What Have You Done for Me Lately?
Despite the fact that I’ve got to get up early for a political event tomorrow, I can’t help but be mesmerized by the Ron Paul money bomb going on right now. As an online political fundraiser and someone who employed similar online fundraising tactics four years ago when serving as Communications Director for the Badnarik presidential campaign, I keep asking myself this question: What’s the key difference between the Ron Paul campaign and many Libertarian campaigns in recent history? I’m sure my former employer and pretty good direct mail guy (and efficient Internet “producer” by his own track record) Shane Cory is just as interested.
Obviously, Ron Paul is running as a Republican and Badnarik ran as a Libertarian. There are many advantages to Paul’s (from the perspective of this website) approach. However, the platforms are/were virtually identical.
When I managed Aaron Russo’s presidential campaign, we (Russo, Tom Knapp, Barry Hess and me—George Phillies and Starchild had minor roles on the issues) basically wrote the same platform that Ron Paul is using today—including many of the same sound bytes used by Paul today that I hadn’t heard at that time. The platforms of all three campaigns are so close it isn’t funny, especially on the key issues of the day—then and now. It certainly helps Paul to have polling data on his side (Americans now oppose the Iraq War, it was very popular then) right now; we did it because we thought it the right thing to do when it wasn’t so hip. Paul was bravely doing the same thing at the same time.
As one example, Russo insisted at our last conversation on the topic that he originated the “money out of thin air” line that Paul uses today. I had a great opportunity to ask Dr. Paul that question when we were riding in the same limousine together to Russo’s memorial service. Unfortunately, the question never occurred to me at the time.
Likewise, we wrote Russo’s abortion plank (same as Paul’s) without external influence. After the 2004 election cycle, I met with Dr. Paul in his DC congressional office. My wife (also a physician) was considering running for a congressional seat in a demographically similar district. We discussed how she might best phrase her position on abortion. This is the first contact I ever had with how Paul might respond, at a federal level, to this issue. We came up with the same position, on our own, a year prior to when I met with Dr. Paul.
Prior to the 2004 LP presidential competition, most of my personal conversations with Ron Paul had been about foreign policy . While I was libertarian on social and fiscal policy, he’s the one who inspired me (originally an Ollie North Republican) to question my thoughts on foreign policy.
In a similar manner but on different issues, it was Ronald Reagan who told team member Barry Hess that he was a libertarian, not a conservative. Another historical tidbit will provide one issue that Brian Doherty and William Bradford missed in their coverage of the 2004 Libertarian National Convention. Immediately following his loss, Russo supporters were about to storm out of the convention, trashing almost half of the LP in the process. As part of the negotiations with the Badnarik campaign, we got a promise from him to push opposition to the Iraq War as a condition for our support of his win. I believe that plenty of people, including Knapp, Anthony Gregory and current LP vice presidential candidate Chris Bennett will attest to my recollection. The people directly negotiating the issue were me and Fred Collins. Jon Airheart or others may have been present (I don’t recall anymore, those occurrences happened very quickly are but a blur in my mind now), but they weren’t major factors in this deal. Collins agreed and both sides kept up with their part of the bargain. This wasn’t the “official meeting” a couple of days later, but immediate brief contact that Russo and I insisted upon so we could get our supporters to cool their jets immediately following Russo’s loss. One reason I jumped on board the Badnarik campaign was to ensure that this promise was kept. Fred and I are still friends today.
There are other reasons why Ron Paul is doing better than LP candidates have historically performed.
To be sure, technology has improved since the Dean campaign and what we managed to accomplish online with very late blooming Badnarik campaign. Joe Trippi’s graphic was truly revolutionary and the Internet grassroots loved it. Our graphic was more fitting for a Ron Paul sort of message, but Flash with donor names in real time was out of our reach at that time. Stephen VanDyke’s frequently (but manually) updated Statue of Liberty graphic was the coolest thing on the Internet, for that time. Our web traffic indicated that a whole lot of people shared our opinions on the topic.
However, Badnarik didn’t begin to approach what Ron Paul is doing today. Paul is (at this exact moment) poised to be one of the top overall presidential fundraisers for the quarter. There are obviously some other differences which compel people to support Paul, people who stayed at home for other very similar candidates.
It’s possible that Russo could have reached somewhere close to this level of media and monetary attention, but he never won the LP nomination (mostly because of his somewhat abrasive personality, IMO). He probably gained more followers from his documentary, Freedom to Fascism, than he ever did from his failed presidential bid.
While most Libertarians I know disagree with Ralph Nader on a few ideological issues, they generally admire the fact that he stands up and fights for his personal beliefs. At the very least, they will work with him on ballot access issues. However, they are perplexed as to why he receives more media attention than their favorite candidates. Many of them call Nader a media whore. I’ve sat through a few of his press conferences; he isn’t, at least as compared to most mainstream political candidates. My answer has always been that he’s earned that media attention because of his past performances and accomplishments.
Currently, LP presidential wannabe Wayne Allyn Root seems to be surpassing the other LP presidential candidates with respect to mainstream media attention. A question I’m often asked is if Root has actually beaten other LP presidential candidates with respect to media coverage. To be clear, Root has picked up a few early good hits in a short time span. However, Russo also hit some of the same general early programs (Russo on Boortz, Root on Medved, both on Fox TV). The timing wasn’t as tight, but Harry Browne hit some similar media opportunities, too—mostly because of his track record.
Paul’s schedule can’t allow for him to beat their monthly performance on a daily basis, but conversations with campaign insiders indicate that he could, time permitting. Paul has certainly hit many larger media opportunitities. What’s important to realize is that Paul could beat any such media metric if that was the campaign goal of the day.
The bottom line I’m leading to is that in politics, as opposed to ideology, what a person has accomplished is critically important. I’ve been a key player in killing a major state tax issue; Steve Kubby was a key player in winning Prop. 215 in California. It takes a lot more than that, folks.
Let me close with this blockquote:
While I admire his modesty, I will disagree with Paul when he says that people are just responding to the message…though that’s certainly an important part of it. It’s also, and primarily, the character of the person involved. It’s who you are—or more to the point, who you’ve been. The sort of man that Ron Paul is is unique in the contemporary political scene, and that is what droves of people are responding to. The politician or campaign staff hoping to generate a similar grassroots phenomenon needs to understand that you either are ‘that person’, or you aren’t. You can forget all the consultants and strategies; it’s something that can’t be manufactured or learned, it’s got to be lived. The framework for the Ron Paul phenomenon began some thirty years ago, when he first went to Congress and cast his very first vote. That’s the sort of stuff it takes: A decades-long, unflagging personal devotion to and undeviating record of defending liberty and constitutional republican government.In short, it requires integrity and integrity can’t be faked. You either got it or you ain’t. And the market will make that judgment.
To a great degree, people are going to listen more to what you’ve done than to what you’ve said.
December 16th, 2007 at 4:42 am
Regarding your comment: “As part of the negotiations with the Badnarik campaign, we got a promise from him to push opposition to the Iraq War as a condition for our support of his win.”
That may be so, but I don’t know how necessary it was. I interviewed Badnarik the day before the LP delegates elected their presidential candidate.
Badnarik told me he was opposed to the Iraq War, and that he supported shutting down all US military bases overseas.
My coverage in full.
December 16th, 2007 at 5:11 am
I think it’s fair to say that history is is in the making. Ron Paul isn’t a true Libertarian , he’s running as a Conservative/Libertarian, and I think that’s right. That said, I know that I’ve looked into Libertarianism because of him, as many others have. I think Libertarianism will come into it’s own within the next few years, and Ron Paul had a lot to do with that. I hope that Libertarian Organizations will storm the internet with information, and allow others who are seeking information to be informed. Thank you Ron Paul for introducing me to Libertarianism. Thank you Libertarian’s for showing the “pure” libertarian message along with Ron Paul’s. Education is invaluable, thank god for the internet. Thank you Ron Paul for being such a principalled messenger. Show the world what a wonderful light the United Stated is capable of being.
December 16th, 2007 at 5:35 am
Thank you for your closing blockquote. Ron Paul’s track record is what truly sets him apart from ALL the other candidates, plus all the rest of the Congress and Senate combined.
Ron Paul has been faithfully and humbly doing the right (or at the very least trying his best!) for over three decades.
Ron Paul has been my Congressional hero since 1984, and although I have hoped and prayed and taken a stand for this moment, I’m still amazed, and delighted to see the young people flocking to the message of liberty and the Constitution.
December 16th, 2007 at 5:47 am
The answer to why Ron is exploding now is simple, the internet! thats it thats all. everyone has one now and people that want answers in there life just need a computer a question and time to find the answer. Thats how i found Ron. I thought things sucked or did not make sense so i hopped on the internet and what do you know so is everyone else!
December 16th, 2007 at 6:52 am
Ron Paul is reaching the 20% max. (7% leftist) that already has predisposition to libertarianism via the internet; People further motivated & incensed by opposition to the war; people with means (computer, internet, skills, education & credit cards. People who would otherwise be just as complacent as the rest of the candidates’ supporters. Leftists like Kuchinich & Gravel & McKinney will not get such level of support because of fear of revolution.
December 16th, 2007 at 7:37 am
Perfect Storm.
It’s the maturing of the Internet. It’s YouTube allowing people to watch Alberto Gonzlies saying “I don’t recall” 100 times in a row—and to watch Dick Cheney v.1994 say “Occupying Iraq would be a quagmire!”
It’s people having DVD’s of “V for Vendetta” and kids (now voting adults) who grew up watching “The Matrix” and talk about redpill people and bluepill people.
It’s people turning OFF the TV (because all that’s on is “American Idol” and Sanjaya) and instead watching Russo’s “Freedom to Fascism” which they rented from NetFlix. It’s people circulating copies of “Loose Change” and getting sick and tired of Giuliani’s “9/11 terrorism 9/11” BS.
Its the LACK of pay raises for MOST Americans… and the absence of interest on their savings (if they have any)... and the drop of the stock market… and the scariness of the Fed Reserve bailing out Wall Street.
It’s the price of Gas, and the price of food and daily living expenses going up 10%, 15% or more annually.
Its the increase of college tuition by 25% per year so that a student’s senior year costs TWICE what he paid in his freshman year, and they can’t graduate in four years because the college admin has monkeyed the schedule to make certain they stay 5 or 6 years!
It the raising of our property taxes by 15% or 20% over the previous year.
It is Katrina and FEMA, it’s IRAQ and IRAN and the failure of the Democrats OR the Republicans to do what the majority of the people want.
It is the realization that another Clinton or another “Bush-lite” will just bring more of the same.
It is ALL of these STRAWS that are breaking the proverbial backs of the American public.
It is ALL of these things that are being revolted against in a PEACEFUL and ORDERLY way (right now)—and if it is overruled and squeezed—it will boil over in 100 other (less peaceful and orderly) ways.
It is the time for a REVOLUTION and a RESTORATION of our REPUBLIC!
December 16th, 2007 at 7:43 am
And it is the remarkable man, Ron Paul—the humble little man who should, quite frankly NOT be remarkable at all, because ALL that he is doing is what every one of the bastards takes an OATH to do every time they get re-elected.
But it is this man and his 30 YEARS of record of his integrity and solid steadfastness (verifiable because of the internet, because of YouTube and Google and Wikipedia).
It is THIS which gives us hope… it is THIS which says that we MIGHT be able to do this in a peaceable manner. It is this man who allows us to vent and get involved and try our best to change things THROUGH the system.
It is this “good man in a storm”... a perfect storm.
December 16th, 2007 at 9:24 am
While I agree with most of what you have said, I think you are overlooking a decade of front line activism by Kubby. Hell, the man was nearly killed twice by police and prosecutors for passing a law they didn’t like. Most recently, he forced the Mendocino Board of Supervisors to codify a law making it a crime to investigate, arrest or prosecute patients with 25 flowering plants or less. And just last week he forced them to raise the limit for personal possession from 2 pounds to 8 pounds. Ron Paul has done great things, but from the comfort of his office, while Kubby has gone the distance AND he has repeatedly forced the government to recognize new medical rights. What has Kubby done for you lately? He’s done a lot!
December 16th, 2007 at 9:43 am
It’s not just the Internet. Ron Paul is tapping into a movement that predates the Internet, and has always been far larger than the LP. Ron Paul has longstanding connections to the John Birch/gold bug/paleoconservative movement. While he doesn’t come right out and talk about Illuminati and Bildebergers, he has been talking to such groups for decades, and his newsletter spoke their language.
5 million copies of “None Dare Call it Conspiracy” were printed back in the 1970s. 5 MILLION! Even if only a quarter were actually read, that’s a big number by libertarian standards.
*THEN, throw in the fact that Ron Paul has a resume.
*Throw in the fact that he displays far more character and stability than Aaron Russo.
*Throw in the fact that he is not, and never has been an anarchist.
OK, the Internet didn’t hurt either.
December 16th, 2007 at 10:15 am
The key difference is the party label. Every Libertarian that has been involved for any length of time knows that an LP candidate gets about 3.5% of the vote, unless they run for president, where they get 1% or less.
Even if the candidate is flush with money (Ed Crane) or brings in thousands of new members using a brand new medium like the internet (Harry Browne).
Too many average people use the party label as a shortcut and vote Republican (or Democrat) even when the candidate is very far from the party platform (George W. Bush)
If Ron Paul can win the nomination, then he will have an automatic 40% of the popular vote (and a good 200 electoral votes) before campaigning even begins. This makes fighting for the remaining 20% of the vote a much more doable task, and more people are willing to work hard, donate, and commit to voting for him.
Any consistent Libertarian could achieve the same result if they were simply running in either major party.
December 16th, 2007 at 10:21 am
Steve, I think your minimizing the impact realistic hope can have. Americans are practical and realize that two parties utterly dominate the process. Those who go off the red/blue reservation are ardent idealists willing to fight regardless of the circumstances. Anarchists be damned or heralded.
Paul can invoke real hope just by virtue of being an anti-establishment (and anti-war – note that Paul offers healthcare for the poor as an opportunity cost to war, not a policy) libertarian-Republican who has actually served in Congress. What strikes me as funny are the types who would decry any LP candidate who would dare talk about the Federal Reserve, IRS or CIA in the way Paul does and be couched as a gold bug, loony or whatever vilification the smug advocates of the status quo are allowed to perpetuate. You don’t hear that about Paul but from the educationally challenged MSM talking heads.
Paul’s followers (old & new) have to consider the course of their movement after Feb. 5th. Twenty million dollars + could fund a number of potential Congressional seats. Whether or not the Paul folks can congeal behind candidates besides the amiable Paul is the question. The Perot folks couldn’t keep their coalition from feeding on itself from the opportunists who emerged from the woodwork (Fuliani & Buchanan people).
December 16th, 2007 at 10:34 am
Ron Paul, because of what JKHutz just layed out beautifully in an earlier post, is smashing all the third parties and re-establishing the Duopoly.
December 16th, 2007 at 10:43 am
Ron Paul is not running as a “Conservative Libertarian.” Conservatives are Pro-Military, Pro-Troops, and Pro-War on Islamo-Fascism. Ron Paul is clearly not any of those.
It’d be more accurate to say that Paul is running as a “Populist Libertarian.” Why else would he garner such support from hardcore Populists like David Duke, and Don Black?
Cynthia McKinney is now openly courting the Paul voters. I’d hardly call her a “Conservative.”
December 16th, 2007 at 10:45 am
Ron Paul is also anti-Death Penalty for any instance, even for Child Killers. That’s an ultra-Liberal position, certainly not Conservative.
If there’s such a thing as a “Leftwinger Populist Libertarian” Paul would fit the mold.
December 16th, 2007 at 10:47 am
Ay, yay, yay,
PEOPLE WILL YOU GET YOUR LIBERTARIAN HISTORY CORRECT.
IT WAS NOT ED “CRANE” WHO RAN FOR PRESIDENT ON THE LIBERTARIAN TICKET IN 1980, IT WAS ED “CLARK”.
Crane, who is President of Cato, would find this mistake quite amusing.
And I dare say Ed Clark, whose still alive and well, and living with his lovely wife Alicia in southern California, would find it amusing too.
December 16th, 2007 at 11:55 am
“Ron Paul is not running as a “Conservative Libertarian.” Conservatives are Pro-Military, Pro-Troops, and Pro-War on Islamo-Fascism. Ron Paul is clearly not any of those.”
Yes to the first two, because Paul leads the fundraising race among military personnel. As for the third one, I didn’t know that fighting wars against tactics was part of the Republican tradition.
“It’d be more accurate to say that Paul is running as a “Populist Libertarian.” Why else would he garner such support from hardcore Populists like David Duke, and Don Black?”
Well, Paul is populist in the sense that he wants most decisions to be made by an elected Congress rather than an unelected President or Judiciary. If you are referring to populist in the ‘statist’ sense, then you obviously son;t know what you are talking about, since statists’ key to power usually involves war or violence.
“Cynthia McKinney is now openly courting the Paul voters. I’d hardly call her a “Conservative.” ”
Your butt-buddy Giuliani was also courting the Liberal voters of New York when he ran for mayor. So, by your own logic, Giuliani is also a liberal.
“Ron Paul is also anti-Death Penalty for any instance, even for Child Killers. That’s an ultra-Liberal position, certainly not Conservative.”
You clearly haven’t seen him explain his position, given that in the PBS debate, he stated that while he opposes the [i]federal[/i] death penalty, he thinks that the state death penalty is an effective way of deterring crime.
“If there’s such a thing as a “Leftwinger Populist Libertarian” Paul would fit the mold.”
That might explain why his voting record consistently gets 100% from the ultra-conservative John Birch Society, or is that also a “left-winger” organization?
December 16th, 2007 at 12:58 pm
Aw Man, someone let Dondero out of the padded cell again!
And he’s blabbing the same old tired garbage devoid of logic that he usually does!
This has been rebutted and totally debunked before. No sense to repeat the common sense to counter his nonsense.
Admittedly he did get the Ed Clark line right at 10:47 AM. So he’ll get one thing right again at 10:47 PM. Otherwise, just ignore him.
December 16th, 2007 at 1:11 pm
Thomas,
There were several issues Russo supporters were angry about, one of them being that Badnarik didn’t highlight the war in Iraq or a potential draft. It seemed, to many Russo supporters, that Badnarik was just as happy talking about not having a driver’s licence, or the Second Amendment, or Liberty Dollars as he was about the war. We pushed to make it a priority, and when Russo took the podium in our campaign center after he lost, this was probably the deciding factor that kept people from walking out the door.
Chris Bennett was perhaps the informal leader of this informal group of people, BTW. I’d be interested in his perspective on this.
December 16th, 2007 at 1:19 pm
Bryan, the Internet is crucial, but it’s more than just the Internet.
The LP website generally draws more traffic than the GOP site. The post-nomination Badnarik campaign was competitive with the major party candidates. Russo’s traffic clearly beat lower tier candidates from the nmajor parties.
The word was out there and all over the Internet. It didn’t, however turn into the critical mass required to pull in millions and millions of dollars.
December 16th, 2007 at 1:23 pm
“While I agree with most of what you have said, I think you are overlooking a decade of front line activism by Kubby.”
I’m not overlooking it at all. As a matter of fact (ask Kubby), I’ve promoted him and helped out especially when he most needed it. It would be fair to credit me for a good deal of the media awareness of his extradition from Canada.
It’s just that Kubby’s record (or mine, or that of most LP candidates) comes nowhere close to matching Paul’s record.
December 16th, 2007 at 1:26 pm
NEWS FLASH: Giuliani makes Dickhead of The Year at Rolling Stone
Just another reason why crypto-fascist crossdressing drama queens will be supporting Giuliani:
The year before he was elected mayor, the NYPD made 720 arrests for marijuana misdemeanors. In the year 2000 under Rudy, that figure was 59,945.
Rolling Stone
December 16th, 2007 at 1:53 pm
Susan Santarini: Yes politics beyond the block or ward level is a “Whole sale” not a “Retail” but Kubby is ‘too smart by half’! Simple acts like phone calls and post cards pay big dividens on a small scale Kubby and his staff do not even have auto responders on their email addies!
Come on! The 21st Century is here! Where is Kubby? Cluelessville perhaps?
December 16th, 2007 at 3:47 pm
Steve is correct.
I was there too, and the agreement was indeed struck to move the war up in focus in the Badnarik campaign. Sipos is also correct, that Badnarik did have a position against the war before the convention. But he wasn’t emphasising it, he was emphasising “Patriot Act” and “patriot” issues.
And even so, when he did address the war as the nominee, he fell short, saying such things as “People just aren’t signing up to die!” I objected to this approach, since it isn’t so much about the war as it appears to be about people not wanting to die. Supporters complained to me that he sounded like a coward, whether he was or not. But he refused to change his slant on the issue.
All that is why it was one of my conditions for the ‘06 congrssional run that Badnarik develop better, meatier, more fact-based issue positions so he’d be taken seriously as a candidate with substance. Ultimately, despite all promises, he refused to do that too.
I’m not saying that Badnarik was intentionally malicious or slothful. It is always possible for anyone to fall victim to the Peter Principle: promoted above one’s competence. We pushed Badnarik lightyears beyond his comfort zone, and he broke. In retrospect, not a surprise.
But then, in retrospect, myself having been the first person to (reluctantly) tell Russo that I hadn’t supported him because he was caustic (worse than abrasive, as I explained it to him, with Steve present the morning after),... in retrospect, I often long for what might have been, had I stayed with Gary Nolan.
It was a tough convention, we were so evenly split, mostly because as Steve notes above without directly saying it, there’s such similarity between the platforms of libertarians.
Whatever: the future is in front of us, not behind, and the movement is indeed finally coalescing.
And it’s 42% of the elegible voters who are predisposed to the libertarian ethos, not the 20$ seemingly referenced above. Unless, of course, you consider that 40% of eligible voters are usually not registered, then the available total might well be only 20%.
Yet if the current maelstrom is telling us anything at all, it is that we should be ecouraging the possibilities, rather than conceding the historic probabilities. After all, just a few months ago all the expertise was that Ron Paul wouldn’t raise $5 million total.
The seeds of this perfect storm were nascent in 2004, available but inaccessible without the grassroots in 2006, and now… the future is arriving.
Surf’s UP!
0December 16th, 2007 at 3:57 pm
To clarify, I never tried to suggest that Badnarik wasn’t opposed to the war. Russo led his campaign with the issue, but it wasn’t a top three issue for Badnarik (as Russo supporters perceived it, at least). I was pushing for Badnarik to make it a leading issue—which he did.
December 16th, 2007 at 4:37 pm
Mr. Gordon writes:
“Immediately following his loss, Russo supporters were about to storm out of the convention, trashing almost half of the LP in the process.”
As some of you may recall, I spent the period before the National Convention as the Russo volunteer coordinator. I was at the convention, as were many of his volunteers.
At no time whatsoever did I hear anyone in the Russo campaign propose that we should walk out of the convention because Badnarik won. Except for a few hotheads, I do not believe this would have occurred.
Certainly, if someone had suggested it to me I would have certainly not have done so, and I would have discouraged everyone else from doing so.
The claim “There were several issues Russo supporters were angry about, one of them being that Badnarik didn’t highlight the war in Iraq or a potential draft. It seemed, to many Russo supporters, that Badnarik was just as happy talking about not having a driver’s licence,” is false.
This claim falls on its face because Badnarik was not saying such things.
Before the convention, Badnarik was not talking about his not having a driving license. Indeed, at least one prominent Libertarian was firmly convinced that he had asked Badnarik about it, and received what he took to be the contrary answer. (I am personally inclined to believe that they talked past each other.) The first any significant number of delegates heard of the issue of Mr. Badnarik not having a driver’s license (they’re apparently not called that in Texas, by the way) or filing income tax returns was after the nomination, later in the convention, and that only from his campaign manager.
Badnarik’s book, as is shown by my careful textual analysis on libertyforall.net , carefully makes no such statements about himself, though Tom Knapp’s has convinced me that people from the appropriate meme communities would immediately recognized what Badnarik meant as opposed to what he said.
As an active member of the Russo campaign, I would never have condoned walking out on the party because I did not like the outcome. It’s disloyal to the party. It’s as disloyal as using our party’s resources to support a Democratic Senator or a Republican Congressman in their races for their party’s nomination.
Readers may recall that I was not during his lifetime a fan of the late Harry Browne. However, as election day approached, I did sign standouts for him on the busiest street corner in nearby Worcester. And I now say of him that he was a brilliant fundraiser who set a bar for future campaigns to target.
Readers may recall that during the 2004 convention Mr. Badnarik would express no opinion as to who our VP should be, and endorsed one of my opponents for National chair. Nonetheless, after not hearing from his campaign, I volunteered to be his national volunteer coordinator, was finally given the job just before Labor Day, and did what I could in the available time, despite not having a budget and having a data base of volunteers that literally had never been used by the Badnarik campaign. I did that because I believe in party loyalty, a trait grossly lacking in the current upper reaches of our party.
George Phillies
National Mobilization Facilitator, Russo Campaign
National Mobilization Facilitator, Badnarik Campaign
December 16th, 2007 at 4:43 pm
Gordon said:
Immediately following his loss, Russo supporters were about to storm out of the convention, trashing almost half of the LP in the process.
Wes says:
Steve, I think you’re exaggerating again. I voted for Russo. If he had stormed out of the convention after losing, most people like me would have said, “Wow, what a jerk! C-ya!”
That’s what most of us say about Carl Milsted and that’s what most of us look forward to saying to Christine Smith in a couple weeks if she blows her lid and runs crying from the Libertarian Party.
December 16th, 2007 at 4:50 pm
It’s fairly obvious:
1. Ron Paul has a record of accomplishments that he can point to. It isn’t all about ideology.
2. Ron Paul’s brand of “libertarian populism” actually pulls in people who are diamaterically opposed to his views. My Meetup group is full of older, anti-trade people. The LP never gets anti-traders (except George Phillies) to support them.
December 16th, 2007 at 6:12 pm
Heal, heal, my good people. Have you not known real love? Have you not know the gentle strokes, the deep rhythmic pulsing of that steaming, teeming, free wheeling sexuality that is Daniel Imperato.
Allen, you like pizza? Daniel likes pizza. Can’t you come together?
Carl, why do you hate Italians? Why do you hate men destined to lead? Why do you hate sex? Turn back from the sterile confines of your asexuality and food shame. No love or Know love.
Daniel Imperato, let love heal you this election season.
December 16th, 2007 at 6:22 pm
Hmmmm….
I do lijke pizza but, the one thing has nothing to do with the other.
Now if you want to discuss the true cosmic equation:
Pizza Grandissimo | Monday Nite Football
We could talk.
0December 16th, 2007 at 7:46 pm
Wes,
I “ran out” of the party, because the party does not want my type. I should have simply left earlier, but was talked into staying in by other Libertarians. So I decided to see if the LP wanted to be a broad upper quadrant of the Nolan Chart party or not. When the convention voted “no” to repealing the Oath, I was ready to leave because I no longer abide by the Oath.
I would have left peacefullly save that the party’s rhetoric changed from when I joined it. When I joined, Oath language was prominent in outreach literature. Some years later, the party on the surface put forth a broader message: the Nolan Chart. (I joined before the Nolan Chart was used by the party for outreach.) I still fit in the center of the Libertarian quadrant on the Nolan Chart, so according to outreach literature, I should be welcome as a party member.
But the party affirmed it’s earlier definition by renewing the Oath, and the national office still uses “The Party of Principle” as the LP slogan.
Therefore, I honor the Oath and have left the party. I have also updated the result screens on quiz2d.com to match. You have to score 80-80 or above to be called a libertarian. Those below are referred to as “freedom lovers.”
And I support Chistine Smith’s efforts to purge the LP of all below 80-80. If you are going to have an oath and call yourself the “Party of Principle” then enforce the oath. And don’t invite anyone to join the party without explaining the oath.
December 16th, 2007 at 8:16 pm
As I see it, the thing that has made the biggest difference in Paul’s campaign was his inclusion in the televised debates. Were it not for that, he would currently be a footnote.
December 16th, 2007 at 8:23 pm
What about those bread sticks with the marinara sauce?
December 16th, 2007 at 8:36 pm
This party can not move forward unless it looks ahead. Who can heal this party with joy, love and leadership? Who can taste each and everyone of you with his soul? The LNC is shame-filled and sexless.
Who can heal Christine’s frigid loins and reignite her female energy? Who can make Carl eat his oats?
He has been revealed. Daniel Imperato. Let him eat you, this election season.
December 16th, 2007 at 8:51 pm
I’ll have to differ slightly with Steve on this one. I don’t remember any coalescing feeling among Russo supporters that the convention should be walked out of, except maybe from the late, lamented Larry Fulmer (who was in no condition to walk anywhere). I do know that Steve and some other Russo staffers did negotiate over moving their operations right over to Badnarik’s campaign, but I wasn’t part of those negotiations (I re-joined the campaign a couple of months later).
As a matter of fact, the only walkout I know of was … me! I resigned from my state delegation and sat out the rest of the convention, but not solely over Russo’s defeat. I knew going into the convention that a Russo nomination was by no means assured, and after the night-before-the-nomination debate, I knew that Badnarik was the one to beat.
Russo’s loss was part of it, but the final straw for me was the VP nomination. There was just no way for Campagna to be nominated over Tamara Millay unless a majority of the delegates had their heads firmly up their asses … which turned out to be the case. Obviously I had (and have) a bias going there (I was and am Ms. Millay’s significant other), but that was (and remains) my conclusion.
There was a lot of heartburn in the Russo camp, but there also seemed to be an “okay, let’s take what we’ve got and run with it” attitude.
The folks who were most upset seemed to be Nolan backers who had switched to Badnarik on the third ballot and, for some inexplicable reason, hadn’t bothered to find anything out about Badnarik before doing so. I wasn’t sympathetic.
To be honest, I felt like the one person who did the most to drag Badnarik off-point on the war issue was none other than Aaron Russo himself. Aaron felt compelled to keep inserting the immigration issue into the commercials he produced for the campaign, and the line—overt or implied—in those commercials was much more Aaron Russo than it was Michael Badnarik. I don’t think this was intentional on Aaron’s part, but the result was that for a time Badnarik spent damn near as much time defending his actual position, as opposed to Russo’s, to his fellow Libertarians as he spent talking to non-Libertarians about the war.
But that’s all water under the bridge. Michael Badnarik busted his ass and gave the LP a campaign it could be proud of—and people like Steve Gordon made it possible by helping him raise a million bucks in five months from a starting point of $0, with no “famous candidate” to offer for it. Aaron Russo, his flaws notwithstanding, will always be one of the finest individuals I’ve been privileged to call friend … but he’s also one of the reasons I don’t support Paul. I learned the hard way that personal admiration isn’t enough to keep me from burning out and getting cynical if I have heartburn with a candidate’s positions. If I had jumped on the Paul bandwagon on day one, I’d be a goddamn wreck by now.
December 17th, 2007 at 1:26 am
Tom, George, Wes, et. al.:
I asked Deb what she recalled and called Chris Bennett for his recollection of the events around the time or Russo’s loss. Perhaps you can help rebuild an accurate history of those events, if we can put our heads together on it.
There were four “meetings” in which I was involved. I’m not totally sure on the chronology (things were hazy from stress, extreme emotions, sleep deprivation, etc.) of the first two “meetings” but will try put together my recollection as a starting point.
Russo supporters congregated around our campaign room. Someone (it may have been Heather Scott or Rachel Mills) asked me to go in there because people were really upset. As I walked in the room (Russo wasn’t around at the time) people were asking questions like What do we do now, where do we go from here, etc.
Libertarian Larry was ranting about the negative op research on Badnarik, but he was Libertarian Larry and no one paid him much attention.
Chris Bennett was talking with people about leaving the LP. I believe Tom Knapp may have already suggested the same (an alternate memory is that someone told me Knapp had just left the LP).
I remember taking the podium, which probably meant that there were enough people in the room that I felt it necessary to be heard. Not sure if I used a mic or not. My normal style would have been to sit on a table, so my memory of taking the podium is significant in my recollection of the count of people in the room. I’d guess it was around 25 or so.
I think Nancy Lord Johnson, JJ, Chris Bennett, Barry Hess, were there. I don’t recall either Tom or George being there. Martina Slocumb was there and I think Russo’s assistant Max Hirshman was there. Dave Chastian (and or his kids) may have been there. I don’t recall George or Tom being there—or not.
Chris Bennett come to mind as the angriest person in the room. It was the first time I had seen him physically and loudly pissed off. For those of you who know Chris’ physical size or normal milder manner, this is why that stuck in my mind. He was calling for people to walk out and others were immediately agreeing.
A couple of Nolan supporters walked in and sort of apologized for voting for Badnarik in the final round. This was my first exposure to the “what have we done” mentality which dawned on a lot of last-round Badnarik voters after they realized that he’d actually won.
Several people wanted Aaron to say screw the LP and run an independent presidential campaign. There was open talk, and Chris Bennett led a lot of it, about an independent campaign, leaving the party, forming a new party and other related options. The key Russo supporters were angry, some Nolan supporters were (and Nolan was nowhere to be found by this time) and all sorts of suggestions were made.
I remember promising to bring Russo to the mic, talk with Badnarik and I distinctly recall urging people to not make any rash decisions at the moment.
December 17th, 2007 at 1:42 am
The next meeting was (Deb recalls a conference room, I recall a hotel suite) helpd with around 6 to 10 key staffers. Russo was there. I don’t recall exactly who was there, but I suspect Barry Hess, Tom Knapp, Max H., Martina Slocumb (although she disappeared, too) were there. Nick Sarwark and Lorenzo Gaztanaga may have been there. Lorenzo and his wife were around a lot then. He is another person who may have suggested some sort of walk or party split. I know for sure that Deb was there, Aaron was there, I was there, a few other key supporter were there.
We discussed the general topics raised in the first meeting: independent run, party split, just quitting politics, potential bylaws violations, Geoff Neale is an asshole (I don’t think he intended the consequence of his action),etc. Russo ruled out an independent presidential bid. This may be the first time that Russo said that perhaps he had a spiritual calling: To run for President so Gary Nolan wouldn’t get the nomination.
Deb recalls me saying that people are mad enough that if we come up with a compelling reason and a good speech, we could lead a sizable chuck of people away if we acted quickly. I wasn’t personally interested in that option—I had just had Badnarik pin me as a symbol of solidarity. But I also knew we’d have to negotiate with Fred Collins and he’s tough in negotiations. I knew the current sentiment of Russo supporters was our biggest bargaining chip.
I remember it “was decided,” in part because I had jumped on stage and had Badnarik put a Badnarik pin on me on national television, that I should talk with Badnarik and Fred Collins.
Russo also talked with Badnarik or Collins, or perhaps both. Our results were the same.
The key issues (I don’t recall if television advertising was part of the picture at this moment) were the Iraq War and the draft.
Not sure if it was in the meeting or shortly after, but several people told me that if Badnarik won’t focus on Iraq, etc. that they’d leave the party.
I thinkby this time, both Knapp and Bennett had verbally indicated they were no longer LP members.
Someone suggested that if Badnarik wouldn’t meet with me, then he’d walk. I specifically remember: “No talk, we walk.”
I did speak with Fred (briefly) and Mike. Mike agreed that he’d focus on Iraq and the draft
December 17th, 2007 at 1:59 am
Russo and I talked and both felt confident that Badnarik would focus on the Iraq War and draft in his campaign. We discussed what he should say to his supporters. I advised against saying the thing about his mission is life was to ensure that Nolan didn’t get the nomination. He didn’t listen, as was often the case with him.
We talked about his future, the future of the libertarian movement, the future of the LP, and my future. He said it might be fun to do a movie together. He also said fuck the LP.
I remember rounding up Russo supporters to the campaign room so Aaron could address them. I remember that there were upset Nolan supporters the room. Some had supported Russo as a second choice, others were regretting their Badnarik votes (there was a lot of this going on by then). I believe someone from Liberty was in the room, Brian Doherty was probably there, not sure if Sipos was there, but I think he was.
I don’t remember how many people were there, but the room was pretty full. Like I’ve said before, the tail end of this 24 hour period is still a bit blurry because of personal fatigue. I do remember realizing that my feet were bleeding through my socks and Deb’s ankles were incredibly swollen from being on her feet for so long around this time. I went to the bathroom and rinsed out my socks and put them back on, wet but more sterile.
Aaron did urge people to support Badnarik. He told them that it would take lot’s and lot’s of money. He repeated this several times. He was critical of the Badnarik’s lack of campaign organization. He promised that Badnarik would be more vocal about Iraq and the draft. He probably mentioned television commercials, but I don’t recall. The speech was about solidarity, not splitting. I think I remember Chris Bennett raising a question about the group walking out, but after Russo’s speech, it didn’t resonate with other people as it had in the previous meeting.
December 17th, 2007 at 2:01 am
May I remind you that was 3 years ago and my feelings back in 2004 are NOT the same that I feel today. Back in 2004, I knew nothing of LP politics that I know now. Many of us, worked hard to get Aaron the nomination back in 2004. I sacrificed hours of schoolwork and studying to make sure Aaron got on radio shows and was able to get to various LP conventions. Making sure that the important people who contacted the website were passed to the appropriate people within the campaign. After so many years of activism, I had to take a break, so I “left” the party briefly until Tom Knapp talked me into helping the Badnarik campaign doing research and I became the Illinois State Coordinator for the campaign (Illinois gave Michael the third highest vote total after Texas and California).
Things happen for a reason, I suppose. Aaron went on to produce a great documentary, a blueprint for future like-minded documentaries. I felt bad for Stephen and Aaron, they worked hard!
December 17th, 2007 at 2:09 am
Stephen,
I still have that videotape of Aaron’s unity speech and after that speech I decided that I was going to take a break and mull over my options. You know the LP is the only party I have ever really known. I’m glad I didn’t listen to my frustration.
December 17th, 2007 at 2:27 am
The final meeting was the “official one,” held in Atlanta shortly after the convention was over. This is the one where another controversial issue took place, but not related to this bit of LP history.
Aaron and I were the two people from his campaign there. Barb Goushaw-Collins, Fred Collins, Jon Airheart and Mike Badnarik were there.
Mike more formally agreed to making the opposition to the Iraq War and opposition to the draft his most significant campaign issues. Terms were discussed for Russo to produce campaign commercials. Russo asked for a lot of money.
The key factor in both rounds of negotiations with Badnarik are signficant to the issue of a potential walkout. Here’s why:
Badnarik had just won. We lost. While Badnarik was in a daze from recent events (other reports state that he later described himself at that time as being in deer in headlights mode), Fred Collins was as sharp as a tack.
It helped that Barb agreed with us about pushing the Iraq War. Later in the campaign, she would often talk with me about her frustration with Badnarik missing opportunities to bring up the issue in debates and interviews. “Body bags, body bags, body bags,” is how she would try to implore Mike to stick to the key issue.
The point is that we only had two chips. One was the threat that Russo supporters would walk and kill the Badnarik campaign. The other was a mandate that Russo would produce commercials. Both issues were interrelated, as Russo supporters would feel confident that Russo would produce commercials relevant to the political issues of the day—especially the Iraq War.
In retrospect, I didn’t think the Russo commercials for Badnarik were all that good, but at least they were produced and aired.
Winners don’t meet with losers and negotiate terms, be it monetary or on political issues, unless the winner has a strong reason to need to negotiate. They held some cards, but we did, too.
Keep in mind that some of Russo’s supporters were party people (i.e. Wes and George), but many of them (Nancy Lord Johnson, JJ) were not. Knapp, Bennett, and probably Martina had already “walked” and that word circulated fast. While I wasn’t going to walk, I didn’t disclose that at the time as it was a big card we still held.
The Badnarik campaign concern about how Russo supporters would react hopefully shows, to some degree, how much they feared we would leave the party, mount an oppositional campaign, or sabotage theirs.
If any reader who was present for any of these events has additional recollections, I’d love to hear it. I’m interested in constructing an entire, complete and accurate history of what I consider the most dramatic political convention since 1968.
December 17th, 2007 at 2:28 am
Chris,
I didn’t even remember that the public speech was recorded. I’d love to have a copy of it.
December 17th, 2007 at 2:44 am
“There was a lot of heartburn in the Russo camp, but there also seemed to be an “okay, let’s take what we’ve got and run with it” attitude.”
That was the mood I tried (and eventually Russo tried) to set.
However, I also strongly remember my key opposition to that sentiment, as those in opposition to this position were my temporary opponents. You, Chris and Libertarian Larry are the ones I remember most strongly.
I now remember, when in the “official” and controversial meeting, raising the issue to Badnarik that “even Tom Knapp has gone over to the dark side.” It was public knowledge by then that Nancy and JJ had walked. There were rumors of other key “walkers,” but most were malicious rumors from Russo supporters. I think Libertarian Larry was the key carrier of the malicious stuff, but some people spread his drunken ramblings to others.
Badnarik must has really respected you, as his eyes widened recognized the words I spoke at the time. Most of the time during that meeting it was as though he wasn’t really there.
I don’t know if a walk out or a party split would have been successful at that time. We’ll never know. What I do know is that a lot of the key players somehow perceived that it could have. Emotions were high. It wasn’t my goal (party unity was) nor was it Russo’s. You should know this from our subsequent conversations, especially when I coaxed you into working for Badnarik.
December 17th, 2007 at 2:46 am
Chris,
So you were a young hothead. There’s no disrespect intended. Most of our Founding Fathers were, at one time, young hotheads, too. I admire you for that trait.
December 17th, 2007 at 3:13 am
Steve Gordon,
When my non-libertarian friends and I exaggerate for dramatic effect, we call each other exagorillas or something like that. Are you an exagorilla?
Chris Bennet,
There are plenty of hotheads in the LP. I’m one sometimes myself. You’ve changed? You recently complained in other venues that you were the only African American at an Illinois LP event, without explaining why you did not bring an African American contingent yourself.
George Phillies,
You have continuously called for my resignation for contributing to the Ron Paul campaign, and while I think your chances of winning the LP nomination for President are slim, to me, you are starting to look like a strong contender for the Vice Presidential nomination. Think you could out-campaign Campagna? I do.
December 17th, 2007 at 7:19 am
The reason Ron Paul is so popular, is that he is popular with a Majority of people.
The other reason he is so popular with the Majority, is he is ‘unpopular’ with the minority that is polled.
He is also a threat to the military industrial complex and its propaganda wing, the main stream media, and the people are standing up to say, we are ready for Ron Paul, the constitution and real change.
December 17th, 2007 at 7:42 am
Steve,
You write:
“I think by this time [during the 2004 national convention], both Knapp and Bennett had verbally indicated they were no longer LP members.”
Nope. I don’t recall the exact date that I rescinded my national LP membership, but it was after, not at, the convention and it was done in writing, not verbally.
Your memory of things has them a lot more overheated than I remember them being, possibly because once the nominations were done I pretty much shut down, ignored the proceedings, and concentrated on things like keeping Libertarian Larry from wandering into the traffic on Peachtree Blvd.
Regards,
Tom Knapp
December 17th, 2007 at 10:09 am
We all took Russo losing hard. I know that some people came back to the LP after a long hiatus just because they saw Russo as a “revival” for the party. As soon as Russo lost, they vowed not to return. It’s kind of interesting that where did many of Russo’s supporters go afterwards? I can probably say that a third of them are no longer active in the LP and that’s a shame. My wife and I were discussing Larry Fulmer last night and she thinks had Aaron won the nomination he would be alive today. I know that while I was Illinois Coordinator for the Badnarik campaign, I got many of my liberal friends who were against the police action in Iraq to vote for him because they were sick of Kerry’s flip-flopping stance.
Yeah, I admit it. I’m a hothead but it’s driven by my passion for freedom and liberty, ask my wife! I’m still here aren’t I? The LP is the only party I’ve been involved in since I was 19, so essentially without the LP, I’d be politically homeless.
December 17th, 2007 at 10:30 am
Wes,
When I first got involved in the LP back in 1991, there was a situation where I wish I could have changed. I was at my local LP gathering back in Denver, Colorado and a couple of black men came to our meeting wanting to know about the LP. There was this gentleman, who was well-versed in libertarianism went up to these guys and the first thing that flew out of his mouth was “the LP doesn’t support Affirmative Action.” I never saw anyone leave that meeting quicker than those two. Many blacks, I know, who are politically active think that the LP is a right-wing arm of the Republican Party. How is one black libertarian like myself going to attract many more blacks into our party?
After the 04 convention, we tried to get a minority caucus going. Willie Harmon from PA, tried starting it but as far as it got was a few e-mail exchanges. Who here would like to restart that caucus?
December 18th, 2007 at 6:09 pm
What is it with Americans? We are known as the people who will take a chance, the ones in the world with imagination. Yet, millions of Americans will dutifully go and vote for some corporate shill, and not take a chance on a man that has always told the truth, no matter how unpopular, and has clearly always had Americans and Americas best interests at heart.
December 18th, 2007 at 8:25 pm
Ron Paul is scam. He is taking everyone’s money and he is not winning. Let’s face it if we are going to put our money into someone, we should do it into someno who’s going to be there in November. Not RON PAUL.