 10th, 2007 at 11:31 am
DEMOCRATIC
You have two cows.
Your neighbor has none.
You feel guilty for being successful.
Barbara Streisand sings for you.
REPUBLICAN
You have two cows.
Your neighbor has none.
So?
SOCIALIST
You have two cows.
The government takes one and gives it to your neighbor.
You form a cooperative to tell him how to manage his cow.
COMMUNIST
You have two cows.
The government seizes both and provides you with milk.
You wait in line for hours to get it.
It is expensive and sour.
CAPITALISM, AMERICAN STYLE
You have two cows.
You sell one, buy a bull, and build a herd of cows.
BUREAUCRACY, AMERICAN STYLE
You have two cows.
Under the new farm program the government pays you to shoot one, milk the other, and then pours the milk down the drain.
AMERICAN CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You sell one, lease it back to yourself and do an IPO on the 2nd one.
You force the two cows to produce the milk of four cows. You are surprised when one cow drops dead. You spin an announcement to the analysts stating you have downsized and are reducing expenses.
Your stock goes up.
FRENCH CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You go on strike because you want three cows.
You go to lunch and drink wine.
Life is good.
JAPANESE CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You redesign them so they are one-tenth the size of an ordinary cow and produce twenty times the milk.
They learn to travel on unbelievably crowded trains.
Most are at the top of their class at cow school.
GERMAN CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You engineer them so they are all blond, drink lots of beer, give excellent quality milk, and run a hundred miles an hour.
Unfortunately they also demand 13 weeks of vacation per year.
ITALIAN CORPORATION
You have two cows but you don’t know where they are.
While ambling around, you see a beautiful woman.
You break for lunch.
Life is good.
RUSSIAN CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You have some vodka.
You count them and learn you have five cows.
You have some more vodka.
You count them again and learn you have 42 cows.
The Mafia shows up and takes over however many cows you really have.
TALIBAN CORPORATION
You have all the cows in Afghanistan , which are two.
You don’t milk them because you cannot touch any creature’s private parts.
You get a $40 million grant from the US government to find alternatives to milk production but use the money to buy weapons.
IRAQI CORPORATION
You have two cows.
They go into hiding.
They send radio tapes of their mooing.
POLISH CORPORATION
You have two bulls.
Employees are regularly maimed and killed attempting to milk them.
BELGIAN CORPORATION
You have one cow.
The cow is schizophrenic.
Sometimes the cow thinks he’s French, other times he’s Flemish.
The Flemish cow won’t share with the French cow.
The French cow wants control of the Flemish cow’s milk.
The cow asks permission to be cut in half.
The cow dies happy.
FLORIDA CORPORATION
You have a black cow and a brown cow.
Everyone votes for the best looking one.
Some of the people who actually like the brown one best accidentally vote for the black one.
Some people vote for both.
Some people vote for neither.
Some people can’t figure out how to vote at all.
Finally, a bunch of guys from out-of-state tell you which one you think is the best-looking cow.
CALIFORNIA CORPORATION
You have millions of cows.
They make real California cheese.
Only five speak English.
Most are illegals.
Arnold likes the ones with the big udders.
January 10th, 2007 at 11:33 am
Don’t nominate Root. Let him run as a Republican or on the Reform Party ticket.
I’m glad Eric and I agree about that.
January 10th, 2007 at 11:41 am
Tim, that was amazing.
January 10th, 2007 at 11:53 am
So Canoli, you are comparing with a straight face a brief appearance on a Beonce’ on-line video with interviews on Fox News, CSNBC, ESPN, ABC Sports, NBC and HBO?
January 10th, 2007 at 11:55 am
And you can call yourself a “libertarian” too Canoli, but I’ve seen precious little evidence of your alleged libertarianism. You seem to be some ultra-liberal Michael Moore/Cindy Sheehan type who has infilitrated our libertarian movement and goes around calling himself a “libertarian.”
Tell us Canoli, just where do your views differ from Ms. Sheehan’s?
January 10th, 2007 at 11:57 am
George Phillies, a prospective Presidential candidate of the United States of America does not seem to think that 9/11 mattered. He could care less that nearly 3,000 of our fellow countrymen died in flames in the Pentagon, Twin Towers on on United Flight 93.
I will defend to my last dying breath the honor of those brave individuals who dies on 9/11 at the hands of the Islamo-Fascists, and if that means kicking the living shit out of Phillies on a national radio talk show, as Todd Beamer said minutes before United Flight 93 met it’s demise in the fields of Western Pennsylvania:
Let’s Roll…
January 10th, 2007 at 1:24 pm
So Canoli, you are comparing with a straight face a brief appearance on a Beonce’ on-line video with interviews on Fox News, CSNBC, ESPN, ABC Sports, NBC and HBO?
Paul would be fine.
The cool thing about viral videos is that they can spread around and keep spreading around, so in some ways they are even better than those interviews.
Of course, speaking to crowds of 50,000 people at a time to announce for president, and being covered in Over 400 Articles and Editorials about Steve Kubby going back to 1999-2005, helps too.
So does actually being a libertarian (and a Libertarian). Kubby is; Root is not.
And you can call yourself a “libertarian” too Canoli, but I’ve seen precious little evidence of your alleged libertarianism. You seem to be some ultra-liberal Michael Moore/Cindy Sheehan type who has infilitrated our libertarian movement and goes around calling himself a “libertarian.”
Tell us Canoli, just where do your views differ from Ms. Sheehan’s?
Well of course I’m a libertarian. I score 153 on this test:
http://www.bcaplan.com/cgi-bin/purity.cgi
What’s your score on that quiz, Eric?
I can tell you exactly which questions I said no to, and why. Feel free to do the same.
As for Ms. Sheehan, I am not going to assume what her views are. If you will be so kind as to provide actual quotes, survey responses, and other direct statements of her views I could tell you whether or not I agree with them.
By the way, even though it is well known that I’m a Kubby supporter, I’m going to defend George Phillies for a minute here.
George Phillies, a prospective Presidential candidate of the United States of America does think that 9/11 mattered. He hopes to enact policies which will put an end to the vicious cycle of foreign policy interventionism, aggressionism, imperialism and terrorist blowback which makes America, and Americans, less safe.
So does my preferred candidate, Steve Kubby.
Now, speaking for myself and not any campaign:
I will defend to my last dying breath the honor of those brave individuals who dies on 9/11 at the hands of the Bush Crime Family-Fascists.
Eric, if you think that you being rude and ignorant, as you also were to Harry Browne, means “kicking the living shit out of Phillies” on a national radio talk show, you are living in fantasy land…Planet Eric, let’s call it. You’re not kicking the shit out of anyone, just embarassing yourself and anyone who agrees with you – which is good, they deserve to be embarassed.
Roll Tide Roll…Let Freedom Grow!
January 10th, 2007 at 1:33 pm
Does she believe in and consistently apply the non-initiation of force principle?
lots of libertarians don’t. They’re still libertarians, just not your kind of libertarians.
when you stop being libertarian is when you start to approve of or advocate more government /corporate/ MIC power and control over the individual person.
there’s no way the LP can ever assemble enough of a political coalition to matter using the yardstick of the non-initiation of force principle.
fine guiding example for individuals, rotten example to attempt to base a nation of 330 million people on that has a government in place.
January 10th, 2007 at 1:35 pm
Speaking of Sheehan, at http://www.lewrockwell.com/sheehan/sheehan39.html
Cindy Sheehan writes…
“To be honest with ourselves and our children, instead of the flags and Man Scout badges that our soldiers decorate their uniforms with, they should have their suits covered with corporate logos like NASCAR drivers. A Halliburton patch here and an Exxon patch there.”
I’ve written almost exactly the same thing several times….
Eric Dondero, http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2004/tle275-20040613-04.html
“The Real Master Shake” has recently been promoting .
Absurdity has never reached such new depths. Why not Libertarians for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eduard_Limonov>
Limonov? After all, could the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Bolshevik
National Bolshevik vozhd’ (fuehrer) be any less libertarian than http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/editorials/077
Commandante Bush or
http://www.geocities.com/robertwgardner2000/palpatine.html
Sith Lord Lieberman?.....
At a previous thirdpartywatch.com discussion of Steve Kubby’s letter on Iraq, Eric Dondero writes:
“Kubby, if nominated, will drive a great many Pro-War on Islamo-
Fascism Libertarians (sic) out of the LP into the Republican
Party.”
Good, because that’s where they belong.
Unilateral surrender of what? All the rationales for the war have
been B.S., from WMDs to terrorism to democracy. Hell, it hasn’t
even gotten us cheaper oil.
Iraq is worse off: 655,000 plus dead, who knows how many raped,
tortured, maimed, poisoned, traumatized; no basic services such as
water, medicine and electricity, which they had before the war.
America is worse off: 3,000 dead and counting, tens of thousands
wounded, a future generation of homeless drug addicts, wife beaters,
prison inmates and brutal cops, a quagmire war and half a trillion in
stolen tax money in the hole. Plus, a big part of why Katrina was
such a huge disaster was that the National Guard was busy in Iraq
and funds to upgrade the levees had been diverted to…Iraq,
naturally.
How any so-called libertarian can want to continue this unnatural
disaster is absolutely mind-boggling.
January 10th, 2007 at 1:37 pm
Whoops, let’s see if I can fix those links…
Speaking of Sheehan, at http://www.lewrockwell.com/sheehan/sheehan39.html
Cindy Sheehan writes…
“To be honest with ourselves and our children, instead of the flags and Man Scout badges that our soldiers decorate their uniforms with, they should have their suits covered with corporate logos like NASCAR drivers. A Halliburton patch here and an Exxon patch there.”
I’ve written almost exactly the same thing several times….
Eric Dondero,
http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2004/tle275-20040613-04.html
“The Real Master Shake” has recently been promoting http://www.m4radio.com/main/messageboard/553.html
Libertarians for Bush and
http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/08/05/040057.php
Libertarians for Lieberman.
Absurdity has never reached such new depths. Why not Libertarians for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eduard_Limonov.
Limonov? After all, could the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Bolshevik
National Bolshevik vozhd’ (fuehrer) be any less libertarian than http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/editorials/077
Commandante Bush or
http://www.geocities.com/robertwgardner2000/palpatine.html
Sith Lord Lieberman?.....
At a previous thirdpartywatch.com discussion of Steve Kubby’s letter on Iraq, Eric Dondero writes:
“Kubby, if nominated, will drive a great many Pro-War on Islamo-
Fascism Libertarians (sic) out of the LP into the Republican
Party.”
Good, because that’s where they belong.
Unilateral surrender of what? All the rationales for the war have
been B.S., from WMDs to terrorism to democracy. Hell, it hasn’t
even gotten us cheaper oil.
Iraq is worse off: 655,000 plus dead, who knows how many raped,
tortured, maimed, poisoned, traumatized; no basic services such as
water, medicine and electricity, which they had before the war.
America is worse off: 3,000 dead and counting, tens of thousands
wounded, a future generation of homeless drug addicts, wife beaters,
prison inmates and brutal cops, a quagmire war and half a trillion in
stolen tax money in the hole. Plus, a big part of why Katrina was
such a huge disaster was that the National Guard was busy in Iraq
and funds to upgrade the levees had been diverted to…Iraq,
naturally.
How any so-called libertarian can want to continue this unnatural
disaster is absolutely mind-boggling.
January 10th, 2007 at 1:40 pm
I don’t know which links are causing the problem in my response to Eric getting spam-flagged. I’ll strip out the URLs and post a clickable version on my blog.
Whoops, let’s see if I can fix those links…
Speaking of Sheehan, at
www.lewrockwell.com/sheehan/sheehan39.html
Cindy Sheehan writes…
“To be honest with ourselves and our children, instead of the flags and Man Scout badges that our soldiers decorate their uniforms with, they should have their suits covered with corporate logos like NASCAR drivers. A Halliburton patch here and an Exxon patch there.”
I’ve written almost exactly the same thing several times….
Eric Dondero,
www.ncc-1776.org/tle2004/tle275-20040613-04.html
“The Real Master Shake” has recently been promoting www.m4radio.com/main/messageboard/553.html
Libertarians for Bush and
blogcritics.org/archives/2006/08/05/040057.php
Libertarians for Lieberman.
Absurdity has never reached such new depths. Why not Libertarians for en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eduard_Limonov.
Limonov? After all, could the
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Bolshevik
National Bolshevik vozhd’ (fuehrer) be any less libertarian than www.buzzflash.com/articles/editorials/077
Commandante Bush or
www.geocities.com/robertwgardner2000/palpatine.html
Sith Lord Lieberman?.....
At a previous thirdpartywatch.com discussion of Steve Kubby’s letter on Iraq, Eric Dondero writes:
“Kubby, if nominated, will drive a great many Pro-War on Islamo-
Fascism Libertarians (sic) out of the LP into the Republican
Party.”
Good, because that’s where they belong.
Unilateral surrender of what? All the rationales for the war have
been B.S., from WMDs to terrorism to democracy. Hell, it hasn’t
even gotten us cheaper oil.
Iraq is worse off: 655,000 plus dead, who knows how many raped,
tortured, maimed, poisoned, traumatized; no basic services such as
water, medicine and electricity, which they had before the war.
America is worse off: 3,000 dead and counting, tens of thousands
wounded, a future generation of homeless drug addicts, wife beaters,
prison inmates and brutal cops, a quagmire war and half a trillion in
stolen tax money in the hole. Plus, a big part of why Katrina was
such a huge disaster was that the National Guard was busy in Iraq
and funds to upgrade the levees had been diverted to…Iraq,
naturally.
How any so-called libertarian can want to continue this unnatural
disaster is absolutely mind-boggling.
January 10th, 2007 at 1:46 pm
Vietnam, another quagmire war that killed millions, including tens of
thousands of Americans, and also caused all the other problems
associated with Iraq (see above).
The War on Drugs, first declared by Nixon and made much worse by
Reagan, which has cost as much as a trillion dollars of stoien tax
money or more in the 30 plus years it’s been fought, unjustly
imprisoned millions of Americans, caused the corruption and
brutification of law enforcement and the courts, kills
tens of thousands of people a year, and destroys our civil liberties
(as does the phony war on terror).
The Great Society/War on Poverty, which has cost multi-trillions,
destroyed family culture and civic society, and failed to solve
poverty.
The only thing that’s sad is that people continue to buy into the
lies about Iraq, the war on Terror, the War on Drugs, the War on
Poverty, and more.
The only thing that’s sadder is when self-styled libertarians do so.
I’m supporting Kubby for President. I don’t agree with his view that
those who supported Iraq should be considered fellow libertarians,
but I understand why he is saying it. If the LP decides to buck its trend
of picking the wrong presidential nominee, and goes with Kubby,
perhaps we can be a real party after all.
Islamo-fascism, as Eric already knows, does not exist.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/margolis/margolis46.html
January 10th, 2007 at 1:50 pm
And 9/11 never happened right Canoli?
January 10th, 2007 at 1:51 pm
Or, let me guess. It was an inside job, right?
Our own government brought the Towers down, huh?
January 10th, 2007 at 1:52 pm
Of course 9/11 happened Eric….
Cheney did it, and Bush knew.
One thing I’m not, however, is a Rapepubliccon “Liberty” Caucasoid.
For one thing, associating with the Red State Fascists
www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/red-state-fascism.html
of the Bushevik NSGOP is just too much of a stretch.
For anyone unfamiliar with the antics of Eric “Master Shake” Dondero,
founder of the RLC, don’t be fooled by the title of his site
“mainstreamlibertarian.com”
Instead see the links at
www.lpalabama.org/node/552
In addition to Sith Lord Lieberman and White House resident Dubai-
ya, Eric considers the following repugnant characters “libertarian”
or “leaning”:
Jeb Bush
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeb_Bush
Katherine Harris
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katherine_Harris
Arnold Schwarzenegger
arnoldexposed.com/arnold.htm#nazi
Rudolf (the coke-nosed facsist) Giuliani
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_Giuliani
Zell Miller
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zell_Miller
Bill “oh really” O’Reilly
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_O%27Reilly_%28commentator%29
Neal “BooRish” Boortz
www.antiwar.com/justin/jspecial112603.html
After 20 plus years of activism in the LP and libertarian movement,
this can’t be simple ignorance on Eric’s part!
January 10th, 2007 at 1:57 pm
“Or, let me guess. It was an inside job, right?
Our own government brought the Towers down, huh?”
You don’t have to guess.
http://911truth.org/
But, even if the regime’s silly “19 Arabs with Boxcutters” conspiracy theory were true, which it’s not, it still does not justify your war.
Read this:
http://freedom-force.org/freedomcontent.cfm?fuseaction=why_hate&refpage=issues
WHY DO THEY HATE AMERICA?
It has nothing to do with freedom, lifestyle, or religion.
Analysis by G. Edward Griffin.
January 10th, 2007 at 2:03 pm
Whoops, 2nd to last response to Eric includes an out of date URL for lpalabama.
I think node 552 was the same post as
http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/01/05/our-interview-with-shane-cory-2/#comment-91963
Generally speaking.
January 10th, 2007 at 2:21 pm
“ifs and buts and hickory nuts..” or what ever that saying is…We need to stop playing “what ifs”. The Libertarian Party Candidate for President will have to be a card carrying member of the Libertarian Party. If some one wants to seek the nomination, they need to join the “Party” then start building an organization etc. Kubby and Phillies are both Party Members and are trying to help grow the party. (Sorry I may have left off a few others who are seeking the nomination). Until people like Root, Eastwood, Elmo etc. join the party and work at seeking the nod, I think time is better spent working with the Party members and Candidates to build the local affilates.
January 10th, 2007 at 2:49 pm
Um. Wow Paul.
You just costed Kubby a prospective vote. I am not a fan of Bush, at all. I think he may be the worst President in the last half century. But to believe 9/11 was an elaborate inside job….wow.
Don’t bother trying to convince me of the merits of such an arguement, I’ve done extensive research on the subject,and am not going to entertain a rediculous theory like how a missile actually crashed into the Pentagon.
Despite the fact that I disagree with you on many issues (mainly because I am a Libertarian-leaning Conservative, and you are an Anarchist). I advocate small government, and so I consider myself a Libertarian,as this is the core principle.
January 10th, 2007 at 4:30 pm
Trent,
I would not expect you to vote for Kubby, but I did make it quite clear that I was speaking for myself on this issue, not for Kubby.
I have no idea what Kubby’s views are on 9/11, not having heard or seen him say or write a word about it. I hope that at the very least he will call for a real investigation. For all I know, he might agree with you about that particular issue.
As I told Eric, which conspiracy was responsible for the events of 9/11 (because the official theory is also a conspiracy theory) is not crucial to the issue of opposing these wars: we should still oppose them even if the regime’s version was correct. I also explained why.
As per your request, I won’t argue the merits of the alternate conspiracy theories of 9/11 with you; that’s more Andy’s bailiwick, and I’m sure he’ll be happy to argue that point. In fact, knowing Andy as I do, there’s a high probability that he will do so whether or not you want to.
My views on 9/11 are my own. I don’t know Steve Kubby’s.
You’re not suggesting I should not be allowed to publically support Steve Kubby because I happen to believe in an explanation of the events of 9/11 which was also accepted by 36% and growing of the general public, are you?
Or, that Steve Kubby should be held responsible for every view of all his supporters, whether or not he agrees with them?
To me, that would seem rather disproportionate.
January 10th, 2007 at 4:38 pm
Trent writes: “I advocate small government, and so I consider myself a Libertarian,as this is the core principle.”
Rocky writes: That may be the core POLITICS, Trent, but that is not the core PRINCIPLE (at least for “l”ibertarians). The core PRINCIPLE is the concept of self-ownership – and the associated (and derived) NAP. Without the NAP, your advocacy of small government is just your personal preference and prejudice. Nothing principled about it, since, although some people may agree with you, your personal preference has no more legitimacy than Nancy Pelosi’s or Josef Stalin’s.
January 10th, 2007 at 5:16 pm
Rocky,
Wrong.
“Those are governed best who are governed least.”—Thomas Jefferson
“Government is not reason, nor eloquence. It is force. And like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearsome master.”—George Washington
“The sheep are happier of themselves, than under the care of wolves.”—Thomas Jefferson
“A government that is big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take it all away.”—Barry Goldwater
“Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.”—Thomas Paine
“Every society, all government, and every kind of civil compact therefore, is or ought to be, calculated for the general good and safety of the community. Every power, every authority vested in particular men is, or ought to be, ultimately directed at this sole end; and whenever any power or authority whatever extends further…than is in its nature necessary for these purposes, it may be called government, but it is in fact oppression.”—George Mason
‘What more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people?...a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government…”—Thomas Jefferson
Small Government is what our founding fathers had in mind when they wrote the Constitution. It has sense been perverted.
As for your assertion that the Concept of Self-Ownership is central to Libertarianism. Agreed. I call it small-government, you call it Self-ownership.
As for the NAP, I can agree that we should not Initiate Force unless attacked. The problem lies in the definition of attacked. While I don’t agree with the Neo-Cons on the Iraq issue, its not because I believe it was inherantly wrong to attack Iraq (as it had threatened to attack America and American interests many times, and was continually in violation of ‘international law’), its because Congress didn’t declare war. While I agree as a Moral Concept that the NAP is wonderful. It is not a realistic central platform for a GOVERNMENT because governments must act on the behalf of the people. If 99% of people had preferred to goto War against Iraq, then how would a Libertarian Government have responded? By rejecting the calls of 270 million people because the other 5 million remember too well the lesson of “Don’t hit, jimmy!” that they learned in Grade School?
It could be a major plank, but not the central plank to a platform.
January 10th, 2007 at 7:09 pm
Susan,
Thanks for posting the thoughtful press release issued by LP Radical Caucus.
Incidentally, for those who may be interested, here’s a statement on the same subject issued by the Green Party earlier today:
For Immediate Release:
Wednesday, January 10, 2007
Troop escalation and Iraq oil grab by U.S.
corporations will prolong the Iraq war, say
Greens
. New ‘blood for oil’ deal will give companies
like Exxon Mobil, Shell, and Chevron lucrative
contracts to drill for Iraqi oil—and will
aggravate the Iraq civil war
WASHINGTON, D.C.—Green Party leaders warned
that President Bush’s plan to send 20,000 more
U.S. troops to Iraq will lead to an expanded
civil war, more civilian and troop casualties,
and a prolonged occupation.
“An indefinite occupation is obviously the White
House’s plan, in light of news that the Iraqi
government is about to push through a deal giving
foreign oil companies like Exxon Mobil, Shell,
and Chevron the right to exploit Iraq’s oil
reserves,” said Fred Vitale, Michigan Green
candidate for State Representative (District 3)
in the 2006 election. “High U.S. troop levels
will be necessary for years to come to make it
profitable for these corporations to drill for
and export Iraqi oil. Furthermore, rage in Iraq
and throughout the Middle East will be inflamed
as Iraqis witness the theft of their resources.”
The new law, which allows “production-sharing
agreements” (PSAs) granting Western companies
30-year contracts to extract Iraqi oil, has been
vetted by the U.S. government, U.S. oil
companies, and the International Monetary Fund
(“Blood and oil: How the West will profit from
Iraq’s most precious commodity,” The Independent,
January 7, 2007
).
The PSAs permit the oil companies to bleed 75% of
the profits from Iraqi oil without requiring them
to reinvest money in Iraq itself. The deal
reinforces the sentiment of most Iraqis that
control over Iraqi oil was behind the invasion
all along (Monthly Review, December 2006,
);
this belief (contrary to U.S. propaganda about
Islam, terrorist infiltration, and hatred of
democracy) has been the main motivation for Iraqi
resistance to U.S. forces.
“The ‘blood for oil’ deal proves what antiwar
protesters have been saying since 2002, when
President Bush announced his intention to invade
Iraq and White House officials falsified
information about WMDs and Iraqi connections with
al-Qaeda,” said Rebecca Rotzler, co-chair of the
Green Party of the United States and Deputy Mayor
of New Paltz, New York. “This was a war to gain
political control of the world’s second largest
oil-producing nation, and it’s why the Bush
Administration intends to maintain the occupation
as long as possible. It also suggests what was
on the agenda when Vice President Cheney held his
secret meetings with oil company representatives
to determine America’s national energy policy.”
The Green Party of the United States has called
for immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from
Iraq, and has urged Democrats in Congress to cut
off further military funding for the occupation.
Greens have also endorsed impeachment of
President Bush and Vice President Cheney, citing
massive and numerous abuses of power, including
deception to justify the invasion of Iraq.
* * *
January 10th, 2007 at 9:26 pm
“Don’t bother trying to convince me of the merits of such an arguement, I’ve done extensive research on the subject,and am not going to entertain a rediculous theory like how a missile actually crashed into the Pentagon.”
I don’t know if a missle or a plane crashed into the Pentagon (judging from the evidence of the crash site the government’s account of the incident looks fishy).
I do know that World Trade Center Building 7 was not hit by a plane and was on the other side of the complex from WTC 1 & 2 and yet WTC 7 mysteriously collapsed into its own footprints.
I do know that NORAD stood down and that Andrews Air Force Base is only about 10 miles from the Pentagon and that they had plenty of time to scramble fighter planes and failed to do so.
I do know that the insider stock trading that went occurred on 9/11 went through a bank that had been headed by Executive Director of the CIA, Buzzy Krongaurd.
I do know that al Queda was founded, funded, and trained by the CIA, and that Osama bin Laden was a long time CIA asset and that his family have been long time business partners with the Bush family.
I do know that two members of the Bush family, Marvin Bush and Wirt Walker, were both involved with the company that ran security at the WTC complex.
I do know that a neo-conservative think tank whose members included Dick Cheney, Jeb Bush, Paul Wolfowitz, and Richard Perle, issued a policy paper back in the ‘90s that stated that they’d need a “new Pearl Harbor” type of event to help further their agenda for more military spending and Middle Eastern hegemony.
I do know that our government and government’s in general have a history of telling lies and engaging in false flag terror operations (staging attacks and blaming them on their political enemies). Pearl Harbor, The Gulf Of Tonkin, the sinking of the USS Liberty, the build up to Gulf War 1, the Oklahoma City bombing, etc…, all filled with government lies and propaganda! Look these things up if you don’t believe me.
I do know that back in the early 1960’s that the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the Pentagon produced a document called “Operation Northwoods” where they called for staging terrorist attacks to blame them on an enemy to get a war going. The plan even called for hijacking airplanes!
Did factions within the US government carry out the 9/11 attack? All of the evidence points in that direction.
January 10th, 2007 at 10:01 pm
“Nominate “Never been elected Dog Catcher” Phillies or the Marijuana Guy, and see how many votes the Libertarian Party gets.”
As of right now, Phillies and Kubby appear to be the only ones who are mounting a serious campaign for the nomination. So unless another serious contender jumps in the race I imagine that one of them will get the nomination.
“Let’s remember something here. You all are coming off the horrible Michael Badnarik Campaign with 370,000 votes. You all screwed the pooch on that one, passing up two minor celebs Aaron Russo and Gary Nolan, for some guy who had never held elective office, never graduated from college, never served in the Military, and had zero life accomplishments or resume.”
I think that Badnarik is a good guy but I favored Aaron Russo for the nomination. I figured that it would be between Russo and Nolan and that Badnarik would be lucky if he ended up with the VP nomination. I actually supported Gary Nolan at first but then I switched to Aaron Russo shortly after he jumped in the race. I remember following Badnarik’s website and liking what I saw but I just didn’t think that he’d be as good a candidate as the other two due to his lack of money and name recognition. All 3 candidates were pretty close on the issues so to me it came down to who was going to most effectively promote the Libertarian Party and who stood the best chance of being a “breakthrough” candidate. I thought that it was Aaron Russo and when he didn’t get the nomination I thought that the party really screwed up. I ended up supporting Badnarik after he got the nomination and I think that he did a respectable job under the circumstances, it’s just that he wasn’t my first choice.
“Hey, ya know Russo only Produced one of the Greatest Comedies of all time: Trading Places with Eddie Murphy.”
You do know that Aaron Russo is much more of a hardcore libertarian than you are? You do know that Aaron Russo OPPOSES the wars in Iraq and Afganistan and that he opposes the idea of invading Iran? You do know that Aaron Russo opposes the Patriot Act and every other police state measure that’s been passed in the name of the “War On Terror”? You do know that Aaron Russo dispises President Bush and thinks that he should be impeached? You do know that Aaron Russo has publically stated that he thinks that 9/11 was an inside job and that there should be a real investigation? Aaron Russo’s views are closer to my views than they are to your’s.
“And Wayne Root is only one of the Top Sports Betting Oddsmakers in the Nation, having gone 8 for 9 in the Bowl Games. And he only gets on National TV just once or twice a week.
Forget all that. Go for the gusto. Yeeeeaaaaah Baby! Gotta have that obscurity. The more obscure the better.
Let’s go for 200,000 votes this time. Hell, throw caution out the window.
The more extremist and obscure Libertarian Party Presidential candidates can be, the better, right?”
Believe me, I’d LOVE to have a celebrity and/or wealthy (preferably both) presidential candidate. But I also want a candidate who is actually a Libertarian. From what I’ve seen so far from Wayne Root his “libertarian” credentials do not impress me. Yeah, the guy has got money and is a minor celebrity but how committed to the libertarian cause is this guy? As I said above, anybody who would advocate McCain-Lieberman as a presidential ticket is not much of a libertarian in my book. I’d say that they are either confused or have a hidden agenda.
Steve Kubby and George Phillies may not have the money or name recognition of Wayne Root, but at least they are actually Libertarians and have a track record of actually being committed to the cause.
January 10th, 2007 at 10:04 pm
“And 9/11 never happened right Canoli?
Eric Dondero Says:
January 10th, 2007 at 1:51 pm
Or, let me guess. It was an inside job, right?
Our own government brought the Towers down, huh?”
Yeah, they did, but you are probably too much of an intellectual coward to research the issue or to publically debate it.
I’ve put out the challenge to hold a formal public debate on 9/11, preferably at the 2008 Libertarian National Convention, and so far I haven’t had any takers.
January 10th, 2007 at 10:42 pm
Hey Cannoli or Frankel or whatever your name is this week, keep talking. Looks like you’re losing votes for Kubby by the minute.
Paulie “Connoli”. Sheesh. You couldn’t have come up with a better fake name that to call yourself after an Italian Pastry?
Glad we finally got you on record Frankel. Glad we now know you actually believe our own government took down the Twin Towers. I’ll contact Knapp and see if the Kubby campaign agrees with that?
January 10th, 2007 at 10:44 pm
Still tryin’ to find out if Root will be at the Oregon convention?
MHW
January 10th, 2007 at 11:25 pm
OK Rittberg, you do that then.
January 10th, 2007 at 11:25 pm
I just listened to the clip of Eric Dondero-Shittberg throwing a temper tantrum on that talk radio show. I urge everyone to listen to his irrational crybaby ramblings.
http://blogtalkradio.com/hostpage.aspx?show_id=9322
Notice how George Phillies kept his cool while Eric was the one that was yelling and throwing a temper tantrum like a child.
Eric had a similiar “breakdown” on Harry Browne’s (RIP) radio show back in the fall of 2005. Go to www.HarryBrowne.org and check out the radio archives to find it.
Eric, you are either delusional or you are a paid plant. Who do you work for Eric? Are you really this irrational or are you working for the globalist?
You wave around the government false flag terror operation that was 9/11 to justify your stupid war. Bush is a TRAITOR to America and your support of Bush indicates that you are either a NAIVE FOOL or you are a TRAITOR to America as well.
Even if you believe the government’s propaganda about 9/11 this still does not justify the wars in Afganistan and Iraq, two countries that did not attack us. The proper CONSTITUTIONAL response would have been for Congress to issue a Letter Of Marque And Reprisal and to send hit squads after the terrorists. Of course, the REAL terrorists were sitting in the White House, the CIA, and the Pentagon, but this is besides the point.
As for George Phillies qualifications to be President, according to the Constitution he is qualified.
“No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.”
George Phillies is certainly more fit to hold office than George W. Bush and Joe Lieberman, two known violators of the document (the Constitution) that they swore an oath to uphold and defend. You have actually read the Constitution, haven’t you Eric? If so, would you say that George W. Bush and Joe Lieberman have abided by the Constitution, or would you say that they have violated it? Do you agree or disagree that people who violate the Constitution are criminals and should be held accountable, or do you consider violations of the Constitution to be no big deal? Are you familiar with the part of the Constitution that says, “The President, Vice President and all Civil Officiers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”? Do honestly believe that the Bush administration is not guilty of any of these charges? Do you honestly believe that Joe Lieberman’s voting record falls in line with what the Constitution says? DO YOU EVEN HAVE THE BALLS TO ANWSER ANY OF THESE QUESTIONS?
As I said in a previous post, I’d love to have a wealthy celebrity candidate, but I also want a candidate that is actually a Libertarian.
Is George Phillies a wealthy celebrity? No. Is George Phillies a dedicated Libertarian activist? Yes. Is George Phillies the best candidate for the Libertarian Presidential nomination in 2008? I don’t know. I do know that he’s got just as much right as any other Libertarian to seek the nomination.
If a wealthy celebrity candidate who is also a real Libertarian activist wants to jump in the race I’d be all for it.
January 10th, 2007 at 11:26 pm
By the way, I’ve been on the record about the twin towers for quite some time. You got ADHD or what? Remember all the times we talked about it at Hammer of Truth? Can we say “DUH”?
January 10th, 2007 at 11:28 pm
Also, Eric, I don’t appreciate you violating my privacy.
It’s one thing to disagree about the issues and quite another to do that.
I can violate your privacy too, Eric.
So I suggest we stop that particular part of it right there – deal?
January 10th, 2007 at 11:49 pm
I just posted a bunch of stuff about 9/11 and now it is mysteriously not here. What happened???
January 10th, 2007 at 11:51 pm
You got spam-flagged, probably for a bunch of links.
January 10th, 2007 at 11:52 pm
I’ve been having that problem a lot here too.
January 10th, 2007 at 11:54 pm
“Glad we finally got you on record Frankel. Glad we now know you actually believe our own government took down the Twin Towers. I’ll contact Knapp and see if the Kubby campaign agrees with that?”
Maybe you should report him to the Department Of Homeland Security. Afterall, if he’s not with us then he must be with the terrorists. Everyone knows that Hitler wouldn’t burn down the Riechstag, opps…, I mean that Bush wouldn’t blow up the World Trade Center.
January 11th, 2007 at 12:03 am
To correct a factual statement so that no one can accuse me of having ignored the slight mis-statement, and recognizing that “wealthy” has different meanings to different people, my net worth counting house, retirement accounts, investments, etc is substantially above two million dollars.
Mind you, I am not going to blow it on my campaign. I am going to make reasonable investments, but the largest is the year’s leave of absence for 2008 so I can campaign full time.
January 11th, 2007 at 12:20 am
George,
I don’t think that’s the category of wealth which was being discussed when the term “wealthy” was used. I think people were talking about the kind of wealthy where you could, in fact, easily spend that much or substantially more on your own campaign without messing up your lifestyle or retirement.
January 11th, 2007 at 1:46 am
“George Phillies Says:
January 11th, 2007 at 12:03 am
To correct a factual statement so that no one can accuse me of having ignored the slight mis-statement, and recognizing that “wealthy” has different meanings to different people, my net worth counting house, retirement accounts, investments, etc is substantially above two million dollars.
Mind you, I am not going to blow it on my campaign. I am going to make reasonable investments, but the largest is the year’s leave of absence for 2008 so I can campaign full time.”
George, as Paulie indicated, there are different levels of wealthy. You are obviously at the level where you could retire right now and live the rest of your life in comfort, but you are not at the level where you could afford to spend millions of dollars to finance your own campaign for President at a level where you could actually have a signifigant impact in the race.
For instance, in 1992 Ross Perot spent $65 million of his own money on his campaign and recieved 19% of the vote. Too bad Perot wasn’t a libertarian.
January 11th, 2007 at 9:39 am
Go ahead Frankel, fire away. I have nothing to hide. Do I have skeletons in my closet? As the Northwesterners would say… “You betcha.”
I’ll expose them right here. In fact, I’m rather proud of them.
Yes, I’ve had tons of girlfriends in my life from all over the country. We’re talking in the hundreds. Yes, I’ve had tons of girlfriends in Mexico, as well. And yes, some of them are still to this day persuing me for I had broken their hearts, particularly the Mexican chics.
And yes, my former wife and I were Swingers for a few years. It was fun, safe, clean, and I would encourage all married couples, particularly those with hot-tubs to consider the lifestyle for a while.
And yes, I have smoked marijuana before. And yes, I do not wear my seat belt in my truck, unless a cop is watching. (Quite easy to do at night.)
There, you have it World. I’ve exposed myself before Frankel – the dweeby wired-rimmed glasses wearing pudgy Anarchist from Michigan, got in his shot.
Now Frankel, how about you??? Anything to hide?
January 11th, 2007 at 10:09 am
Eric, you’re not a libertarian either in practice or ideology.
I take back what I said about liking you personally.
At some level, everyone wants to protect their privacy.
Do you like your address, SSN, or other personal information posted all over the internet?
How about your credit report, medical history, etc.?
Mapquest to your house?
Information about your family being treated in the same manner?
I know you like to give out your phone on the web. But how many places exactly around the web do you like having it posted?
I’m not saying I would do any of those things, but someone might. I don’t think you would like that, would you Eric?
Because, you know, once all that’s out there, there’s all kinds of things unknown other people might do with the information, and no one would have any good way of knowing who they were since the information would be so public.
At some point, everyone likes their privacy respected – it’s just that the point at which I want my privacy respected is different from yours.
I don’t like disagreements in internet debates spilling out into my personal life.
I don’t like escalations of conflict.
I’ve been there before, and it was ugly. I’ve had friends who have ended up dead starting with shit like this.
Why do you want to pick a fight, Eric? We’re just talking. Please respect my privacy, which you have already violated twice without my consent, and I’ll respect yours.
Are you incapable of discussing ideas without looking to cause trouble for people and get into a vicious cycle of escalation and revenge, or you just love that kind of stuff so much you have to seek it out on purpose?
If you like picking fights so much, why don’t you re-enlist, join the IDF or French Foreign Legion, or one of the mercenary companies with units in Iraq or Afghanistan?
I’m not afraid of a fight, Eric – it would just be a drain on my energy and it would not achieve anything constructive. What is it that you are trying to achieve by disrespecting my privacy?
I urge you to reconsider this course of action before things get worse, and start respecting my privacy now.
Can we just discuss issues, please?
January 11th, 2007 at 10:36 am
I guess if Eric can’t respect my privacy, I can just go away and disappear.
I guess he doesn’t mind using thug tactics to shut people up.
No wonder he supports fascists and calls himself a libertarian at the same time.
Not only does he justify starting aggression, he actively engages in starting it, as he just did right here.
All I did was disagree with him. I don’t believe I aggressed against him in any manner. If there’s going to be a problem, he started it and this is for the record.
Also, for the record, Eric does not have my permission to reveal any additional information about me, although he has already made it possible for others to do so, and they do not have my permission either.
If he does, it will constitute further aggression against me and breach of privacy.
January 11th, 2007 at 10:56 am
Finally, I did not say or imply that I would take any actions above or cause others to take them.
I merely listed them as reasons why someone might want to protect their privacy.
A little bit of research into cyberstalking, stalking in general, and related issues might lead anyone to understand why they would want some privacy on public internet discussion boards like this one.
Therfore, I am politely asking that Eric and everyone else refrain from using a name other than the one I choose to use for the purpose of discussing ideas and issues. My permission is formally and explicitly denied to use the name that Eric revealed without permission, and continues to use without permission, here or anywhere else.
January 11th, 2007 at 11:07 am
Whoa… it looks like this comment board has gone way far off-topic from the original interview with Shane Cory. Let’s confine any further comments to issues relevant to the interview. If you want to take this debate onto the message boards, that would probably be better place for it. Or just move along to another topic.
January 11th, 2007 at 11:50 am
Eric,
I am also a pudgy anarchist from michigan, but my eyesight is perfect. Good enough, actually, to see that you’ve crossed every line of decorum just now. I googled you once and found both the name you choose not to use and the some of the lifestyle anecdotes posted above. I wasn’t looking for those things, I was looking for more of your outrageous pro-war quotes about how “we were winning in Iraq”.
Even in the midst of strongly disagreeing with you, I didn’t post any of what I found, since that would have been wrong, and irrelevant.
Please refrain from doing this again in the future. Also, “the hundreds of broken-hearted mexican girlfriends” stuff, even if true, makes you look ridiculous.
January 11th, 2007 at 12:47 pm
We have a fundamental disagreement then. When you say threatened to attack America, is there any reason to believe that any such threats could have been credible? The Downing Street Memo indicates clearly that any statements to that effect by the US regime, UK regime, etc., were deliberate lies.
When you say “American interests,” how do you define those?
When you say that it violated international law, what did those violations consist of?
Do you think the US regime has violated international law?
If the US regime has violated international law, does that mean that other countries are now justified in invading and occupying the United States and killing innocent Americans?
That’s an excellent question.
But to answer it properly, I have a few questions to ask as well.
Would those hypothetical 99% then have the right to extort tax money to pay for their war from the few remaining millions of people?
If 99% of the people wanted to start a war against, say, Cuba, not because it threatened the US or anyone else in any way, but merely because hotel and casino companies wanted to make billions of dollars, for example, would that justify government acting “on behalf of the people”?
What, exactly, did average Iraqis and Afghanis who are being killed, robbed, raped, tortured, made homeless, and maimed by the millions do to you or any American?
Were they responsible for the nefarious actions of their regimes?
If so, are you responsible for the actions of “our” regime, and if you are, are their friends and relatives justified in taking revenge against you?
January 11th, 2007 at 2:14 pm
Bringing this back to the topic at hand, as Austin has requested, there is breaking news on the Presidential front. Hollywood Actor Michael Moriarty just announced for President. He’s calling himself a “libertarian.”
Full story at www.mainstreamlibertarian.com
And just for the record Andy, that was “hundreds of girlfriends,” including Mexican chics, not “hundreds of Mexican girlfriends.” (I promise that’s the last word on that matter from me.)
January 11th, 2007 at 2:18 pm
One other thing, sorry Austin. I promise this is the last post on this.
I most certainly use my other name Rittberg, for many purposes. It is my legal name. I am legally Eric Dondero Rittberg. I’ve not used Rittberg too much in politics, cause it’s a bit cumbersome. Nothing to “hide” as some here think. Quite proud of my Rittberg name. It’s from my adoptive parents who now live in Florida. Dondero is biological Father. So, my names reflect both my Jewish and Italian heritages.
January 11th, 2007 at 3:15 pm
“If you like picking fights so much, why don’t you re-enlist, join the IDF or French Foreign Legion, or one of the mercenary companies with units in Iraq or Afghanistan?”
He won’t do any of these things because he’s a PUSSY, all talk and no action. He claimed that he would join if they’d still take him at the age of 43. Well, 9/11 happened (or more accurately the government caused it to happen) over 5 1/3 years ago. That means that Eric would have been 37 at the time. At 37 (I think his birth day is after 9/11) he certainly could have reenlisted in the US military. He could also enlist right now in the IDF or as a mercenary with a security company like Blackwater USA but yet for some reason he won’t do this. Eric would rather hide behind his keyboard and squack like a chicken while others go out and do the dirty work that he’s afraid to do himself.
I haven’t enlisted in the military because I believe that the war is bullshit. I’m focused on fighting our own corrupt government.
January 11th, 2007 at 3:16 pm
“And just for the record Andy, that was “hundreds of girlfriends,” including Mexican chics, not “hundreds of Mexican girlfriends.” (I promise that’s the last word on that matter from me.)”
Why address this to me? As if I give a shit.
January 11th, 2007 at 3:17 pm
“No wonder he supports fascists and calls himself a libertarian at the same time.”
That’s called Orwellian Double Think.
January 11th, 2007 at 4:46 pm
Eric,
You write:
“Didn’t you officially quit the Libertarian Party a couple years ago to found the BTP cause the LP was not ‘extremist enough’ for you?”
1. It was last year.
2. I didn’t leave the LP to found it, and as a matter of fact made a specific point of maintaining my LP membership while founding it, and of saying I intended to do so, and to remain active in the LP.
3. The BTP’s platform is, in fact, more “moderate” than either the LP’s platform or the Republican Liberty Caucus’s “Liberty Pledge.” It specifies no extremes, merely direction.
“Who will the BTP running for President in 2008?”
Whomever it nominates, of course— if it nominates anyone. If I have my way (but I’m only one of several hundred members), it will reconstitute itself as an internal caucus of the LP at some point, or at least endorse the LP’s presidential ticket.
In another comment, you implicitly ask about Steve Kubby’s opinion of 9/11. I have not asked him about his conclusions regarding any of the various theories out there, but his position paper on Iraq and US foreign policy does allude to 9/11 in terms that seem to indicate that he accepts the “official account” in its broad outlines, i.e. that al Qaeda were the perpetrators (as, it so happens, do I).
Of course, even if that were not the case, someone who offers Jayna Davis’s rant as “proof” that Iraq was involved in the OKC bombing is hardly in a position to go around lecturing anyone else about “conspiracy theories.”
Regards,
Tom Knapp
January 11th, 2007 at 9:00 pm
“In another comment, you implicitly ask about Steve Kubby’s opinion of 9/11. I have not asked him about his conclusions regarding any of the various theories out there, but his position paper on Iraq and US foreign policy does allude to 9/11 in terms that seem to indicate that he accepts the “official account” in its broad outlines, i.e. that al Qaeda were the perpetrators (as, it so happens, do I).”
Of course al Queda should be called al CIAda since they are tool of the CIA.
January 11th, 2007 at 9:24 pm
Here’s an excellent documentary about 9/11 that Steve Kubby (and everyone else for that matter) should watch. It was made by a guy who was a Bush Republican up until he started investigating 9/11.
9/11 Mysteries: Demolitions
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6708190071483512003&q=9%2F11+mysteries+demolitions
January 18th, 2007 at 5:08 pm
A few questions from a blog idiot
How do you keep the spammers from eating you alive? i’ve seen blogs with nothing but spam postings.
How do you keep some left wing extremist from posting racist or defamatory rhetoric? and if you cant stop them, what are you legally liabel when they do?
can viruses be posted to blogs?
October 1st, 2007 at 3:39 pm
Hey, I was searching “carol moore” “aaron Russo” and “belt” and found this page with Eric Dondero endorsing me for president in 2008. RAISE ME $5 million bucks and I’ll run, Eric—I’ll only pay my self $200 a day, plus expenses.
Carol in DC
http://secession.net