George Phillies Calls for Resignation of Entire Libertarian National Committee
Following two votes of the Libertarian National Committee dealing with Ron Paul’s presidential race, Libertarian Party presidential candidate George Phillies has called for Libertarian National Committee heads to roll (emphasis added):
It is utterly unforgivable that the Libertarian National Libertarian party used party funds to help a Republican Presidential candidate. National Committee members who voted for the motion have proved their disloyalty to our Party and should promptly resign from our National Committee.What can be said of National Committee support for a Republican, spending our hard earned donations to support a candidate of the Bush Republican war party?
Supporting a Republican candidate transparently violates the Party Bylaws. Our Bylaws provide purposes for our Party. However, “functioning as a libertarian political entity separate and distinct from all other political parties or movements” is the opposite of spending our money to help their candidates. The Bylaws phrasing “moving public policy in a libertarian direction by building a political party that elects Libertarians to public office” cannot be carried out by boosting a Republican.
Supporting a Republican Presidential candidate was an act of fraud and a gross breach of the National Committee’s fiduciary responsibilities to Libertarian Party members. If we Libertarians wanted to support a candidate of the Bush Republican war party, the party that has Americans kidnapped, held without trial, and tortured, we would have sent them our money directly.
On December 9th, the Libertarian National Committee passed two motions relating to Ron Paul. One was a formal request for Paul to consider running as a Libertarian Party candidate should he not obtain the Republican nomination. The other opened the LP’s Ballot Base application for use by Ron Paul supporters for the New Hampshire primary. Both votes were passed unanimously.
Of course, it is unsurprising that the Libertarian National Committee handed over our money and our Ballotbase, a resource that would cost tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars to duplicate, to support a Republican. National Committee members and alternates donate and raise money for that Republican, but give no money to Presidential candidates of the party they claim is their own. One Committee member has a PAC.
My understanding is that the cost to the LNC was around a couple grand, an amount which was immediately “paid back” in donations from people excited about the LNC actions. The LNC also opened Ballot Base up to LP presidential candidates in states with Libertarian primary elections.
It is also extremely unfortunate that our National Party has endorsed a Republican as a prospective candidate for our party’s nomination. The claim that this was only “an invitation” and “not an endorsement” is totally unbelievable.
Here’s the wording of the pertinent portion of the resolution:
In the event that Republican primary voters select a candidate other than Congressman Paul in February of 2008, the Libertarian National Committee invites Congressman Ron Paul to seek the presidential nomination of the Libertarian Party to be decided in Denver, Colorado during the Memorial Day weekend of 2008.
December 29th, 2007 at 10:27 am
I would be surprised by the Stalinist tactics and demands for “loyalty,” but then again, Phillies the mercantilist is a leader of the ACLU.
December 29th, 2007 at 10:32 am
I declined Phillies offer to resign, but did mention the offer to Ron Paul on the local news. See the story below (which starts with Giuliani):
http://www.myfoxaustin.com/myfox/pages/News/Detail?contentId=5190096&version=1&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=VSTY&pageId=3.2.1
Do you think the reporter was being sarcastic when he says at the very end “what he [Benedict] calls the future of the Libertarian Party.”
I should disclose that in general I find Phillies to be a little irritating, but not too harmful.
December 29th, 2007 at 10:33 am
I meant the offer to Ron Paul above, not Phillies’ offer for the LNC to resign.
December 29th, 2007 at 10:38 am
The party must EARN the loyalty of its members. Those members are free to look elsewhere for political representation any time they feel that the LP isn’t serving their interests. Party officials, however, bear a heavier burden. “Party loyalty” is an implicit obligation of service on the Libertarian National Committee. By seeking election to the LNC, a candidate is telling the party “you can trust me to place the party’s interests, and its rules for protecting those interests, ahead of my own preferences.”
I understand the excitement which the Ron Paul campaign raised, not only among rank and file party members, but among party officials. However, I believe that the LNC acted in violation of its duties by soliciting a Republican presidential candidate to enter our presidential nomination process, and by dedicating the use of party assets to support a Republican presidential campaign. Unless the by-laws are amended by the party itself in national convention, I will consider myself instructionally bound by the current language which lists one of the Libertarian Party’s purposes as “functioning as a libertarian political entity separate and distinct from all other political parties or movements.”
December 29th, 2007 at 11:30 am
I think the Libertarian Party should embrace Ron Paul and his supporters – many of whom didn’t even realize they were Libertarians. The Libertarian Party will most probably see a HUGE influx of new members after this current election cycle is completed.
I consider the Libertarian Party’s support of Dr. Paul an investment that will pay dividends for the LP for years to come.
December 29th, 2007 at 11:39 am
They certainly made an investment in our current Presidential candidates by allowing staff members to attack them, denying them mailing lists, and denying them advertising in LP News.
The only thing their resolutions accomplish is to set a dangerous precedent for future LNC members to give party resources to candidates of other parties who may or may not be libertarians.
December 29th, 2007 at 11:49 am
The LNC promise to its legitimate candidates, the use of BallotBase in Missouri and California, has not been kept.
December 29th, 2007 at 11:52 am
For once it is the LNC that is in step with what is happening in our country. The freedom movement is flowering and the LNC correctly determined a course of action that was best for the nation as a whole. It was particularly smart as the good will engendered by this action was palpable in most circles of Ron Paul supporters and this act will likely lead to the highest percentage vote totals ever for Libertarian Party candidates.
Some Libertarian candidates will be left out of this advance since the internet is making it easier and easier for people to look past party labels and look at each candidates stance on the major issues such as Iraq and monetary policy. Furthermore a candidate who tries to distance himself from the current movement and/or use obscure party rules to strong arm others who do not share his viewpoint is not likely to benefit from this rising tide.
I am serving on the Travis County Executive Committee and have been asked to serve again as Chair of the Travis County Party starting in a few days hence. When and if I do take that position, I intend, like the LNC did, to help Austin area Libertarians and citizens in general to embrace the advancing freedom movement. This can be done easily without hurting the future fortunes of our candidates or harming the Libertarian Party “label”.
In fact, to do as George Phillies is suggesting is, in my opinion, a sure road to ruin for our party.
December 29th, 2007 at 11:58 am
Astute observation, Robert. This is one of the best uses of guerrilla marketing I’ve seen from the LP. Hitching the wagon to Dr. Paul will almost certainly pay dividends in terms of growing the ranks and tapping the financial support of the disaffected who have been so generous to the Paul campaign.
I’ve been a supporter of the Constitution Party and LP in the past, but with the exception of 2004 always ended up voting for the GOP candidate when push came to shove. That will not happen again, and I’ll be looking for a permanent party affiliation when the dust settles. Why not the LP? If it’s good enough to support Dr. Paul, then I’ll want to support that party as a financially supportive member.
December 29th, 2007 at 12:38 pm
I completely agree with Micah. It’s amazing to me anyone would be so stuck on party by-laws and formality to not see this as a great benefit to the party. The freedom movement is growing by leaps and bounds, and the LP was wise to hitch-up to Paul’s wagon now. We need to all work to support the best candidate, and get the word out. This is HEADY stuff, exciting and unconventional, patriotic and even sobering. We’ve all wished for a candidate who will bring about real change, and here he is!
No more time for complaining, it’s time to get to WORK!
Go RON!
December 29th, 2007 at 12:45 pm
My biggest beef with the LP in recent years has been the folks at LPHQ and the failure of the LNC to do anything about the activities of LPHQ. While I doubt if the LNC will resign, I would sure like to see the LP members elect some new people willing to take the LP in new directions.
The recent LNC resolutions regarding Ron Paul are troublesome. The invitation to recruit Ron Paul was unnecessary and the offer to use the LP BallotBase would seem to be a breach of fiduciary responsibility.
I say this as a nominal supporter of Ron Paul and as someone who believes his campaign will be beneficial to the libertarian movement (and could be beneficial to the LP).
I see nothing wrong with LP members supporting Ron Paul however they see fit. This alone will send a message to the Ron Paul supporters who are not LP members. But, the LP and individuals acting in the capacity of party officials should not promote or endorse a candidate from another party, even if it is Ron Paul, unless the membership votes to do so at convention.
December 29th, 2007 at 12:46 pm
Many Libertarians are concerned about the Constitution being violated. Our By-laws are no different. If we do not exist to run our own candidates and win elections what is our purpose as a political party? With these resolutions we have allowed ourselves to be attacked in the future with endorsements and support for non-Libertarian candidates. I will be glad to welcome Ron Paul’s supporters into the party, but this ambulance chasing is not doing anyone any good.
December 29th, 2007 at 1:03 pm
Another rare occasion that I can agree with the LNC’s actions!
Message to George Phillies: some things are more important than partisanship.
December 29th, 2007 at 1:09 pm
I commend the Libertarian National Committee for their wisdom in supporting RP. I only hope to see them go “all in” for RP as this would be the biggest break the Libertarian Party has ever had if they play this right. They need to grab this tiger by the tail now. They need to become involved with his grassroot supporters becase they are going to be key to the Libertarian Party if they embrace them now. There are so many former apathetic supporters in this Revolution that there is no telling how strong the Libertarian Party can become after this election cycle.
The Libertarian Party has a choice. They can either court them and work with them now or they can expect a whole different party to evolve out of the RP Revolution. There are individuals already starting to run for various political offices (I’ve seen at least 3 just in the past couple months) as a “Ron Paul Republican” because the LP has done too little to get involved. They need to look at the big picture. When this all shakes out, there is either going to be a huge influx of new Libertarian Supporter’s or there is going to be a new rival party that will be larger than the current Libertarian Party (Ron Paul Republican’s).
In case they haven’t been paying attention, RP has the largest and most motivated grassroot supporters network in the history of politics whic is growing expotentially every day and most didn’t know they even had Libertarian leanings until exposed to them by RP. Just to name one indicator out of many, they organized and managed to break all previous one day fundraising records and sent RP $6.2 million dollars in a 24-hour period. By the end of this quarter, RP will be very near or over $20 million for this quarter.
I do understand them wanting to walk a fine line between their principals of not supporting a Republican, but they must look at the big picture and take advantage of something that may not come around again anytime soon.
Do they want to bring RP supporter’s to them or do they want to let a whole new rival party develop within the Republican Party? From the inside looking out, they would be making a HUGE mistake by not going “all in”!
December 29th, 2007 at 1:35 pm
I am one of those people who did not realize that I maybe a Libertarian until after really getting into Dr. Paul’s campaign. I will vote for Ron Paul no matter what party he is in, even if I have to write him in. After this election my attention we be given to the Libertarian Party.
December 29th, 2007 at 1:40 pm
Just a reminder that Ron Paul is a Libertarian Party member. To try to equate Ron Paul with the Iraq War and torture, as George Phillies tries to do, is just silly. Another big swing and a miss for the Phillies campaign. All this does is gives the impression that Phillies thinks LP members are stupid and uninformed.
Someone over there needs to regroup and rethink their strategy. Not only do they attack all religious people (alienating the vast majority of voters), they are now alienating the vast majority of Libertarian Party members.
The goal of the Phillies campaign should be to earn votes, not toss them away.
December 29th, 2007 at 1:47 pm
This has nothing to do with Ron Paul. This has to do with the LNC proving the idea that we are nothing more than disgruntled Republicans.
There is nothing wrong with individual LP members supporting other candidates. That is their right. However, it is WRONG for representatives and officials of the national committee to openly support a candidate of a different party. Thanks to people like Wes Benedict, we are nothing more than a small fringe interest group, not a real political party.
You understand that this resolution is being used by people like Eric Dondero, who now recognize there is precedent for the LP to support candidates of other parties, and now believes it would be proper for the LP to support Giuliani. As misguided as Eric is, he’s right; the precedent exists.
December 29th, 2007 at 1:56 pm
For an LP member, he’s very quick to continually repeat that he has been a Republican all his life.
LP members can support him all they want, and I can understand why. But LNC reps are the board of directors for a political party, and one that already has a number of candidates in the race.
The LP is not an interest group, it’s a political party with real candidates. What about that do people like Wes Benedict not understand?
December 29th, 2007 at 2:00 pm
I don’t understand Jeff. If Ron Paul runs as a Libertarian, which is what the LNC asked Ron Paul to do, how would they be supporting a candidate from another party? A Libertarian Ron Paul campaign is a Libertarian candidate.
The use of ballot base is simply an excercise of the free market in politics. The LP believes in competition and the free market. If LP members want to vote with their feet and make phone calls on behalf of a LP member running as a Republican, so what?
No matter how hard you slice it, all you end up with is LP members supporting another LP member. I don’t see the problem at all.
Disclaimer: I don’t support Ron Paul or George Phillies.
December 29th, 2007 at 2:17 pm
No. This is the Libertarian Party using party resources to try and decide who the Republican Party nominates. Last time I checked I was not a member of the Republican Party. Should Eric Dondero be allowed to use BallotBase to promote Rudy Giuliani?
This is not just about Ballot Base, but an LNC that has allowed our candidates to be attacked and have allowed party resources to promote a campaign of another party (I am not only speaking about BallotBase, but e-mails fundraising letters, etc) who could potentially at some point be in direct competition with our Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidates. To quote Tom Knapp
This is not about competition, but about some in the LNC playing ambulance chaser.
December 29th, 2007 at 2:20 pm
Because his current campaign is as a Republican.
I personally do not have a problem with Ron Paul. I do not currently support him, but I do not necessarily hate him.
If he wants to run as a Libertarian, I would welcome him to our primary race. But that hasn’t happened, and Ron seems to disspell it (although without a Shermanesque denial).
As someone who loves and cares deeply for the LP, I find Ron’s constant repitition that he has been a Republican all his life quite disheartening. It doesn’t seem to me like he wants anything to do with the LP.
December 29th, 2007 at 2:37 pm
I first joined the party in 1971 when it was known in california as the california libertarian party…I have never been more proud of the parties leadership than the decision to embrace ron paul’s massive injection of libertarian ideas into the political marketplace..I am a proud member of the libertarian party and a proud supporter of the ron paul revolution.. I see no contradiction..
December 29th, 2007 at 2:42 pm
I will vote Libertarian where I can in 2008 in my state, but Paul has the best chance of anyone to get elected and promote Libertarianism and Constitutionalism.
I think this ought to be a lesson for Libertarians in how to grow the party. We got to get elected change the system to favor third parties.
If this means running as a Republican than so be it. If it means taking over the NeoCons in the party so be it.
My alligence is to principles not parties.
December 29th, 2007 at 2:43 pm
Let’s take a looksee at these guys supporting the Little Professor:
On Phillies’ Staff:
Jake Porter = Chief of Staff
Jeff Wartman = Volunteer Operations
George Phillies = Playing himself (and closing in on Milnes’ all time record for number of posts by a presidential candidate // Go George Go! You can do it!)
We’re just missing a handful of others and we got a full on Phillies dance party right here on TPW! Talk about mobilization! The Ron Paul folks should be green with Phillies envy.
Why is anyone paying any mind to this guy? He couldn’t pass an Autism screening and even his own students can’t stand him. He has a 2.9 out of 5 rating by his own students and he wants to lead the nation? George should run for his town’s head creepy guy position instead.
December 29th, 2007 at 2:47 pm
The only party I ever joined was Libertarian Party in 1976 when NORML ran ads in “Playboy” magazine, while Ayn Rand observed Libertarians as, “The Hippies on the right”. I registered “Decline to State Party” after working as a precinct inspector in 92 and met Ralph Nader with who I agree on elections, “They’re bought”.
The Green Party nominated Independent Nader in 1996 and Y2K. Nader never became a Green Party member. “The Unreasonalble Man”, (good documentary about Nader) did not get the Green Party nomination in 2004, because he was not a Green. The Party felt it didn’t need him anymore.
The election results were, Nader, on 37 state ballots because of Democrats law suits and GOP abetting the dirty tricks, received nearly 500K votes. David Cobb the Green, on 49 state ballots reeived 125K. Poof went the Green party. I was far from alone in those who were or had been Libertarians that supported Nader’s RIGHT to be on the ballot and Badnaric when Nader was not on the ballot.
Ron Paul has done more for the Libertarian Party as a Republican than any present or former Libertarian. Giving him recognition by nomination made the Libertarian Party look good again. Kudos.
The Green party made a fatal mistake not supporting Nader in 2004 because they thought “as a party” they had what it takes without a chrismatic “leader”. Learn from them. They nominated Nader and McKinney for 08. I’m supporting Ron Paul.
December 29th, 2007 at 2:49 pm
Phillies is technically correct, but a bit absurd in trying to equate support for Ron Paul with pro-Bush policies of war and torture, things Paul clearly opposes.
The LP should not have provided access to the database to anyone outside the party. LP officers should not be donating to someone from another party. If the LP wanted to invite Ron Paul to seek their nomination, they should have waited until after February 5th.
December 29th, 2007 at 2:56 pm
I think George has become lost sitting up on his high horse. Anyone who puts party loyalty before country is someone not deserving of running for president as the nominee of any party. I find it amazing that George has such contempt for Ron Paul, probably for championing the libertarian cause – and succeeding. Everytime George tries to marginalize Ron by denouncing him as seeking the nomination of “George Bush’s war party” George [Philles] looses more and more credibility among those who seek true libertarian reform and not just an ‘L’ after the office holders name.
December 29th, 2007 at 3:23 pm
The Ron Paul for President campaign is HUGE right now. It is the biggest thing to happen in the freedom movement in decades. The Libertarian Party can either latch on to it and hope to catch some of its momentum or it can get left behind. I think that the right choice was made.
December 29th, 2007 at 3:29 pm
PHillies is a bum. I have been in the national party for 10 years and I was very interested in his campaign untill I started getting his anti Paul emails. Phillies is an idiot and is blowing any chance the LP has of expansive growth if Ron Pauls bid is not a sucess. His ACLU connection explaines everything to me. He believes in entitlements and thinks he is entitled to LP support because belongs to a group. He needs to read Harry Browne’s How I found freedom in an Unfree World. Ron Paul has earned our support and it is an investment in the future of the party to support him now. He is the only member of congress wo gives a rats ass about third parties and has proposed bills to include us. Ron is making new libertarians every day and it is about ideas not party.
December 29th, 2007 at 3:32 pm
So it’s all about “The Libertarian Party”... what a fool. It should be about the ideas inherent in being a libertarian. If your party rules are being broken, why not pursue changing them for the potential once in a 20 year shot of reducing government. If Ron Paul wins the Republican Nomination, are you telling me you would vote for the Libertarian candidate in the Presidential Race because he is in your party? I have voted for the Libertarian candidate for President every year since 1992, because that candidate’s ideals were closest to my own….not because he was in the Libertarian Party.
December 29th, 2007 at 3:53 pm
Phillies is correct. Taking the stand may cost him, but that does not make him wrong.
As a libertarian I can’t support Ron Paul. IMHO he really doesn’t support the freedom movement. he is an old right conservative who panders to libertarians. He enjoys the attention and $$$$ from libertarian supporters but he is nowhere near the savior people make him out to be. as mentioned before he continues the “disgruntled” or “Republican who REALLY hates taxes” tradition. Or the too conservative to be a Republican, whatever. To me that is not libertarian.
Is he “more libertarian” than anyone running in the 2 major parties? Certainly.
I suppose I COULD support him in the way Randians supported Goldwater. You know, not caring if the policy stands are for the right reasons and so on. Even then he is WRONG on a lot of policy from a libertarian standpoint. His agreements come from a COnstitutional standpoint. He is a Constitutionalist. There is a lot of overlap of beliefs, but I think they are essentially different.
The Ron Paul Revolution trades on a lot of the same things that make GWB so terrible. Politics of fear and negativity. That is not the freedom movement to me.
Of course, my personal preferences have nothing to do with the proper role of the LNC when it comes to supporting Republican candidates. If I were a rabid RP supporter ( and I have been at times) I would still question this.
FWIW I dont have any allegiance to RP or the LP. I think I last donated to the LP 5-6 years ago. I am pretty sure I would support just about any LP candidate over RP though
December 29th, 2007 at 4:07 pm
This just makes it easier for me to write in Ron Paul if he doesn’t win the Rep nod and George Phillies gains the LP nomination. At least Steve Kubby threw his support behind the principled libertarian.
December 29th, 2007 at 4:16 pm
Jim says:
“I completely agree with Micah. It’s amazing to me anyone would be so stuck on party by-laws and formality to not see this as a great benefit to the party.”
There was a great man who lived many years ago during the era of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison. He was Supreme Court Justice, John Marshall. The Supreme Court ruled in Mulberry vs. Madison:
“The government of the United States is of the latter description. The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken, or forgotten, the constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing, if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction between a government with limited and unlimited powers is abolished, if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and acts allowed, are of equal obligation. It is a proposition too plain to be contested, that the constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it; or, that the legislature may alter the constitution by an ordinary act.
Between these alternatives there is no middle ground. The constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and, like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it.”
What this means is that the United States Constitution is a contract that cannot be changed by Congress, the President, or any one else by “ordinary means.” To do so would make the Constitution words on a paper without meaning. The Constitution is a contract that must be followed by Congress, the President, and other government institutions.
The Bylaws of the Libertarian Party must be treated as a contract that cannot be changed by the LNC on their whims. If this were so the Bylaws would be words on a paper without meaning. Only the delegates at convention can change the Bylaws. The LNC has no such power. Their “endorsement” of Republican Ron Paul (a candidate of another political party) and the use of Party assets for this purpose is wrong.
Next year at the Party convention if the bylaws are changed to require annual Party conventions should the delegates wonder as they are going home whether their wishes will be changed by the LNC because they disagree with having annual conventions?
The LNC acted inappropriately and the severity of the offense calls for changes to be made at next years Party convention.
December 29th, 2007 at 4:28 pm
I call on George Phillies to resign. Can we please worry more about what is good for liberty in America and less about is good for a particular party?
December 29th, 2007 at 4:48 pm
Libertarians that are hung up on their label are no better than the R’s and D’s that get caught up in the same thing. Where is the Human party? That’s the one I associate with. There should be no parties. Collectivism is bad for the country.
The system is obviously biased toward third parties. Instead of fighting the system, why not accept the system? The neocons infiltrated the Republican party, why can’t libertarians? History is replete with bad people infiltrating good institutions, but not vice-versa. Ron Paul is a light shining in a see of darkness, how about we get more light where there is darkness?
December 29th, 2007 at 4:50 pm
George Phillies is a leader of the Massachusetts Libertarian Party, which has not qualified a candidate for the ballot since 2002, and only rarely run candidates in any case. Looks like Massachusetts Libertarians should find a better leadership, capable of building a party in their own state.
December 29th, 2007 at 5:13 pm
I do not support Phillies. I never have. And just in the past month his campaign has managed to push me closer to Wayne Allen Root and farther from him (and I’m no fan of Root, either, but at least he doesn’t bash Christians and endlessly complain about some of the most popular decisions the LNC has ever made.)
However, as a fellow professor, I can attest to the fact that RateMyProfessor.com is a completely useless metric, especially when you teach course filled with pre-med majors that can’t do math or think and want grades handed to them. Review the ratings of 99% of the organic chemistry professors in the country. I doubt more than a handful achieve grater than 3/5 ratings.
December 29th, 2007 at 5:42 pm
Dear Gene,
Massachusetts had Libertarian candidates on the ballot in 2004 and 2006.
However, the situation was not satisfactory, which is why Massachusetts Libertarians took your advice and gave us a nearly all-new state committee. I became chair, oh, about a year ago, rather after the 2006 election.
George
December 29th, 2007 at 5:54 pm
George,
I just checked @ http://clerk.house.gov and no Libertarian candidates for US Senate or House of Representatives were listed for Massachusetts in 2004 or 2006. Aside from putting Michael Badnarik on the ballot in 2004, what did the Mass. LP do in the last couple of elections?
December 29th, 2007 at 6:36 pm
There goes the likelyhood that I will support Phillies should Paul lose the nomination. Given that Root is a war-hawk and Imperato and Milnes are nuts, it looks like it’s either Kubby or Smith for my support (unless of course Dr. Paul enters the race).
December 29th, 2007 at 6:39 pm
Gene,
There was no Senate race here in 2004, so we has as many candidates as the D and R parties. Placing on the ballot a candidate for Congress in 2004 would have required collecting about 8000 raw signatures. We did have a candidate for state Senate and candidates for State Rep, which you can find with some work. We do have a 2008 US Senate candidate, who was one of the loud voices actively opposing the LNC effort to wreck our ballot access by running candidates for statewide office in 2006.
The substantial obstacle in 2004 was that we had major party status, which more than doubles the number of raw signatures needed to put a Libertarian on the ballot for partisan office.
In 2004 and 2006 we had to wait out and replace a State Chair and his supporters who were against recruiting candidates, against raising money, against supporting the candidates that we did have, and against doing public outreach. They had control of the state party because the LNC in 2002 spent $20,000 on a ballot access Senate campaign that installed them. There were libertarian outreach booths at various anti-prohibition and gay rights rallies, but most of them were supplied by the Pioneer Valley Libertarian Association and Liberty for Massachusetts, which are not associated with the State Party.
George
December 29th, 2007 at 6:39 pm
Yes, but does Phillies have the little red chili pepper next to his rating indicating that his students think he’s hot?
December 29th, 2007 at 6:54 pm
I find it scary when “libertarians” believe that the candidacy of Ron Paul is so important that the LP By-Laws no longer matter and the LNC can do whatever it pleases, so long as is for Ron Paul. As others have pointed out, what if the GOP candidate was Giuliani instead of Ron Paul? Would that be OK?
Why not simply do away with the by-laws and simply have the LNC appoint a LP Dictator? They could then resign and the new LP Dictator could just do whatever he wanted to do.
This really isn’t about George Phillies or Ron Paul, it is about adherence to the LP By-Laws and the behavior of the LNC. I don’t support Phillies and I do support Ron Paul, for now. This isn’t about who you support, though.
Outside of a few libertarians, I doubt if most people are even aware that the LNC invited Ron Paul to seek the LP nomination or volunteered the use of a LP database to him. However, it is not lost on Ron Paul supporters (that are not LP members) that LP members support Ron Paul when they show up at meetups, etc.
I also find it odd that supporters of a constitutionalist are so quick to set aside rules when they deem it gets in the way of something they deem more important. Is it OK when Bush ignores the constitution because he deems it more important to fight the “war on terror”?
Aren’t constitutionalist supposed to be all about the rule of law?
December 29th, 2007 at 7:16 pm
Article 3 of the LP Bylaws says that the Party, “is organized to implement and give voice to the principles embodied in the Statement of Principles by: functioning as a libertarian political entity separate and distinct from all other political parties or movements; moving public policy in a libertarian direction by building a political party that elects Libertarians to public office; ... nominating candidates for President and Vice-President of the United States, and supporting Party and affiliate party candidates for political office;....”
The LNC Policy Manual (Article VIII, Section 1) prohibits LNC funds from being spent to support a candidate unless: “(a) they are running as candidates of the Party unless the laws in their state make it necessary or desirable for ballot access purposes that they run as independents; (b) they are certified as libertarian candidates by the governing
board of the Party in their state; and© they refrain from supporting any Presidential ticket other than the Party candidates.”
Ron Paul meets none of those three criteria and as such it was a violation of the Policy Manual and Bylaws to spend Libertarian Party funds on setting up Ballot Base access for his volunteers. What is the point of having bylaws and policies if the LNC can violate them at will?
December 29th, 2007 at 7:19 pm
Again I side with and/or support Prof. Phillies. He consistently promptly comes in with the correct position (IMO). Presumably the worst case scenario is if Ronulans take their support elsewhere when Ron loses the gop nomination. Hopefully on Feb. 5. It seems that with this campaign, convention & election, the LP is going to have to choose whether to go right (Ron Paul) or left (progressive alliance) or business as usual. If as I am trying to accomplish, the LP goes left, then most of these Ronulans are voters that the LP wouldn’t get anyway; destined to vote republican, CP or for some independent-or write in Ron. Let them go if they must. & watch the irony unfold if these anti-war voters actually wind up voting for spoiler Ron Paul taking anti-war votes from the democrats resulting in warmonger republicans getting elected. By going left there is a vastly larger pool of potential voters; enough to actually win. WE ARE IN TO WIN. NEVER AGAIN vote republican.
December 29th, 2007 at 7:23 pm
I finding it amusing that Phillies says that the LNC violated the Bylaws and everyone immediately assumes it’s true. I just checked the LP’s Bylaws and can’t find where it was violated.
Did the LNC violate its bylaws by inviting a candidate to seek its nomination? No. They can recruit presidential and vice presidential candidates. Some would say that’s a job of those people.
Did the LNC violate its bylaws by involving itself in a Republican primary by allowing the Ballot Base to be used by Ron Paul supporters? No. If Ron Paul won the RP nomination and then the LP allowed its use, that would be another story. But it’s a primary. The LP and nearly all other political parties interfere with each other’s primaries. In this case, the LP did it to benefit a libertarian candidate instead of using it against the worst offender as is the norm. I would say that in this instance it supports the bylaws.
This reminds me of Bush telling the American public that Saddam had WMD’s. Because Bush and his boys say so, it MUST BE true.
Now we have George Phillies and his tag-alongs telling the public that the LNC violated its bylaws. George Bush and George Phillies share a few qualities and it looks like making misleading statements is one of them.
December 29th, 2007 at 7:50 pm
I think it speaks volumes that we aren’t sitting around speculating about the future loyalties of the George Phillies Army or the Milne-bots, but rather the supporters of a certain Ron Paul.
December 29th, 2007 at 7:56 pm
It is people like George Phillies who should resign, for their draconian and ruthless tactics. It is his kind of intolerance which has never allowed the Libertarian Party to really go anywhere in all of its existence. Just like with Ayn Rand, just like with Murray Rothbard, etc., etc. People see these cutthroat tactics, and walk the other way.
December 29th, 2007 at 7:57 pm
Mr. X (a state coordinator for Phillies) does some research! Good on ya! The policy manual? That would be permitted in Article 8 of the LP’s bylaws: “The National Committee shall adopt rules of procedure for the conduct of its meetings and the carrying out of its duties and responsibilities.”
So the Policy Manual would be internal rules set by the members of the LNC. They would have the ability to modify add or delete anything within the manual. If a single member felt they were going against their internal rules they could object, and the body could choose to amend right? But that didn’t happen because the vote was unanimous. So Mr. X isn’t very walking very stable ground if not a single LNC member felt it was a violation. Or maybe those LNC folks are evil and Phillies is Saint George.
As I said above, if the LNC shouldn’t mess around with a RP primary and that would have been a violation of the bylaws, policy manual, libertarian bible, etc, then there it is. That’s not the case.
These guys did the right thing for their party within the borders of the bylaws and many RP supporters will be showing their gratitude by joining the LP.
Those Phillies fellows sure want to make you think there’s a smoke on the horizon but can’t seem to find the fire.
December 29th, 2007 at 8:08 pm
I may be wrong here, but isn’t Libertarianism more important as a philosophy than as a party? If there is a candidate running who can bring the philosophy to the mainstream, surely the party will be able to grow from this.
December 29th, 2007 at 8:43 pm
It is kind of ironic that the party that calls itself Libertarian finds itself ideolgically compromised and nearly hamstrung by its own self-imposed rules.
Support Ron Paul!
December 29th, 2007 at 8:48 pm
John,
Absolutely. I believe that Ron Paul’s candidacy, in the end, could be helpful in the Libertarian movement. I support the right of individual party members to support whatever candidate they like, from any party. The Libertarian Party, after all, is about freedom, liberty and choice.
However, that’s not the point. This doesn’t have anything to do with Ron Paul. The point is that the LNC, which is the “governing board” of the LP, has has given an unofficial “endorsement” of a candidate from a different party.
We are, after all, a political party. It is irresponsible for members of the governing board of a political party to openly oppose all party candidates and support a candidate of a different party.
I’ll give you an example. When Joe Lieberman ran in Conn, he obviously had a lot of Republican support. He’s a social conservative and one of Bush’s strongest allies on the war. The Republicans obviously wanted him to win.
But they ran their own candidate anyway, and no matter how much individual Republicans supported him, the GOP knew it would be irresponsible for them to openly support Lieberman. They understood that in doing so, they would be rendering their party completely and totally irrelevant.
That’s what people like Wes Benedict just cannot grasp.
December 29th, 2007 at 9:02 pm
As a card carrying Libertarian and non-partisan voter (which is WHY I joined the Libertarian Party) I call on George Phillies to resign. We don’t need partisan politics in the Libertarian party.
Honestly, be a good sport now George. Thanks.
December 29th, 2007 at 9:27 pm
I am leaving the Libertarian Party to vote for Ron Paul in the Primaries and won’t be coming back because of the disgusting attitude with some of it’s highest ranking members.
The Libertarian party puts the party name before principle and I am sick of it. Phillies needs to grow some and put his support behind Ron Paul. I don’t care what party someone is affiliated behind, if they are a libertarian at heart and will follow our Constitution, dammit that is who I am voting for. I don’t need to follow stupid bylaws.
I have no loyalty to a single party. My loyalty is to our country and the Constitution.
December 29th, 2007 at 9:53 pm
“So the Policy Manual would be internal rules set by the members of the LNC. They would have the ability to modify add or delete anything within the manual. If a single member felt they were going against their internal rules they could object, and the body could choose to amend right? But that didn’t happen because the vote was unanimous. So Mr. X isn’t very walking very stable ground if not a single LNC member felt it was a violation. Or maybe those LNC folks are evil and Phillies is Saint George.”
The unanimous vote on the Ballot Base resolution was to let Ron Paul supporters use the system. From the wording of the motion, it was not clear that it would involve spending any LNC money or staff resources. However, since the resolution passed, the LP has spent a few thousand dollars and not insignificant staff time on the project. The upshot is that while the exact language of the motion may not have been a violation, how it is being carried out is.
December 29th, 2007 at 9:59 pm
I think Jeff Wartman has it right. I like Ron Paul a lot, have donated some money to him, and wish him well in his quest for the Republican nomination. However, the LNC exists to get big-L Libertarians elected to public office.
There’s nothing wrong with Wes Benedict spending his money on supporting a Republican candidate, but it’s a violation of the purpose of the Libertarian Party for him to vote to spend Party money on supporting a Republican candidate.
I don’t think any of the LNC members are “evil,” nor do I think they should resign. However, those members who voted in good faith to allow Ron Paul supporters to use BallotBase, thinking that it would not involve spending LP money improperly should, now that the facts are out, vote to correct that decision.
People can be non-partisan, but parties, by definition, cannot.
December 29th, 2007 at 10:08 pm
“As I said above, if the LNC shouldn’t mess around with a RP primary and that would have been a violation of the bylaws, policy manual, libertarian bible, etc, then there it is. That’s not the case.”
FYI, there’s nothing wrong with messing with a Republican primary to defeat a candidate. See, e.g., Bob Barr’s primary campaign where the LP ran ads to throw the race to his primary opponent.
However, in this case the LP is spending party funds in support of a specific Republican candidate in violation of the Policy Manual. The motions were passed “without objection,” rather than as a roll call. At a minimum, the LNC should vote to amend the policy manual and have a roll call vote on the issue.
December 29th, 2007 at 10:37 pm
I agree to an extent with Mr. X.
The Bylaws and the Policy Manual are important. Process matters. Any constitutionalist should demand the same sort of compliance with internal party governing documents as with the U.S. Constitution.
In my opinion the resolution inviting Ron Paul to seek the LP nomination violated neither the Bylaws nor the Policy Manual. It was candidate recruitment plain and simple. In my opinion the resolution opening up Ballot Base to Ron Paul supporters violated the Policy Manual (as cited by Mr. X), but did not violate the Bylaws.
When this violation was brought to my attention several weeks ago, I immediately introduced a mail ballot to rescind the Ballot Base resolution with the intent of amending the Policy Manual and then re-passing it. No one co-sponsored my mail ballot (in essence no one seconded the motion) and it was never brought up for a vote.
In discussions with concerned LP members elsewhere, some have claimed that Article VIII, Section 1 of the Policy Manual applies only to post-nomination and Article VIII, Section 3 of the Policy Manual applies only to pre-nomination and would be exclusively governing here. I disagree with that interpretation. In my opinion the clear text of Article VIII, Section 1 applies to all candidate support pre- and post-nomination, whereas Article VIII, Section 3 applies some additional restrictions to pre-nomination candidates.
Others have claimed Article VIII, Section 1 applies only to direct contributions to candidate committees, not to uncoordinated expenditures. I disagree with that interpretation as well. I believe Article VIII, Section 1 applies to all funds expended by the LNC, whether those are given as direct monetary contributions or spent on resources used on behalf of the candidate.
I plan to bring this up again at the February meeting to get it on the record (for the benefit of LP Convention delegates); however, it is very clear that I am standing alone on this one as a hyper-technical procedural impropriety.
Now it would take a majority vote to correct a violation of the Policy Manual (if one exists as alleged). In contrast, a previous violation of the Bylaws could be ruled invalid without a majority vote.
If just one person (such as myself) had objected contemporaneously about the Ballot Base motion, we could have dealt with it right then by amending the Policy Manual before that vote. I was negligant in not recognizing the problem until it was too late.
But I have no plans to resign. I don’t think my colleagues do either. Feel free to vote us out in Denver if we’re doing a bad job.
December 29th, 2007 at 11:46 pm
I agree with just about everything Morgan said. Beyond that, what Phillies and everyone else objecting to the LNC actions seems to forget is that for any third party EVER to make any headway in American politics beyond the local school board/water authority level, we need better ballot access and involvement in debates which will in turn allow the general voting public that doesn’t currently take us seriously to see that we are here, we’re here to stay, we have good ideas, and we can win elections instead of spoil them. We need this involvement on a consistent basis to gain voter faith.
Now, who that is part of the system (read: Reps and Dems that write and enforce all the rules), is sympathetic to third parties, wants third parties to have more say in the process, and is also a member of a third party? Yeah, that’s Ron Paul. This year, every single third party member in the country should be supporting his candidacy even if you absolutely disagree with him on every single issue across the board, and they should be supporting him in every aspect including financially, at the voting booth, and in your meetings. It may sound counterintuitive to support someone you disagree with but the whole point is to use him to get third parties involved in the process going forward. Face it. Only a Rep or Dem will become president in January 2009. That’s a reality we all know (and if you don’t, then well, share your drugs with the rest of us). So, support Ron Paul this time so in the future we can have a more democratic process that involves third parties. Without him as President nothing will change. Do it for your party. Do it for your future as viable parties.
December 30th, 2007 at 1:55 am
Paul has a much better chance than Phillies or any other LP candidate at winning the presidency. I’m an LP member, I even ran for Congress as a Libertarian in 2006, but we also have to be realistic. Paul has energized libertarianism, and we as a party should (tacitly) support him. Even if we can’t give party money directly, I imagine that many Libertarians like myself are voting for Paul in the primaries. What is more important, libertarian ideas in office or the furthering of the party?
December 30th, 2007 at 2:01 am
Breaking News from Austin Breaking News from Austin
(Texas, not Cassidy)
More fallout as the press picks up on the Ron Paul issue and names names and quotes numbers (visit the site then find on the page libertarian):
http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase/Issue/story?oid=oid:575573
December 30th, 2007 at 2:28 am
If the LP Bylaws can be changed by the LNC on a whim or by “ordinary means” the Bylaws are meaningless. If the Bylaws can be changed by the LNC whenever they want the Bylaws should be trashed and we ought to allow the LNC to operate without any restrictions. It seams the wishes of the delegates mean nothing.
Of course the LP Bylaws can only be changed by the delegates at convention. The Bylaws cannot be changed by the LNC, Ron Paul, Ron Paul’s staff, Ron Paul’s allies, or by any one else. Only the delegates at convention can change the Bylaws.
Jim said .” Its amazing to me anyone would be so stuck on party by-laws . . .” What is being said by this statement? The Bylaws do not matter. The Bylaws mean nothing. Do not be stuck on them. Pay them no attention. Violate them at will.
Some who are happy with what is happening in the LP are not even members of the Party. They are members of the RLC. The RLC wants from us (the LP) what they will not give to us. From the RLC website . . . Question: Will the RLC support an LP candidate? The RLC does not support LP candidates in a race where there is a GOP candidate. So the RLC will not support our candidates but we (the LP) are supposed to support candidates of the RLC (Ron Paul is a RLC member).
It seams I am in the minority but I will have no part of it. I will not support Ron Paul. I will not vote for Ron Paul. And I will work at next years convention to assist in making the changes needed in the LNC to move the Party forward.
December 30th, 2007 at 2:32 am
Nick Sarwark, if you are the Mr. X posting above, you probably should have disclosed that you’re the Maryland Phillies campaign organizer: http://phillies2008.org/maryland
Nick, didn’t you endorse Kinky Friedman for Governor of Texas in the general election (not just the primary period, but the general election when there was a Libertarian on the ballot) on the old Hammer of Truth blog?
Nick, your Maryland state LP actually nominated a Green Party candidate for US Senate in 2006, Kevin Zeese http://www.md.lp.org/newsletters/v28n2.pdf and I believe your state government ruled that nomination was illegal and disregarded it.
Nick, given your concerns about the Ron Paul recruitment effort by the LNC, I do hope you weren’t one of those who voted to nominate Zeese (and I have no idea whether or not you were part of that).
Nick, I also hope you are one who is supporting the nomination of Libertarian Party candidates for Congress for 2008 in Maryland, and not one of those who is working to put up barriers to Libertarians offering to serve as candidates in Maryland.
If you’ve made some bad decisions in the past, I will not be disappointed if you change your mind for the future.
December 30th, 2007 at 2:33 am
When Ron is done as a Republican, the Constitution and Lib parties will both probably court him. Whichever one gets him will have just taken a leap forward. He might even get 10% in the general.
Whichever one doesn’t get him will flounder with the also-ran.
December 30th, 2007 at 3:04 am
Don’t cut your nose to spite your face. I’m not in the Libertarian Party (big-L) but Ron Paul is a man that you know you can (and should) get behind. There are some big guns firing at Ron Paul now that his head has risen above the barricades. Stand with him and not against him.
December 30th, 2007 at 3:14 am
Mad dog,
Phillies does not use “draconian and ruthless tactics.” Hillary Clinton and Karl Rove use draconian and ruthless tactics. As I said at the beginning of these comments, “I find Phillies to be a little irritating, but not too harmful.” He’s a two-time loser for LNC Chair. Robert Milnes with better organizational skills.
Steve Gordon,
I told you you would be good for the ratings on this blog. Great job!
My all-time favorite Phillies quote was from his Dec 9, 2007 press release:
“. . . I am perfectly prepared to sharpen the brass knuckles.”
That’s nearly exaggerilla material:
http://wesbenedictforlnc.blogspot.com/2007/12/exaggerilla.html
Phillies should not be demonized. He’s what makes being in the Libertarian Party fun.
Are there any cartoonists who read this blog? I can envision a cartoon sketch of Phillies running down the center aisle of the Denver convention towards the stage wearing his cardigan sweater with his arms flailing (sharpened brass knuckles engaged) and tripping over, maybe a Starchild boot, and landing on top of and squishing and killing the Monarch when he’s in the middle of a motion to adjourn the convention, of course with Phillies landing on his own brass knuckles and impaling himself. But, I’m not a cartoonist so I can’t draw this and share it with everyone.
December 30th, 2007 at 3:45 am
Winning federal-level seats would be a whole lot more fun than watching Phillies morph into a hyperbosaurus every time certain names are mentioned.
December 30th, 2007 at 3:58 am
I can understand the excitement among libertarian capitalists, bith in the LP and outside, with Ron Paul. But until that time when Mr. Paul seeks the LP nomination, it does seem a dangerous road for a third party to start supporting major party candidates.
The Greens took a defacto support of Kerry by running their infamously diasterous “safe states” campaign, and that nearly destroyed them (It should have led to the voting out of office of the clique that has run the party since 1996, but that another TPW invstigative report I’m looking forward too.
On the other hand, I can see where the LNC would want to be nice to Ron Paul because he might make a great candidate for them come Nov ‘08, but until then, it seems ill advised for third parties to get sucked into working for the majors.
December 30th, 2007 at 6:30 am
I have run three times as an LP candidate and been involved with the party for 30 years—no more. When they start supporting a Republican with a history of xenophobic positions they have lost me. Paul is NO libertarian. He was marginal in 1988 and has become much worse since then. The Libertarian Party is no longer worthy of support and doesn’t have mine. I have only voted LP since joining the LP in 1978. Now I hope the party crashes and goes out of business. Tying libertarianism to the new Ron Paul with his bizarre conspiracy theories about NAFTA superhighways and bankers, his anti-abortion postion and his immigration views which sound damn racist to me is far too much to stomach. The only reason I don’t support Phillies is that I now believe the LP needs to be closed down post haste.
December 30th, 2007 at 9:35 am
The Libertarian Party of Orange County, FL just endorsed a Republican Mayoral candidate for election. This is a positive step.
You all know I’m a huge critic of Ron Paul. But if an endorsement of Paul from the LNC is what it took to get the LP to open up to endorsing other good Republicans, I’m all for it.
Thank you Libertarian Party. After 35 years, you’ve finally come around to acknowledging that the LP is indeed an arm of the GOP, much the same as the Conservative Party in NY is to the Republicans up there.
December 30th, 2007 at 10:07 am
Dondero: “Thank you Libertarian Party. After 35 years, you’ve finally come around to acknowledging that the LP is indeed an arm of the GOP,”
It does no such thing, because vast numbers of Republicans (just go to Free Republic) have long insisted that Paul is a leftist, anarchist, lunatic, anti-semite, racist, America-hater, Islamo-terrorist lover, etc., etc.—and that he is NOT a Republican or conservative.
You can’t go around smearing Paul as a leftist non-Republican, and then suddenly claim him as a Republican.
And no, the LP is not an arm of the GOP. The LP is overwhelming antiwar, which the GOP is not. Nothing the LNC did changes that—rather, the LNC has confirmed the divide between the LP and GOP by nominating the one candidate that makes Giuliani & Warmongers barf.
December 30th, 2007 at 10:09 am
Dana Brown, we don’t need no stinkin’ bylaws.
December 30th, 2007 at 10:10 am
Dear Wes,
(1) I am a Maryland coordinator for Phillies. This doesn’t change the clear reading of the policy manual and bylaws.
(2) I personally endorsed Kinky Friedman for Governor of Texas. I did not do so in any official capacity as a Libertarian Party officer or spend any Libertarian Party funds to support his campaign.
(3) The Maryland LP did nominate Kevin Zeese for Senate. He was the only candidate who sought the nomination at our convention, he paid his dues and joined the party, and most of the issues he was stressing were compatible with our positions. I did vote for his nomination over NOTA.
The ruling from the state board of elections was actually that he could not have two ballot lines, i.e. “Kevin Zeese – Libertarian” and “Kevin Zeese – Green,” and that he would be listed under the line that matched his most recent voter registration card, which was Green. They did not find it “illegal.” Furthermore, since he was duly nominated by the Maryland LP, it would have been proper to spend LP on his candidacy under the language of the policy manual that prohibits spending funds on the candidates of other parties.
(4) I don’t have any concerns about the LNC invitation to Ron Paul to seek the nomination. I think it was fine, though I don’t see why a Republican who had raised as much money as he had would drop out of the Republican nomination contest as early as the LP convention. George has those concerns, I do not share them. What I do have concerns with is emails from Shane Cory where he says that over $1,000 of LNC money will be spend to buy the NH Republican voter lists for the exclusive use of volunteers for Ron Paul (as no LP candidates were allowed to use BallotBase in NH). Explain to me how that doesn’t clearly violate the Policy Manual provisions about campaign spending.
(5) I have no idea what you’re talking about re: “barriers.”
At the end of the day, the Bylaws don’t change because this particular Republican is a really good candidate that agrees with our Party on a lot of issues. Spending LNC money to support a non-Libertarian candidate is a violation of the Bylaws.
December 30th, 2007 at 11:14 am
All this griping, moaning and groaning over a guy who stands no chance at securing squat.
George, try to run a city council before the largest free-market economy on the planet.
Seriously, all this bickering over a guy who stands no chance!
December 30th, 2007 at 12:07 pm
To Jeff, Phillies and the gang it’s time to cut the crap and your love for the Lp your trying to schill us with. tell the truth your a bunch of guys that could care less about America and your current attempt to divide proves it. I say get lost and go play in your sand box, we have a country to unite and that’s alot more important. Praise the ones who unite us.
December 30th, 2007 at 1:06 pm
The LNC has completely forgotten several important things.
First, there are a lot of Libertarians who came originally from the Democratic Party and do not feel that Libertarians are simply an offshoot of the wayward-needs-fixing Republican Party. They care deeply about the personal freedoms guaranteed in the Constitution (and yes, many still need to be trained in economics, but that’s in progress), and feel that support of Ron Paul from the LNC constitutes nothing short of a complete betrayal. He has not shown clear support for separation of church and state – pushing issues that should not be government’s business down to the state level is not separation.
Secondly, even in the (in my opinion, given previous monkey business by the Republicans, completely impossible) scenario where Ron Paul wins the nomination for the Republicans, what outfit is out there to ensure that the views he holds and the changes he would like to make have a snowball’s chance in hell of being implemented? The LNC has blown an incredible opportunity to be out there supporting candidates for Congress, to have the will of the people for more responsible representation heard and responded to. I know many people believe the current Republican Party will suddenly shift tack to new directions if they have a chance to win, but the moneyed interests will not stand for it, and even if Ron Paul is elected to the Presidency, he will have the same problems as any Libertarian would, shoveling you-know-what against the tide.
The LNC could well have followed the ideal of “a high tide floats all boats” but not by supporting Paul—by having a large number of candidates out there well funded, marketed and ready to go when the Republican Party shows their true colors. Even those who support Ron Paul and hoped to have him nominated as a Libertarian in the event he didn’t win the Rep nomination should be able to see that having Congressional candidates who could help Libertarian issues get through Congress would be important, and many I’ve talked to would vote for a Libertarian if the nominee for the Republicans were, say, Rudy Giuliani.
Which, of course, brings us to the problem we don’t talk about. We have not had the kind of support from the Libertarians in our own party that many are now giving Ron Paul. Yes, he is a unique individual, with unique qualifications to bring to the office, and personalities always make a difference in politics, but at the same time, many folks who have claimed to be Libertarians for years, now spending money wildly on the Ron Paul campaign, never sent a plug nickle to the Libertarian Party candidates or even showed any signs of running themselves; there’s a lot of posturing. Our party has not had the skills to play together, put aside our differences, and push hard in one direction—to get Libertarian candidates in office so that we can start to see actual changes—we much prefer to take verbal positions, so that we can engage in our favorite activity, taking pot shots at one another. A house divided, indeed.
Bylaws schmylaws is a very libertarian attitude. It does not, however, answer the issue. For years, we’ve told everyone that the Libertarian Party believes in two things, Personal Freedom and Individual Responsibility. We’ve told everyone we believe in following the Constitution as written. Our leaders have taken those positions well aware of the constitution of the LP and its bylaws and have had no problems using them against us (requirements for affiliates and such), and therefore they do have a responsibility to be consistent. We tell people they can’t avoid all risks in life by having government run everything. We tell them that yes, it’s harder to get by without the “protections” of things like the Patriot Act, and there might be some risks to operating with a more free society, but that is as the Constitution intended; folks should be responsible for their own stuff and government should be limited.
But, when we’ve been struggling with low percentages for years, as soon as we see a short cut, there we are, bending the rules. It’s hard to think folks won’t see that as hypocrisy.
I would like to see every Ron Paul supporter, Libertarian or Republican, showing up for the Libertarian National Convention in May in Denver (www.denverlpcon.com) to bring up all of these issues. If they want to elect a new LNC, fine. If they want to attend all the speaker events and mingle with all those Libertarian and libertarian folks who might be running for Congress in the near future, that would help all libertarian-leaning candidates. If they want to show the world that something is indeed changing; if they want to show it’s not just about one personality cult, and folks really do want a libertarian world, they should show up. If they’ve learned campaigning skills that can be used to help Libertarian candidates planning to run in 2008, they should offer to do breakout sessions, so those candidates can win.
Wanting change and talking about it only gets us as far as we’ve gotten. Talk and cross talk.
As the folks who have pushed Ron Paul’s candidacy into tv living rooms know, what matters is showing up, being there, and doing the work.
Hope to see you all in May.
December 30th, 2007 at 1:32 pm
“But if an endorsement of Paul from the LNC is what it took to get the LP to open up to endorsing other good Republicans, I’m all for it.”
This proves part of my point right there. People with bad intentions, like Eric Dondero, will use this resolution as a way to show that there is precedent for the LP to keep endorsing Republicans.
December 31st, 2007 at 2:48 am
The striking thing is how successful the Paul campaign is, and now unsuccessful the pragmatic sacrifice-principle-to-win LP campaigns are across the country. In last year’s contest for Indiana Sec. of State, the LP candidate’s prominent positions were 1) that the Bureau of Motor Vehicles should be under the control of (surprise!) the Sec. of State, 2) that electronic voting machines should provide a paper trail, 3) gerrymandering is bad, and 4} in favor of higher voter turnout. The candidate announced his pride in serving as job as a permit issuer for the county in which he resides. This is what passes for a pro-freedom candidate in the LP, a party which has trashed its once fine platform and ceases to have any importance even to most libertarians. Ron Paul will make a mistake running as an LP candidate unless the party undergoes major reformation and the pragmatists are purged.
December 31st, 2007 at 10:58 am
Nicholas Martin, if Ron Paul doesn’t like the LP as is, good riddance. Purge the pragmatists? Asshole.
December 31st, 2007 at 1:03 pm
I have been VERY active in the LP since ‘99 and an elected Libertarian (Trustee, town of Frederick, CO)... That said, I both agree and disagree with the LNC’s actions. First, they did not ‘endorse’ Ron Paul, they invited him to run on our ticket. As I read it, this is NOT against our bylaws. More importantly, it is a smart strategic move. Let’s face it, the Ron Paul revolution is the best thing that has happened to the freedom movement in this country since the victory at Yorktown. Let’s address another fact, Ron Paul will not likely pick up the Republican nomination (he’s a long-shot to even make it onto the primary ballot in states with a caucus system such as Colorado). As such, his followers will likely soon be homeless and will need to know that there is a political party that supports his philosophy (at least most of it). The next fact is that Dr. Paul will likely not take the LP up on it’s offer, he has stated that he will not run on 3rd party ticket when asked recently. Thus, if he does not make it through the primaries (most likely scenario), there will be a lot of Paul supporters looking for a home! The LP MUST position itself as that home! Mr. Phillies would do well to consider these facts. If these things play out, and Mr. Phillies gets the LP’s nomination, he could get the highest Libertarian presidential vote total ever(!) as a result of an action by the LNC that he opposes. Humm, isn’t irony great?
All of this said, I believe that the LNC should not have ‘given’ Ballot Base to the Paul campaign simply because this – I believe – IS a violation of our bylaws. What I believe should have been done is that they (LNC) agree to allow it to be used, but must be paid for in-full by either the Paul campaign, or donations (which could have been raised by anyone – libertarians included – - I would have donated to that worthy cause). While Dr Paul is a LP member in good standing, he is not running as a Libertarian candidate, and so we (the LNC) shouldn’t be giving monetary aid (but I do feel that we should have given him access to Ballot Base provided that the costs were covered). While I feel that this issue must be dealt with, it is small beans compared to the great good that welcoming hundreds of thousands misplaced Paul supporters should Dr. Paul not make it onto the Ballot for next November, will do for the LP - again, look at the odds. It’s called strategy people – and it’s what we have been missing for 30+ years. So in short Bravo to the LNC for the forward looking intentions – shame on you for not covering your bases and keeping it within the bylaws – please issue an apology for this oversight, show receipts that prove that you have since raised funds to reimburse this move (or raise them soon), and let’s all move on, we have an election season upon us.
PS, as for the fact that he is running as a Republican and not a Democrat, I would feel the same way if there was a strong LP member running on the Democratic ticket.
December 31st, 2007 at 1:26 pm
Jeff wrote:
“When Joe Lieberman ran in Conn, he obviously had a lot of Republican support.”
Yes. Wayne Root, for example:
http://www.newsmeat.com/fec/bystate_detail.php?st=NV&last=Root&first=Wayne
December 31st, 2007 at 9:48 pm
Mr. Phillies, have you heard of the word “fusion” or do you rather like the non-major party ghetto you operate in?
You face the fact right now that even if you win the LP nomination for President you will not win the White House and will in fact continue the downward trend of total votes for LP presidential candidates since 1984.
That’s why the LNC made the bold decision they did and that’s why many Libertarians, large L and small, are working for RP. They’re trying to make an impact rather than a point and I fully encourage them to do so.
January 4th, 2008 at 4:18 pm
I’ve been busy of late, but just found time to graze through all of this – and find it typical of LP’ers (as well as most other groups).
Wouldn’t it be nice if we could be kind to one another, even when we disagree? But, I digress.
Many people are sounding off on misinformation – which I believe is furthered by the Phillies campaign.
First, there is/was NO endorsement of Ron Paul’s candidacy by the LNC - as my friend Joe points out, it was merely an invitation to become another of the several LP cnadidates IF he fails to get anywhere with that other party.
Second, allowing a contingent of his supporters (not a part of his actual campaign) to make use of our ballot base program (which, although created by an LNC board member, is not owned by the LP!) and using funds we were going to spend for its use by us in NH anyway (which, by the way, resulted in a significant increase in donations to our party last month equal to triple the cost – which allows us to proceed and will likely also pay off in additional contacts for the program’s use by us) is not only not a violation of anything written, but is a very sly move frfom which we should reap many future benefits.
Unless, of course, sore “losers” get in the way and whine too much.
Anyway, folks – get the facts straight before you spout off and look like fools.