Past as prologue? Hostile takeovers and third parties

One of the recurring themes of third party politics in America seems to be the phenomenon of the “hostile takeover.” A disgruntled major party politician, an eccentric multi-millionaire, or perhaps a group of major party factional schemers decides that rather than working within the party of their putative loyalty, or perhaps forming a new party, they’ll just move in on a third party, take it over, remake it in their own image, and then …

... well, what usually happens then is that the victimized third party either beats the takeover attempt, or else it gets wrung out and hung out, left an empty shell of its former self to be blown away by the winds of history, while the schemers move on to their next scheme. The next time that a third party wins the presidency by letting itself be mounted and stuffed on the trophy wall of a “big name” will be the first time.

Is the cycle coming around again? You tell me. As loath as I am to get conspiracy-minded, I’ve been hearing certain names bandied around Libertarian Party circles, and those names have histories.

The first name: Russ Verney. As in “my friend, Russ Verney, who will be managing my campaign if I choose to run.”

The second name: Richard Viguerie. As in “myself, [American Conservative Union chairman] Dave Keene, [conservative direct-mail pioneer] Richard Viguerie and hopefully a number of others feel [these issues] are extremely important and go to the core of constitutional liberties in this country. So we’re going to focus on those efforts …”

“My” and “myself,” of course, being former Republican congressman Bob Barr, who will reportedly announce his candidacy for the Libertarian Party’s 2008 presidential nomination next Monday.

Seeing these two names associated with Barr and Barr’s embryonic campaign (I have good reason to believe that Viguerie is advising Barr’s exploratory committee, although I’ve seen no formal announcement to that effect; and Viguerie recently replaced Barr as keynote speaker for the LP’s upcoming national convention) bothered me, but it took me awhile to figure out why.

The first piece of the puzzle fell into place for me just the other day when TPW ran an article on Jesse Ventura’s possible LP presidential aspirations. That article sparked my recollection that it was Verney, in the midst of a feud with Ventura, who delivered the Reform Party to the “Buchanan Brigades” in 2000, setting the stage for the RP’s de facto demise as a functioning national political organization.

The second piece of the puzzle clicked in this afternoon in correspondence with Darcy G. Richardson, who has given me permission to quote his account of the 1976 American Independent Party convention:

[I]t is interesting to note that Viguerie himself has a bit of a largely untold personal history when it comes to attempting to hijack a nationally-organized third-party. Shortly after Ronald Reagan was narrowly defeated by President Ford at the Republican national convention in Kansas City during the summer of 1976, a sulking Viguerie—a leading Reagan supporter who had failed to persuade several others, including North Carolina’s Jesse Helms and New Hampshire’s Meldrim Thomson, to mount a third-party candidacy that autumn—announced that he intended to personally seek the American Independent Party’s vice-presidential nomination on a ticket headed by relatively obscure newspaper columnist Robert Morris, a 61-year-old Dallas lawyer who once served as counsel for the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee. The AIP’s national convention was held at the Conrad Hilton in Chicago only ten days after the GOP convention in Kansas City.

Viewing the AIP as a potential cash cow and a vehicle for disappointed Reaganites, Viguerie was strongly supported in his 1976 scheme by the National Review’s William Rusher and even had the tacit backing of William F. Buckley, Jr. They also had the support of Lester Logue, a wealthy Texas oilman who was then chairing the Committee for the New Majority. Logue promised to raise $500,000—a decent sum in 1976—for the ticket if the AIP nominated Morris and Viguerie.

Fortunately, Viguerie’s plans to steamroll the AIP’s national convention in Chicago were derailed by the ever prescient William K. Shearer of California, the witty and colorful founder of the American Independent Party …. Wise to their game, Shearer, who had been actively supporting former Louisiana congressman John Rarick for the party’s top spot, immediately threw his support to Lester Maddox, enabling the controversial former governor of Georgia to narrowly prevail on the convention’s first and only ballot. Shearer, who co-chaired the national convention, even invoked the unit rule in California, which had been nearly evenly divided between Maddox, Rarick and Morris, so that he could deliver his state’s 45 votes to Maddox. Though he was later harshly criticized for invoking the unit rule in his home state, Shearer essentially saved his party from a hostile takeover.

“The Rusher-Viguerie element had tried to drive their Cadillac through the convention with a New York license plate on it,” recalled Shearer, “and we [the American Independent Party] had just plain Yankee trapped them.” He also poignantly added that the AIP had been “targeted for a rape that didn’t come off.”

When their takeover attempt failed, Viguerie and Rusher stomped out of the convention, denouncing the AIP as a “perpetual fringe group” that “had turned inward, backward and downward.” Viguerie also told the New York Times that the AIP had essentially “written themselves off” as a serious political entity by rejecting his proposed ticket. Bill Buckley even chimed in, suggesting that in nominating Maddox, the American Independent Party had emerged from “the fever swamp of the berserk right.”

Is a hostile takeover of the LP —by “the usual suspects,” no less—under way? And if so, will the LP reject it as the AIP did, go into the dustbin of history next to the Reform Party, or just possibly become the exception to the rule which has thus far had no exceptions—the third party which becomes successful, even if on terms other than its own, under its new and foreign management?

Side note: Darcy G. Richardson is the author of the most extensive and comprehensive available history of third party politics in the United States, titled Others. That history is currently four volumes in length, with a fifth volume forthcoming, and I heartily recommend it (I’m in the middle of the second volume myself, and it is a wild and wonderful read).

137 Responses to “Past as prologue? Hostile takeovers and third parties”

  1. Gordon is a Dick Says:

    Knapp, you figured that out all by yourself. The Retard Caucus will allow a takeover thanks to your butt buddy Gordon. Skankfuck Rootards will vote in a whore if it had a reality show. Gordon, good going you dipshit.

    Has Root stopped talking about kid fucking yet?

  2. Eric Dondero Says:

    When Perot’s campaign was first launched in early 1992 it was heavily influenced and even run by libertarians. One of the very first backers of Perot was Florida Reformer Jack Gargan of “Throw the Bums Out” fame. Jack was a close friend of Florida Libertarians Nick Dunbar and Rex Curry.

    Later in the Perot effort numerous Libertarians were involved in the top levels of the movement, folks like Ray Holtorf who was Perot’s Iowa Coordinator. Ray moved on to serve as a Libertarian Party member afterwards and as Republican Liberty Caucus Iowa Chair for 10 years. (Ray is now deceased.) And Ray was just one example.

    To say that Russ Vearny and the Perot movement are mere “fellow travelers” with Libertarians is an utter absurdity. Were Libertarians “fellow travelers” with Reformers in 1992, when the numerous Libertarians disgruntled with the Andre Marrou effort joined Perot?

    You can’t have it both ways. Libertarians have been involved with Perot’s various efforts for years. It’s natural that Vearny and other Reformers would swing the LP’s way in this election cycle.

    Sad to see Tom Knapp wanting to run them out of the Party.

  3. Eric Dondero Says:

    If there’s any “hostile takeover” in the works its coming from the Left. More specifically Moveon.org, DailyKos, and George Soros. Moveon.org activists infiltrated the Ron Paul for President campaign in at least 3 states in 2007 – Wisconsin, Nevada (most severely), and California.

    Markous Moulitas in late 2006 famously urged his DailyKosers to “reach out” to Libertarians and to even get involved with them politically.

    Soros is heavily behind both DailyKos and Moveon.

    Here at TPW we see a pervasive far Left attitude amongst numerous posters straight out of DailyKos.

    If there’s any infiltration or hostile takeover going on its by Leftwing Anarchist, trying to turn the Libertarian Party into a carbon copy of the Leftwing of the Democrat Party.

    I wouldn’t be concerned about Centrists like the Perotistas getting involved with the LP.

  4. Gordon is a Dick Says:

    Dondero, take Gordon’s dick out of your mouth once in a while. We can smell that shit over here, you cock sucking baby killing Muslim hating mother fucker.
    If Verney wants to do something for the libertarian party, he should blow his brains out on CSpan. Verney is piece of shit. Barr is a full pile.

  5. NewFederalist Says:

    This makes perfect sense when taken together with the Milnes “Progressive Alliance” strategy and the Papal endorsement of Imperato!

  6. Jared Says:

    The Bull Moose Orden Bonaria Green Libertarian Fringe Alliance 2008!

    President: Robert Milnes!
    Vice President: Sir Daniel Imperato!
    Vice Vice President: Catholic Trotskyite!

  7. Steven R Linnabary Says:

    Ah Jeez, Tom.

    Now I won’t be able to sleep tonight!

    PEACE
    Steve

  8. Laura Jenkins Says:

    Thank You for the tip on the History of Third Parties.

    There has long been a significant group of hard working Independence/Green Party/Libertarians seeking a fusion 2008 candidate to build the nation’s third Major Party. Or at the very least reach the 5% threshold that would mean federal $$$.

    It is a fascinating race this year. Relative big names like Barr, and Mike Gravel, and Cynthia Mckinney are attracting attention necessary to build support.

  9. knapps ass pump Says:

    was that me blithering away about some trivial bullshit or did i just bloody fucking fart?

  10. knapps ass pump Says:

    “Here at TPW we see a pervasive far Left attitude amongst numerous posters straight out of DailyKos.”

    yes yes yes phillies is one of those assbags!

  11. knapps ass pump Says:

    if i could mount just one hostile ass takeover it would be against the young ‘yank’. where’s the ass? would i eat mary’s ass? are you going to vote for …...ass?

  12. Zeleni Says:

    Speaking of take overs: Laura Jenkins links to the Independent Greens of Virginia, which is an attempt to co-opt the actual Virginia Green Party! It was formed by a disgruntled ex-Green rabblerouser. They claim almost any independent candidate as their own and cause a lot of trouble for the real Greens in Virginia. A Bloomberg/Paul ticket would be interesting, but definitely not a Green Party ticket. Drop the Green in your name Jenkins!

  13. ElfNinosMom Says:

    Tom: We are apparently on the same wavelength, because just today I wrote about the many Republican candidates Barr supported, when there was a Libertarian opponent for that very same office. I’ve compiled information on multiple campaigns where this happened, while he was sitting on the LNC. In each case he supported a Republican with a minimum $1000 donation, while donating nothing to the Libertarian running for the same office.

    Just click on my name, it will take you directly to the entry.

    I suspect that’s just the tip of the veritable iceberg of explanation, regarding why Barr is waiting until only 10 days before the convention to announce. He could never withstand the level of scrutiny the other LP candidates have endured, and he knows it.

  14. G.E. Says:

    Good stuff, Knapp.

  15. benedicts anal gerbil Says:

    holy shit! helllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllp!

  16. Trollin Inshit Says:

    New Site: www.thirdpottywatch.com

  17. trollin fo skank Says:

    i make yu my bitch tonight mofo, hahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahaha

  18. Eric Garris Says:

    Brilliant and insightful!

  19. Stefan Says:

    ElfNinosMom:
    In defense of Barr, he supports libertarian minded Republicans, not any Republicans per se. Sen. John Sununu in the very libertarian NH voted against the Patriort Act, Military Commissions act and other big government initiatives and clashed with Bush. He is in a very marginal seat, so would it not be in the libertarian interest to support such a candidate? Bobby Jindal is also a very strong fiscal conservative gov. in LA. There are libertarians in the Republican, Libertarian, Reform, Independence, Constitutional and Democratic parties, not only in the LP!
    Should one not support the principle, also if it goes across parties?

    There are candidates for congress from the GOP, LP, CP, Democatic and running as Independents who associate themselves with the platform of Ron Paul for instance. Is this not a legitimate strategy? I heard the Constitutional Party for instance would also support a GOP candidate and field now own candidate where they feel the candidate is very close to their platform/ideals.

    For the future, depending how things develop, it is always feasible/possible, that libertarian minded politicians from different parties could combine and form an own party. And would it not have much bigger effect if some of these people are sitting congress members, with political power?

  20. Peter Orvetti Says:

    Is it true Barr’s Monday news conference has been cancelled?

  21. Daniel N. Adams Says:

    Disinformation can be powerful, whether it is taken as a lie and hotly contested or if it is taken as truth and adamantly defended. It assists a divide and conquer tactic. The only way to successfully defeat its potential is to discount it and move on.

    I was an active member of the Reform movement, it lead me to the Libertarian Party. I witnessed its demise first hand. My advise is to continue to work together to grow the freedom movement and place conspiracy prognostication on ignore. It holds today as a good metaphor of what I believe Franklin said during the our original battle for freedom… “we better hang together… or we’ll definitely be hanged separately.”

  22. Thomas L. Knapp Says:

    Eric,

    Sometimes it’s frustrating that the unique combination of poor reading comprehension and reckless disregard for fact and truth which comprise your arguments require such long debunking sessions. But, I guess I’ll live and here we go. You write:

    “To say that Russ Vearny and the Perot movement are mere ‘fellow travelers’ with Libertarians is an utter absurdity.”

    Perhaps it is, but I need not argue the point … because I never made any such statement.

    “Were Libertarians ‘fellow travelers’ with Reformers in 1992, when the numerous Libertarians disgruntled with the Andre Marrou effort joined Perot?”

    Maybe they were. However, I am not talking about “fellow travelers,” and indeed you are the only one implying any such thing.

    Interestingly, I can name two people who are now LP members, but who weren’t in 1992, who were involved in Perot’s campaign.

    One of those two is Stephen Gordon, who once worked for Perot’s company and, I seem to recall, volunteered on the 1992 campaign.

    The other one is, um, me. I gathered signatures for Perot in 1992 (as a volunteer, not paid), and voted for him. At that time I was not, and had never been, affiliated with the LP. I did request an information pack from the LP that year, but found the David Bergland quote that jumped out at me (“Not utopia, just better”) boring and uninspiring. And Perot was interesting and inspiring, so my conversion to libertarianism happened later, and my affiliation with the LP later yet. At that time, I had considered myself at least nominally a Republican (oh, the hell with nominally—I subscribed to National Review and around that time told a Democrat who approached me at some event with a candidate brochure that I was to the right of Pat Buchanan—the folly of youth!), but I had pledged that if Bush I broke his “no new taxes” pledge, I’d find someone else to vote for. He did, and I did.

    “You can’t have it both ways. Libertarians have been involved with Perot’s various efforts for years. It’s natural that Vearny and other Reformers would swing the LP’s way in this election cycle.”

    Russ Verney is not just “other Reformers.” Russ Verney was the chairman of the Reform Party and the leader of its “Perot faction.” When a rank and file member like me moves between parties, it’s no big thing. When a party leader does that, it IS a big thing. Interestingly, however, it looks like I was wrong that Verney was behind the Buchanan takeover, even though some sources seem to imply that.

    According to Buchanan 2000 backer Justin Raimondo (who seemingly changes his party support status about as often as most people change underwear, having gone from the LP to the GOP to the Buchananized Reform Party to Nader and, in this cycle alone, from Ron Paul to Barack Obama with various fakes and feints in between), Verney led the resistance to the Buchanan takeover and chaired a rump convention that instead nominated Natural Law Party takeover artist John Hagelin. Geez, sometimes it’s difficult to tell the players even WITH a scorecard.

    “Sad to see Tom Knapp wanting to run them out of the Party.”

    It would indeed be sad to see it if you saw it. But you didn’t see it. I said nothing about wanting to “run them out of the party.” I simply raised reasonable questions, based on their past records, as to their intentions for the party. Big difference.

    To be clear on this:

    – I don’t know if Verney/Viguerie/Barr et al are attempting a “hostile takeover” as opposed to simply acting on a real political conversion. I just believe that it’s a reasonable possibility and that it bears examination.
    – I don’t know if a Verney/Viguerie/Barr takeover, if one is in the offing, would improve the party from my personal viewpoint or not. I suspect it would not, and I’m inclined to be part of the resistance to such a takeover, but I’m also prepared to look at what transpires if a takeover is what’s going on and if it succeeds, and act based on what I see rather than on what I expected to see before I saw.
    – I don’t believe that any party is “entitled” not to be taken over. If a party isn’t strong enough to resist a takeover, it wasn’t strong enough to be successful on its own hook, either. Parties come and go. Parties are born and die. Parties merge and are taken over. That’s life. I hope that the LP survives. I hope it remains libertarian as I define the term. I don’t think I’m entitled to have it do either. All I’m entitled to do is fight for what I want and win or lose.

  23. Trollin Inshit Says:

    Go to ThirdPottyWatch.com

  24. Trollin Inshit Says:

    Piss away your live at turdpottywatch.com

  25. Trollin Inshit Says:

    Lay some cable down at www.turdpottywatch.com.

  26. End the Empire Says:

    The Verney ran campaign was the worst “well funded” third party campaign in our lifetimes. Not a single electorial college vote. Not one. There’s one fact you all need to know. Verney is a PROVEN failure as a CM. It shows to me Barr doesn’t possess very good judgement.

    If he does enter monday, could it have been planned this way to shill him from the debates that would have exposed him for what he is, a libertarian leaning CONservative? I have stated before, Root is more of a libertarian than Barr is and he would be a better LP VP candidate than “unfair” TAX Barr.

    To keep the LP from splitting, the ticket needs to be balanced. Surely the Party is smart enough to not be fooled into a “takeover”. With that accomplished you should place one of the non-purists under the purists that wins the POTUS nomination. That will hold it together and possibly promote growth.

    If a split comes, it comes. After visiting here for a couple of months, I see the LP would be much better off with a few of these dim bulbs excluded from all future Party fun. This bitching and infighting must stop if the Party is to grow in the months ahead. People here are fighting each other when we should have both barrels aimed and unloaded on the Ds & Rs…

    Wish I could witness the convention live and in person ! Can anyone tell me where I can get info about the convention happenings other than here ? I enjoy different angles of one story. With multiple opinions I think you can come to a better conclusion. I enjoyed Bradford’s ramblings, when he was alive, in Liberty, but I understand Browne said most of his reporting was lies. Bradford always got some “inside scoop” to keep it interesting to his readers…

  27. Trollin Inshit Says:

    Pee freely at www.turdpottywatch.com.

  28. Michael Seebeck Says:

    For a “takeover” to occur, that means what? Getting a majority on the LNC ExCom and JudCom and bamboozling the delegates to actually vote for that? They wouldn’t even have to get the Prez nominee since with the necessary majorities they could purge that later.

    That’s a pretty big order.

    In LPCO in 2002 there was a takeover attempt. It failed. That one we did see coming and took steps to avert, admittedly. But it takes a lot of planning, secrecy, and very subtle persuasion to make it work, and even more so among the hyper-cynics that exist in the LP.

    It could happen, but it would be difficult.

    But that’s not to say it couldn’t, either.

  29. Michael Seebeck Says:

    End, I’m pretty sure that a bunch of us will be blogging in Denver. Stay tuned is the best I can say. I don’t know if I will be or not on the elections part, but I most likely won’t be around for the Platform and Bylaws stuff (even though the Platform looks to be hyper-contentious, and the Bylaws proposals are mostly junk).

    Stephen, Thomas, are you going to be there?

  30. Robert Milnes Says:

    Tom, I’ve already written how I regret signing the AFA statement. Not per se but that part of the intent is to reform the GOP. I have no desire to have ANYTHING to do with the GOP. I felt duped. & I also am very uncomfortable with the whole Verney/Viguerie/Barr interface with the gop & LP. & was against RP/RP by pure instinct alone. I feel manipulated in that the whole ordeal I’ve been through with my house has been things out of my control & been unable to affect thus the end result my campaign has been a failure & now I can’t even manage to get to Denver. I note that YOU YOURSELF was not going to go & now will but barely able to make it, what with posting on LFV for a ride. On the other hand, I’m sure Verney/Viguerie/Barr will be there. & then there was the whole smear at Mary with the secondary attempt by Root to influence HER candidacy. After I’ve called for Milnes/Ruwart as the best ticket for several months. So the top 2 contenders for the LP nomination are extremely suspect in my opinion. In my life I’ve noted that GENERALLY SPEAKING under present circumstances the more money & political power, the more counterrevolutionary. Thus I and the progressive alliance are financially down & politically weak.

  31. Tbryant Says:

    Those who dont get their way pout and scream “hostile takeover”

    Barr has been on the LNC for about two years. I have heard from another LNC member that he votes pretty radical. He’s worked his butt off to earn the support of leading medical marijuana activists. He’s known for being anti-patriot act.

    It’s strange that someone would view a very politically active LNC member as hostile to the LP.

    Of course, the very notion of a hostile takeover is silly. If Barr gets the majority of the delegate support, that’s the will of the party. What’s hostile about giving the majority of the delegates something they want?

    As for contributing to Republican candidates, that’s another silly argument. Many Libertarians have contributed to Republicans such as Ron Paul.

  32. Robert Milnes Says:

    Tbryant, I’ve put a LOT of thought into this. The BEST we can do is form a progressive government which the LP would be a very important part. “Slow revolution is better than no revolution.” That would be for the LP to work with the libertarian & progressive & anarchistic left (e.g.Milnes) & the libertarian anarchists (e.g. Ruwart). & Work with the GP. Barr et al are pulling the LP in the OPPOSITE direction i.e. counterrevolutionary. Reform & work in & through & with the GOP. Which direction does the LP/delegates want?

  33. Catholic Trotskyist Says:

    Hostile takeovers of third parties are good because third parties are worthless anyway. ONLY WHEN THEY COMBINE TO SUPPORT THE FRINGE ALLIANCE STRATEGY WILL THEY BE WORTH ANYTHING. And the LORD GOD OF HOSTS SAID “EVIL SHALL COME TO EVERY NATION, AND IN THE UNITED STATES IT SHALL END WITH THE REVOLUTIONARY GENERAL BARACK OBAMA.”

  34. Allen Hacker Says:

    Tom,

    What piques my curiosity is why you’re writing in the future tense about an event and consequences which took place 34 years ago?

    0

  35. susan santarini Says:

    Eric Dumbdildo NEVER SERVED in the Navy or any other service.

    When challenged, all he offers as “proof” is a single document, which is easily forged. No medals or certificates? No photos of him in uniform while serving his country? No withnesses?

    Nope, just one lousy, forged document.

    It’s all an act. Dumbdildo made it up, just like his name.

  36. disinter Says:

    A hostile takeover successfully occurred at “Reason”, I am sure they are trying the same with the LP. I think Ron Paul’s popularity spooked the establishment just a tad.

  37. Bill Wood Says:

    Peter Orvetti, yes Bob Barr’s press conference was canceled for Monday. Darn, I had already taken the day off to attend. I guess I’ll go fishing.

  38. disinter Says:

    It’s all an act. Dumbdildo made it up, just like his name.

    It is not secret that Dumbdero is a paid shill, which ties nicely into the subject at hand.

  39. disinter Says:

    or just possibly become the exception to the rule which has thus far had no exceptions—the third party which becomes successful

    Wasn’t the GOP a third party at one time?

    Of cource, the retard caucus would just LOVE for the LP to become another Republicrat party.

  40. Kevin Riley O'Keeffe Says:

    As I recall (I’m a little too young to remember this, but I used to be involved with a somewhat older lady who was there) the LP national convention in 1980 contained a substantial bloc that was horrified by the prospect of the Clark/Koch ticket. There was even talk of a “Kochtopus.” Yet the Clark/Koch ticket was the only time the LP ever broke 1% of the vote in a national election (albeit just barely), and now Ed Clark is a fondly remembered stalwart of libertarianism (both small and large-L).

    I’m still a little unclear what makes Bob Barr so unacceptable to Libertarians. Doesn’t he hold libertarian positions on just about every issue?

  41. Trollin Inshit Says:

    Hurl some puke at www.turdpottywatch.com

  42. Bill Woolsey Says:

    Knapp’s “analysis” is fundamentally incoherent.

    Well, maybe it makes a little bit of sense. For those
    people who like being big fish in a tiny, tiny pond.
    People who enjoy running the party apparatus or
    being candidates in hopeless races. Oh.. perhaps
    that is what a minor party is supposed to be all
    about.

    From that perspective, having outiders come in and do
    such things is a hostile takeover.

    But, in this situation, we have a claim that we have
    people interested in “using” the LP Presidential campaign
    to oppose unconstiutional overreaching by the federal
    executive in the aftermath of 911. The unitary theory
    of the exectutive, torture, detention without trail, etc.

    Now, I wouldn’t favor having an LP campaign that ran
    solely on those closely related issues. But, I think
    that it is entirely plausible that other “insiders” would favor
    doing this. So, if Barr wants to do this, and has convinced
    Verny and Viguerrie to come on board to help, this isn’t
    a hostile takeover.

    Oh.. I suppose if I were someone who hoped to have a job
    as fundraiser or campaign manager, maybe bringing in outside
    talent would be a problem. But, as it is, I could care less.

    Now, if Barr is really only going to carry on his ACLU speaking tour,
    it isn’t the end of the world. But it seems likely to me that he will
    run on real cuts in federal spending as well as against preventative
    war and nation builidng. So.. he is covering two other important
    issues… including the one that is most important to me (contra the
    neo-con foreign policy.)

    I have been a libertarian for more than 30 years. I started with the
    McBride campaign. I like the message that Barr apparently wants to
    promote. It is perfect for today. So, if the “hostile takeover” has to
    do with message, then, I see the proposed message as very good.

    In my opinion, a “hostile takeover” would require that those engineering
    the takeover get new people to become delegates to the convention.
    In our situation, I don’t think it would count if libertarians get involved in
    the LP (finally) and support some candidate. I wouldn’t even count
    it as a hostile takeover if the people attracted to Paul would have joined
    the LP and supported Barr. That is, people attracted to Paul’s libertarian
    message, gave up on the Republican Party moved to the LP, and supported some candidate who was even close to Paul that is Barr.
    (I think Barr has the best chance of the canddiates we have to gain
    support from Paulites and bring them to the LP, but I don’t see
    Paulites joining the LP to get Barr nominated.)

    No.. if Barr had a national consvervative following (not just a few friends,)
    and they all joined the LP and showed up at state conventions etc. Then,
    this would be a “hostile takeover.” I saw nothing like this at the SC LP
    convention. It was the usual handful that chose our delegation to
    Denver.

    By the way, Knapp’s story of Verney being behind the Buchanan takeover of the Reform Party is what gave his story a bit of traction. And now he takes that back. Verney tried to defend the Reform Party from Buchanan. So, there is nothing here.

    If there were a Buchananite “takeover” of the LP, I would be very unhappy. Buchanan’s foreign policy positions would be OK with me. (imperfect, in my view, but, OK.) Having an LP candidate play to role of traditionalist fighting the culture wars would be the worst possible situation. And Buchanan’s economic populism (raise working class incomes by reducing competition) would be nearly as bad.

    But I see no evidence that a Barr campaign would be like that at all.

    Cutting federal spending and promoting civil liberties are good libertarian
    possitions. It looks to me like the Barr campaign will downplay the
    “culture war” business. I think that is fine, for this election. (That’s a state issue is OK with me, though I would prefer a candidate who would,
    when pressed, give a personal preference on the libertarian side of these
    “wars,” and not a conservative one.)

    You know, I suppose there is a sense in which I am, personally, part of
    a “hostile takeover.” Why am I posting here? Because Barr might
    run. Otherwise, I, like many libertarians, would consider the LP a lost
    cause. First Badnarik, and then… whoever…

    But… even so… I didn’t run for delegate and won’t be going to Denver.
    So….. even if getting long-time libertarians involved again counts as a “hostile takeover,” I am not participating in directly. The voting for the
    sc delegation to the National convention wasn’t competitive. There was no “barr slate” to vote for!

  43. Eric Dondero Says:

    Shiver me Timbers! The infamous “Stefan” from L.A. endorsing a Bush enthusiast like Bobby Jindal of Louisiana?

    There’s hope for the boy yet.

  44. Eric Dondero Says:

    Goddamit Thomas! You done pissed me off.

    Justin Raimondo DOES NOT CHANGE HIS “UNDERWEAR” THAT OFTEN.

    It’s his “PANTIES” that he doesn’t change. As in P-A-N-T-I-E-S.

    I would kindly ask you to get that straight the next time you use such a metaphor. Otherwise, I will come down on you like a ton of bricks on a New York City worksite.

  45. NewFederalist Says:

    While this all makes for interesting reading (well, sort of) the fact is why would anyone or group want to takeover the Libertarian Party? The only asset the party really has to offer is ballot status. As can be remembered from the experience with Arizona in 2000 the convention nominee does not always get the nod of state parties. If the goal is to fragment the party by expecting many states to ignore the convention’s choice, to what purpose? Does Viguerie really prefer Obama over McCain? Like it or not the MSM spins the tale that the LP takes votes from the GOP and the Greens take votes from the Dems. I just cannot see the motivation for a hostile takeover that is almost certain to fail.

  46. susan santarini Says:

    Look how Eric Dumbdildo tries to change the subject (and tries to sound like a real he-man) while running from me.

    You can run Dumbdildo, but you can’t hide.

    Just show us ONE PICTURE of YOU IN UNIFORM and I’ll shut up. Until then, you are a fraud AND a PUSSY!

  47. David from Texas Says:

    just to set the record straight on one item – the perot faction of the reform party did invite Pat in and supported him at first – then when they figured out that they were no longer runing the show and that Pat was going to campaign on social as well as trade and economic issues they tried to pull the rug out from under him invited in the Natural Law loonies and distroyed the reform party

  48. Annie Leibowitz Says:

    Hi Susan,

    You sound cute but remind me of another Susan that posts here often. Let’s get some drinks and talk about how Dr. Ruwart rules!

  49. Thomas L. Knapp Says:

    NewFederalist,

    You write:

    “While this all makes for interesting reading (well, sort of) the fact is why would anyone or group want to takeover the Libertarian Party? The only asset the party really has to offer is ballot status.”

    Ballot access is indeed one of the big prizes—and for an underfunded or late-breaking campaign, that can be make or break.

    But there’s more to it than that. The LP may not have the most effective organization, but it does have an EXISTING organization of active state and local affiliates. That means that the local grassroots efforts don’t have to be built quite as much from scratch. There are at least existing local contacts, and if those contacts didn’t go off the reservation from “takeover” heartburn, they can get right to work building on the existing local network to promote the campaign.

    Perot got around the lack of existing local organizations in 1992 in an interesting way, at least if southern Missouri was typical—he had devoted retirees from his company set up temporary HQs in RVs and go to work on ballot access and such, and I suspect most of the United We Stand state coordinators and such were also EDS personnel or retirees.

    The LP has a national office in Washington already leased. It presumably has existing contracts/accounts with press release services, etc. It has a newspaper operation which could be scaled up instead of having to start one. It has institutional experience in doing media buys. Etc., etc., etc. These may not sound like big things, but they are millions of dollars in saved money from starting from scratch, not to mention valuable TIME that doesn’t have to be spent reinventing the wheel.

    All that said, folks, I don’t know how many different ways to say it:

    – I am NOT asserting that there’s a Verney/Viguerie “hostile takeover” under way. I don’t know if there is or not. What I do know is that both of them have been involved in such things in the past (although Verney ended up working with the NLP/Hagelin takeover forces rather than the Buchanan takeover forces as I originally thought), and that it’s reasonable to wonder what they’re up to.
    – If it IS a hostile takeover, I’m not whining about it. We’ll resist it or we won’t. We’ll win or we’ll lose. It will be good for the party or bad for the party. I’ll probably be inclined to resist it if that’s what’s happening, but if it succeeds I won’t automatically assume that it’s the death of the party or anything.

    “As can be remembered from the experience with Arizona in 2000 the convention nominee does not always get the nod of state parties.”

    The national convention nominee got the nod of every state affiliate of the national LP. What happened in Arizona (I’ll phrase this as neutrally as possible so as not to start THAT argument again) was that the national party recognized one group as its Arizona affiliate, while the state of Arizona recognized a different group (which national had disaffiliated) as the legal entity disposing of the LP ballot line in Arizona. Since the latter group was not affiliated with the national LP, it was free to choose its own presidential nominee, and did so.

    I see very little likelihood of state parties disaffiliating themselves in order to reject a ticket that prevails at the national convention and features Bob Barr, even if that ticket is representative of a “hostile takeover” tactic.

  50. Jonathan Cymberknopf Says:

    GO BOB BARR ! will somebody organize a money bomb for this guy or do you want the Libertarian Party to get the same old 400,000 votes they get every election year. If Mr. Barr can get just a fraction of what Ron Paul raised , the Libertarians could be looking at a million votes at a minimum.

  51. Thomas L. Knapp Says:

    David,

    You write:

    “just to set the record straight on one item – the perot faction of the reform party did invite Pat in and supported him at first – then when they figured out that they were no longer runing the show and that Pat was going to campaign on social as well as trade and economic issues they tried to pull the rug out from under him invited in the Natural Law loonies and distroyed the reform party”

    That makes sense and seems to actually jibe with all of the differing accounts I’m reading. Presumably the reason the Perot (and Varney) faction invited Buchanan in was to try to wrest control of the party back from the Ventura people, right?

    Which, of course, brings up the question of whether or not Ventura himself was a “hostile takeover” guy. My view is that he wasn’t. He wasn’t coming onto the national RP scene as an outsider, he was coming onto that scene as the Reform Party’s most prominent elected official, governor of Minnesota, and representative of what was probably the RP’s most active and successful state affiliate (the Independence Party, which I believe still has two State Senators in office even now). To put it a different way, if Ventura’s claim to be truly representative of the Reform Party wasn’t stronger than Perot’s, it was at least close to as strong.

  52. Clark Says:

    (dondero, was that you who cast the vote at ?lp con. 2000 for bush?) (...yikes!...) ;o)

    ...napster, you appear hopelessly naive/deluded/etc..

    ...you appear ‘unconsciously unaware’ of the worse-than-fraudulent ‘election process’/’political system’/etc. about which you appear to frequently fret, yack, etc..

    ...you see, republicrats, it’s fairly obvious an honest ‘political election’ would amount to an honest ‘competition’...for selecting the person(s) with the best ideas as to ‘how to proceed,’ the wisest, smartest, most honest candidate(s), etc… (all of us have unique criteria)

    ...please note, munchkin republicrats, for example, honest sports competitions…whereby winning somewhat-frequent HEAD-TO-HEAD ‘games,’ etc. is required before “a champion” is crowned..with any announcers and cheerleaders secondary to ‘the game on the field’...

    ...you donderos, napsters, etcetercrats, appear to be unaware of the stinking fraudulent nature, the hideous reality, of these STINKING political competitions about which you near-endlessly pontificate…

    ...you see, in your worse than phony ‘political competitions’ THE ANNOUNCERS, CHEERLEADERS AND MUCH HOCU$ POCU$ ARE THE FOCUS..not the quality of the ideas, etc. of the eventual inevitable goddamned fool republicrat ‘champion’...YOUR STINKING “ELECTIONS,” politics, etc., ARE A COMPLETE, GODDAMNED FRAUD OF WHICH YOU APPEAR UNAWARE!!

    (btw, please! republicrats, seeing’s how ‘money’ DOMINATE$ your phony ‘competition of ideas about government’...do yourselves a favor and get a little dose of ‘monetary reali$m’)

    ...and p.s., if you want to ‘reach out’ maybe ask steve zarlenga (the world’s foremost monetary historian) to speak at the LP CON rather than the typical Republican shit-spewers, etc. monetary ignoramusses, you dummie$ seem to frequently schedule..

    ..at least you money dummie$ might learn something of honest value from him!.. ;o)

  53. NewFederalist Says:

    Tom Knapp- While you make some good points about infrastructure and sunk costs both monetary and experiential; a counter argument could most certainly be the baggage of being the party known in the MSM as one of drug use advocates (THEY imply that not me) and one that is too soft on or even advocates pornography (especially the kiddie version) and other non-mainstream positions (get out of the UN; pull troops back from everywhere; end foreign aid and so forth). That baggage might well be too big a price to pay for the likes of Viguerie and Verney. They HAVE the money to replace the infrastructure. They DO NOT have the ballot access.

  54. Trollin Inshit Says:

    Drop your maxipads in www.turdpottywatch.com.

  55. Thomas L. Knapp Says:

    Clark,

    As Zarlenga notes, Milton Friedman—who while not formally an LPer was certainly considered a libertarian by many—was the foremost post-WWII advocate of “the Chicago plan,” and overtly advocated a government monopoly on money and the elimination of fractional reserves at least as late as 1975 … so I’m not sure you’re giving Libertarians a completely fair shake on what they know.

    Granted, a government monopoly on money and a completely fiat currency is unlikely to pass muster with most Libertarians (most manifestly including me—I prefer private money with fraction reserve treated as what it is, fraud), but it may be a matter of informed disagreement rather than simple ignorance.

  56. Trollin Inshit Says:

    Enemas are not the enemy at www.turdpottywatch.com.

  57. Gordon is a Dick Says:

    Suck off Dondero at www.turdpottywatch.com.

  58. susan santarini Says:

    Dumbdildo made such a big deal with Chris Bennett about how Dumbdildo could die proud, because he knew he had served his country. Now he can’t even produce a single picture to back up his claim of service in the Navy. So it was all just a fake story and Dumbdildo was just pretending to be soldier boy. How pathetic!

  59. Jeff Wartman Says:

    As Zarlenga notes, Milton Friedman—who while not formally an LPer was certainly considered a libertarian by many—was the foremost post-WWII advocate of “the Chicago plan,” and overtly advocated a government monopoly on money and the elimination of fractional reserves at least as late as 1975 … so I’m not sure you’re giving Libertarians a completely fair shake on what they know.

    Without speaking for Friedman’s exact philosophy, certain facts should be mentioned:

    Friedman was open about the fact that he felt ideologically the Fed should not exist and a completely, totally Fiat system was unsustainable.

    However, Friedman did theorize on what the Fed could do. That’s obvious, and what he’s most famous for. However, theorizing on what the Fed could do to make things better is not an endorsement of the Fed’s existence per se.

    I’ve used this analogy all the time: A football coach does not have to agree with the option offense to design plays out of it. A coach could believe a different formation was going to be better, but that shouldn’t stop the coach from theorizing about what plays could work out of the option.

    Now, I’m not saying Friedman was a closet Austrian. What I am saying is that you should not infer that Friedman believed ideologically in the Fed system just because he theorizing on how it could run to achieve it’s goals.

  60. Steven R Linnabary Says:

    Dumbdildo was just pretending to be soldier boy.

    Wrong. Not a soldier. He was Navy, a squid. On an AIR CONDITIONED ship.

    FWIW: I don’t have any photo’s from my service days, either.

  61. Richard Winger Says:

    I fear the ElfNinosMom list of Barr contributions to Republican candidates is misleading. I suspect most or all of those Barr contributions were more than a year ago. I’m not sure, but one of the examples is Barr contributing $1,000 to Larry Craig. It’s been almost a year, I think, since Craig said he isn’t running for re-election. Anyway, in the Virginia example, I also think the Barr contribution was far earlier than Bill Redpath’s decision to run for that same US Senate seat. ElfNinosMom ought to put the date of each of these Barr contributions to Republicans.

    Concerning the Reform Party, the Buchanan people and the Verney people worked together to remove Jack Gargan as national chair. That was what lead Jesse Ventura, and the entire Minnesota Reform Party, to quit the national Reform Party, and to change the name of the Minnesota party back to “Independence Party.” Later the Verney forces and the Buchanan forces fought each other, and Buchanan won.

    The Minnesota Independence Party no longer has any state legislators. The Senator elected on the Independence Party line later became a Democrat. Finally, the Reform Party presidential run in 1996 was an astounding success. The Reform Party in 1996 was the first third party in U.S. history to poll over 5% of the vote in every single state. Even Theodore Roosevelt didn’t accomplish that.

  62. Jeff Wartman Says:

    I also think the Barr contribution was far earlier than Bill Redpath’s decision to run for that same US Senate seat. ElfNinosMom ought to put the date of each of these Barr contributions to Republicans.

    I hadn’t thought of that…good point.

  63. Richard Winger Says:

    ElfNinosMom has now added the dates. The Barr contributions were all made in 2007, except that the one to Georgia Senator Saxby Chambliss was made January 7, 2008.

  64. Paulie Says:

    Peter Orvetti, yes Bob Barr’s press conference was canceled for Monday. Darn, I had already taken the day off to attend. I guess I’ll go fishing.

    Haven’t read to the end of this thread yet, so this may have been addressed already. What’s the source on this?

  65. Sherlock Holmes Says:

    Eric Dondero Says:
    May 10th, 2008 at 8:53 am

    Goddamit Thomas! You done pissed me off.

    Justin Raimondo DOES NOT CHANGE HIS “UNDERWEAR” THAT OFTEN.

    It’s his “PANTIES” that he doesn’t change.

    From this, we can only logically deduce that Eric has had occassion to see Justin Raimondo take his pants off, probably on multiple occassions.

    How can we deduce this? Elementary, my dear Watson.

    Eric never dissembles or spouts off on issues of which he has no direct knowledge.

    Thus, we must conclude that he is speaking from direct personal experience. Furthermore, he must have had repeated occassion to observe Mr. Raimondo with his pants off, else how would he know how often he changes his panties?

    This may also explain Eric’s rather fierce opposition to antiwar positions; it may be nothing more than a lovers quarrel.

    After all, there is a thin line between love and hate, and they are both known to have been in the same circles.

    Come to think of it, this may also explain Eric’s rather extreme affection for Mr. Giuliani, who has been seen on more than one occassion in womens clothing.

  66. Jared Callanan Says:

    To comment further on Pat Buchanan’s 2000 Reform Party candidacy,

    It is true the Perot factions invited Pat Buchanan into the Party, in the same mold that they invited former Colorado Governor Richard Lamm into the party in 1996. They invited them in, knowing (1996) that Perot was going to step forward and run and that a “red meat” convention would bring good press and that Lamm would easily be defeated. The same was the situation in 2000 with Buchanan, they invited him into the party thinking that someone better would step forward, challenge him and beat him at the convention and once again good press would come forward as these named candidates were vying for the nomination. Keep in mind, that Donald Trump was “seriously” looking into the Reform Party nomination in 2000, and Jesse Ventura at one time was also considered very interested in running. But as time went on, no real name stepped forward to challenge Buchanan who had been attending state conventions to assure a first ballot victory. As this became apparent, the Perot folks and Verney did the only thing they could to try to save their party and their positions within the party, they jumped on the Hagelin side of things which wound up hurting Buchanan’s candidacy and wound up hurting the small chance they had of holding onto ballot access in many states.

    Following the election, the Reform Party in many states that was still controlled by the old guard locked out the Buchanan supporters who wanted to try to continue to build the party, albeit with their social beliefs, and thus that was pretty much the death of the Reform Party. I have no question that the Buchanan’s (Bay and Pat) primarily used the Reform Party as their vehicle because of the party’s federal funds and because of their ballot access. I also do believe when they first made the switch they had the intentions to build a legit conservative third party. However, that was not possible after his abysmal showing in November and the fact the old guard locked their supporters out and wanted nothing to do with them.

    It’s important to note that Bob Barr’s possible candidacy shouldn’t be compared with Pat Buchanan’s 2000 candidacy. A. Bob Barr has been a member of the Libertarian Party for two years and has done things to help build the Libertarian Party. B. Bob Barr will be a member of the Libertarian Party following the November elections and I expect him to continue to help build the party, whereas Pat Buchanan is an author and a member of the media and never had that ability. C. As I mentioned above, I think the Buchanan’s primarily used the Reform Party as their vehicle strictly for his candidacy, everything we have seen from Bob Barr says otherwise.

    This is different from the Alan Keyes situation with the Constitution Party, Barr is a member of the LP whereas Keyes was looked at as being an opportunist in trying to grab the CP’s nomination. Can Barr be perceived as an opportunist? Of course, I am sure he will release a book and part of trying to sell it will be based off him being the nominee of the party. Having said that, that is no different then Harry Browne who in my eyes came off as the biggest opportunist Libertarian nominee ever, who used the party and his candidacy to sell his books and make a living.

    Was Alan Keyes an opportunist? Hell yes. Did the Constitution Party shoot themselves in the foot by not nominating him because of a couple differences? Hell yes! Alan Keyes would have garnered many more votes that Pastor Baldwin, he would have brought much more media coverage than Pastor Baldwin, and he would have brought more money and more recruits into the party as compared to Pastor Baldwin. The Constitution Party by bucking the Keyes candidacy essentially set their party back in many states, and who knows if they will be able to recoup following this election. We may very well be seeing the last of the CP party as a major ballot access organization. The Libertarian Party is in the very same situation. Rasmussen or Zogby (?) had Barr polling close to 4% in one of their polls, and they are going to pass up that potential for Mary Ruwart who has no chance of pulling .0.2% never mind anywhere close to 1%? The Libertarian Party has a chance to finally put themselves back on the map and gain credibility and ballot access, I fear that they will do what they did in 2004 though, nominate the wrong man or woman and once again put their party in a difficult situation to regain the tag line of being a legit third party.

    Hopefully the press conference wasn’t cancelled because Barr is having second thoughts, although I have a sneaking suspicion he did. Barr should be able to go into that convention and win with ease on the first ballot because he is what’s best for that party. However, the Libertarian Party is filled with pretentious idiots who want nothing to do with Barr and are trying to make his candidacy impossible.

  67. Bill Wood Says:

    Paulie, Steve Gordon sent out an e-mail on Friday about 3:00pm stating the press conference was canceled.

  68. Peter Orvetti Says:

    I am not sure what to make of these suggestions that Mr. Dondero did not actually serve in the military. I don’t know Mr. Dondero, but these allegations seem baseless. There are many periods of my own life for which I have no photographic evidence—and thankfully so. I did not serve in the military myself, but I have great respect for those like Messrs. Dondero and Knapp who did do so. In fact, if I see a veteran in a place where it wouldn’t embarrass her/him, I sometimes stop to say “thank you”—especially if my sons are with me. I’m trying to teach them to value liberty and abhor war, and thanking a veteran is a great way to teach those lessons.

    As for my reasons for opposing Barr, despite my being a “pragmatic”/”moderate”/”reform”/”fake” Libertarian… After some early skepticism, I do think Mr. Barr is sincere in most aspects of his political evolution. (I wouldn’t call it a “conversion”. If Hillary Clinton became a Libertarian, that would be a conversion.) But in many cases, Barr seems to be offering not libertarian proposals but devolution to the states (on matters like drug policy, gay rights, etc.). This is good, but it’s not what I’m looking for. I just cannot see myself voting for someone who was the leading force in Congress behind DOMA and the Drug War. When I mentioned to my wife, a libertarian-minded voter who is not an LP member but who grew up in Georgia, that Barr might be the LP candidate, she actually recoiled.

    Barr is a committed LP member with real political experience, and he would probably outrun any other possible candidate in November. But Barr has always had his eye on the presidency. He entered the U.S. House in January 1995, and by the spring of 1998 he was publicly musing about going to Iowa to “test the waters” for a 2000 GOP presidential run. There is nothing wrong with such ambition—heck, I have this silly fantasy about one day running for the LP VP nomination just for the heck of it and to become a historical footnote—but I do think Barr is a “man in a hurry” as far as the LP goes.

    I am not sure why he’s rushing. After all, it’s not like he faces the possibility that a Libertarian will be elected president this year and shut him out for 2012. Granted, this is a great moment for Libertarian issues to be presented to the public, but four years from now, some imposing form of statism will still need fighting, be it an Obama-Mama Nanny State or some form of what we have now.

    I am sure the candidates I prefer (like Dr. Ruwart or Mr. Kubby) would receive far few votes than would Barr. But my vote would be among them.

  69. Jared Callanan Says:

    First let me say that it’s a pleasure to talk to you, Mr. Orvetti. There was a time in ‘99-00 when I worked in the National Headquarters of a Presidential candidate and I got most of the office to read your daily updates from your old website orvetti.com. I actually thought you were going to be the next Matt Drudge, and really wished you would have stuck with it. One has to think it would have been some nice cash in your pocket at very least.

    Anyway, I can understand where folks like you might not think of Barr as a true Libertarian. I would point out that he is what’s best for the party, and he could do much more for the party in 2012 by running right now and being nominated.

  70. Peter Orvetti Says:

    I do often wonder what would have happened if I’d kept up with Orvetti.com, especially since blogging became the big thing about a year after I gave it up. But when I took my current job with a media company, it was part of the deal that I shut down. I essentially got bought out.

  71. Jared Callanan Says:

    It was truly a great site, great work while it was running.

    I am wondering this, are Libertarian Party members worried about how Ruwarts views on child pornography will be talked about by the MSM? I understand she wont get MSM anyway but lets say she wins the nomination, is anyone worried about a possible opening like this in the major newspapers the next day:

    “Mary Ruwart was able to win the Libertarian Party nomination even though she faltered when her views on child pornography were uncovered.”

    You know something along those lines will be in every major newspaper that covers the LP nomination. And when people demand a retraction they will get laughed at. Just an opinion.

  72. Reform Party Member /Don Lake Says:

    Jared: You not only have a right to your opinions; you own them, you deserve them! As the former ‘publisher’ [National Chair of the Communications Committee] of the struggling inhouse print monthly news letter, I must say that the HUNDREDS of hours I have spent on direct, three way and conference calls to reform types nationwide have never evoked even a hint of your [manufactured? fabricated? concocted? ] phrasing!

    Until I hear differently, I can only assume that the reform movement, in that radical——but murkie, squishy, middle, has been an excellent backdrop for you intelectual inventions! You are either a solitary truth teller, or you have your own reasons for rewriting party history! I sure do know that the corporate news on Long Beach 2000 did the movement about as much good as the convention fights in Chicago 1968 did the Dems!

    All kinds of other folks, from the four points of the compass, portray blood sucking TV Commentator Patrick Buchanan [and his sister and agent provacatuer Bay], as the master mind[s] behind a multi million dollar heist! Criminal[s] whom went on his/their merry way after spending the tons of matching FEC cash on the Pat Buchanan Party, not on the reform movement! But maybe these DOZENS of others observers are wrong and you are right?

    Next mega fib: Spin that the internal Reform Party Northern California Jewish cabal of Zionist Evangelicals [John Blare, John Bambey, John Coffey] did nothing out of the ordinary to kill the lead article of the USS Liberty murder of unarmed American sailors by Israeli DEFENSE Forces (and by extension, the news letter itself)!

    Other mega fibs: The the ‘reform party national conventions’ of Atlanta [2005], Tampa/Saint Petersburg [2005], and Sacramento [2007] were completely legit inspite of no attendance logs, no video, no voter logs, no meeting minutes!

    From here it seems like “thanks for nothin’ ”

  73. Jared Callanan Says:

    Don Lake,

    I am not sure how to respond to your tirade, you didn’t directly refer to what aspects of my message that I “manufactured”. I was at the Long Beach Convention where I was pushed around by the Hagelin supporters and threatened. I worked at Pat Buchanan’s headquarters in 2000, and prior to that I worked for the Reform Party in two different states. Following the election, I contacted the chairs and members from the states I had worked with prior to leaving for DC and my phone calls were not answered and this was the same for many “Buchanan Brigaders” from around the country who tried to get involved with the Reform Party following the election. I could sit here and write names and states of the people I had problems with, but I don’t see any benefit in doing that. The Reform Party is dead. I have no reason to lie about the work I did for the party just as I don’t see any reason to lie about who I worked for.

    Your tirade was very confusing. Maybe you can clearify what your exact problem is with my message.

  74. Richard Winger Says:

    Bob Barr’s press conference is not cancelled. I just talked to Stephen Gordon, who is nowhere near a computer now, but he approves of my comment to relay this news. The confusion is that although the room for the press conference is big, it is not big enough to hold everyone who wants to be in the room. To reserve space for the press, and especially the press with cameras, it was necessary to limit the room to press.

  75. Peter Orvetti Says:

    Richard,

    Ah, that makes more sense; thanks for passing on the news. If the Barr campaign was suddenly off, I would think it would have been more openly talked about here.

    I’m surprised to see little discussion here of the CNN.com report that Barr’s camp says he’s definitely running.

  76. Bill Wood Says:

    Thanks Richard Winger, I guess those of us who wanted to show support just got uninvited.

  77. Peter Orvetti Says:

    If the Zenger Room is the one I’m thinking of, it’s pretty small.

  78. Thomas L. Knapp Says:

    Peter,

    You write: “I’m surprised to see little discussion here of the CNN.com report that Barr’s camp says he’s definitely running.”

    Even thought it’s POSSIBLE that Barr might rent a room at the National Press Club to announce that he’s not running (especially if he wants to use the coverage to kick off or promote some other project), I suspect pretty much everyone believes that the fact that he’s rented the room and announced a press conference means he’s running. The CNN thing tends to confirm that, but probably not very many people really needed additional confirmation.

    I feel pretty bad for Barr right now. I strongly suspect he’s going to get his head handed to him in Denver, and I’d really rather not see that happen—it will be immensely personally damaging to him, and probably somewhat damaging in ways (although perhaps with compensations) to the party. Both Barr and the party would be better off if he didn’t run this year, but I guess that’s the way it goes.

  79. Reform Party Member /Don Lake Says:

    My problem is that half way thru 2008, this is the first I have ever heard of most [All] of your allegations. My problem is that you make no reference to the FACT of over 12 million dollars has not been seen by other than Patrick and Bay. THIS IS A FACT, THE FEC AMOUNT AND THE GROSS LACK OF 2000 PARTY BUILDING!

    Maybe you are lying to make the Buchanan folk appear semi reasonable instead of the lying thieving Bible Thumpers invading an established SECULAR outfit. Originally invited or not, the ground rules were firmly in place, no Bible Thumping!

    My problem? You are ‘remembering’ poorly, if not rewriting common knowledge….

  80. Peter Orvetti Says:

    I actually attended some of the Reform Party convention in 2000 as an observer… I had been sent to L.A. to interview Bill Clinton for a website I was working for—the Dem convo was about to start—but the Clinton interview got called off while I was flying over the flyover states. So I just spent a few days killing time and figured I’d see what the RP was up to. I remember seeing lots of Buchanan backers in red T-shirts, Granny D making a speech, and lots of very vague Hagelin flyers. (I interviewed Hagelin once and found him friendly and bright, but very defensive about the TM stuff.)

  81. Anal Libertarian Says:

    With Barr, a new awarness of libertarians and anal sex can set the tone of the debate.

  82. Steve LaBianca Says:

    Stefan Says:
    May 9th, 2008 at 10:51 pm

    ElfNinosMom:
    In defense of Barr, he supports libertarian minded Republicans, not any Republicans per se.

    Republicans just the same. The REAL problem with this is the widely perceived notion that Barr joined the LP, and is doing so much to grow the LP, help the LP succeed and that he has left the Republican Party behind.

    I’d imagine that some Barr supporters won’t care. Some will change their support I would guess. However, given the way that through the efforts of Stewart Flood and Alicia Mattson to get Barr on the LNC, these people are just as much traitors to the LP as Barr!

  83. Steve LaBianca Says:
    1. Tbryant Says:
      May 10th, 2008 at 2:03 am

    Those who dont get their way pout and scream “hostile takeover”

    I have no comment here.

    Barr has been on the LNC for about two years. I have heard from another LNC member that he votes pretty radical. He’s worked his butt off to earn the support of leading medical marijuana activists. He’s known for being anti-patriot act.

    I really don’t see how being on the LNC for 2 years (I think is less than 2 years) negates him being part of a hostile takeover. Alicia Mattson and Stewart Flood ramrodded him onto the LNC, amidst other devious dealings with the former LNC rep, his election in Portland, etc. Besides, if Barr has the LP so in mind, why not only support Republicans where there is NO LP candidate?

    It’s strange that someone would view a very politically active LNC member as hostile to the LP.

    Again, Barr on the LNC was a concerted effort of a few LRC people. Also, getting active gives Barr the air of “legitimacy”.

    Of course, the very notion of a hostile takeover is silly. If Barr gets the majority of the delegate support, that’s the will of the party. What’s hostile about giving the majority of the delegates something they want?

    Unless of course enough Barr supporters withdraw their support because he supports Republicans who are opposed by Libertarians. That has a reasonable probability of happening, and Barr gets beaten decisively.

    As for contributing to Republican candidates, that’s another silly argument. Many Libertarians have contributed to Republicans such as Ron Paul.

    This is silly . . . Ron Paul is a former LP presidential candidate, who has held very true to his libertarian and free market principles, and has done many things in congress to try to help third parties . . . especially introducing bills to make it less discriminatory for third party candidates to get on the ballot. Supporting Ron Paul IS different from supporting ANY other Republican. Besides, this support for Ron Paul was/is before the LP even has a nominee! It isn’t like supporting a candidate where the LP already has a candidate to run for that office. Heck, there was even serious talk of not even running an LP presidential candidate! Sorry, Ron Paul presents a whole different set of circumstances.

  84. Jared Callanan Says:

    Don,

    Let me start by saying that after reading two messages authored by you, I am now convinced that you probably suffer from some form of mental illness. Judging by some of the links on your featured website, and your previous tirade on “zionism” I would also speculate you are most likely an antisemite. So before I continue my rebuttal I would like to state that in my eyes you have little to no credibility.

    A. I explicitly mentioned the money as one of the reasons the party was attractive to Pat and Bay, your lack of reading comprehension is not my problem. You can argue that the state partys never saw a dime. I can argue that the state partys saw plenty of money as long as they were using it for campaign related business. The bottom line is simple, for the Reform Party to have stayed strong and lived on they needed a good performance from Pat, in this aspect spending the money strictly on his campaign was what was best for the party so that they could have kept their ballot access and kept their federal match funds.

    B. It seems pretty clear to me that you were one of the Hagelin supporters in 2000 who attempted to hold their own convention; as completely bogus as it was and just downright silly and embarassing for those who attended, talk about a waste of money – and if that assumption is true you can look at yourself in the mirror as well as the other dissenters as one of the major factors for the partys downfall. These folks were the ones who brought embarassment and shame to the party. These folks were the ones who tried to get violent in the actual convention and brought on so much bad press to the party and the convention and then held up the money in court at a time where Pat could have certainly used it for a post-convention boost. If you folks really believed in the party you wouldn’t have stomped your feet crying like a bunch of angry children, you would have hung in there and did what was best for the party at the time and that was support Pat Buchanan. If you think anything would have been different if John Hagelin won that nomination then I would once again point to your mental illness for making you delusional.

    C. To question whether Buchanan Brigaders got locked out in some states by the old guard of the Reform Party is just once again delusional. This was something that was talked about exclusively on the email lists of Linda Muller (buchanan.org) but since the site has been reformatted I can no longer find the links. One way or the other, I can speak for myself and some of the fellow Buchanan Brigaders I worked with in the two states I mentioned above, we were locked out of both states, phone calls not returned, and the RP chairs of the states basically telling us we weren’t welcomed at their meetings.

  85. Bill Woolsey Says:

    I don’t see why Barr would be hurt by losing the
    LP nomination.

    Purist crazies deny Barr the nomination. LP commits
    political suicide McCain’s worries are over. Maybe
    the concens of some Republican activists were overblown,
    that Barr would pull a Nader, spoiling McCain’s chances,
    but we will never know now. Instead, LP radicals overlooked
    long time LP activist Ruwarts support for child pornography.
    Ruwart, who lost her effort to receive the nomination in 1984,
    has run for a series of state-wide races, receiving only single
    digits. Ruwart supporters complained that Barr wasn’t a real
    libertarian, citing specifically his view that states shouldn’t legalize
    crack and heroin.

    The idea that Barr will be embarassed because he cannot convince
    LP convention goers to vote for him suggests that LP convention
    goers can be assumed to be ordinary, or even, better than ordinary
    people. Why would anyone assume this?

    Rejecting Barr will simply make the LP look bad. Choosing Ruwart over
    Barr will be make it so much worse.

    All that we can say bad about Barr is that he clearly has been wasting his
    time with the LP. Why did he spend two years on the governing board of
    a body full of crazies?

    If, Phillies were chosen over Barr, and the issue was abortion rights
    at the Federal level… thtat wouldn’t make us look too bad.

  86. Thomas L. Knapp Says:

    Jared,

    You write to Don Lake:

    “It seems pretty clear to me that you were one of the Hagelin supporters in 2000 who attempted to hold their own convention; as completely bogus as it was and just downright silly and embarassing for those who attended”

    Factions of parties walking out, holding their own conventions, nominating their own candidates and contesting elections within their own putative party is not new, silly or even particularly embarrassing.

    In 1860, the Democratic Party split on north-south lines, with the northern faction nominating Stephen A. Douglas and the southern faction nominating John C. Breckenridge. Obviously that didn’t work out too well for the Democrats.

    In 1948, Strom Thurmond and the Dixiecrats walked out on the Truman Democrats and ran their own presidential ticket in (I think) nine states, carrying Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and South Carolina and 39 electoral votes. It didn’t cost the Dems the election that time—Truman still won re-election.

    I suppose it’s reasonable to argue that Hagelin and support for Hagelin was silly, but there’s nothing particularly silly about party splits and competing conventions per se.

  87. Jared Callanan Says:

    Thomas,

    We are not talking about 1860 or 1948. What we are talking about is a candidate in Pat Buchanan who went state to state, convention to convention picking up enough delegates to win the Reform Part nomination on the first ballot. In the meantime, he was doing his media drives and picking up enough popular vote to win the Reform Party nomination on the first ballot. As this is happening, Natural Law Party candidate John Hagelin decides he is going to challenge Buchanan, not because he thinks he can actually beat him but because he knows he can get media coverage and or press out of the ordeal. As I mentioned above, along the way Hagelin starts to pick up the defectors (Fulani, Veryney, et al.) from the Reform Party who were with Buchanan at the time but then turned their back on Pat knowing they would be losing their positions in the party. With this support; even though Buchanan had the support of Choate – these Reform Party members, who the majority were not even Reform Party members but members of the Natural Law Party, left the convention (all 30-50 of them) and went across the street to continue their “Reform Party Convention”. It was a joke, lets just say this, the delegates who walked out of the main convention hall had a press conference in a room that was no bigger than an apartment sized living room. They didn’t have support, they didn’t have the elected delegates, they didn’t have the popular vote, they had nothing. That’s why a judge and another judge quickly decided in Pat’s favor that he was the rightful nominee of the Reform Party.

    In your examples, I wholeheartedly agree that those aren’t silly situations, they were and are historic situations. This was different, this was a faction of the Natural Law Party trying to gain press coverage and trying to get a chunk of the 12.5 million at stake. It was silly and it only hurt the party,

  88. Susan Hogarth Says:

    Stefan says:

    In defense of Barr, he supports libertarian minded Republicans, not any Republicans per se. Sen. John Sununu … Bobby Jindal ….

    We could argue for some time over whether Sununu and Jindal are “libertarian-minded”, but I think Tom’s point is that they are in fact not Libertarians (as in members of the Libertarian Party). Now, when a rank-and-file Party member decides to vote, or support with money, a Republican because he is ‘libertarian-minded’, that’s obviously his personal choice. But I think it’s an entirely different matter for someone serving on the governing board of the LP to be doing major fundraising for candidates in the Republican Party. After all, any of these candidates could conceivably have an LP opponent – shouldn’t Barr (again, as a member of the LNC) be more interested in helping to recruit and support Libertarians for these seats?

  89. Clark Says:

    NAP STRAWMANNED: ;o) “..so I’m not sure you’re giving Libertarians a completely fair shake on what they know…” (END)

    ...please! YOU speak for YOURSELF ONLY AND ALWAYS!..in fact, the person who ‘turned me on’ to ‘the money thing’ is a looooooong-time LP member..and i’ve found ‘libertarians’ much more likely than other ‘politicos’ to have some under$tanding$ here..but that’s not saying much..it seems most people, including you, nap, ;o) are hopelessly confu$ed..from what i can see, you appear to deal entirely in theory..ignorant and/or with little regard for empirical evidence, monetary history, etc..

    NAP VON MISES’ED: “Granted, a government monopoly on money and a completely fiat currency is unlikely to pass muster with most Libertarians..(END)

    ...it appears ‘the money’ is and always has been, by its very nature, ‘Fiat’..

    ..i.e. whatever that ‘thing’ ‘the government’ declares—”BY FIAT” as ‘the unit of account’ will be ‘the money’..

    ..you want to use gold, toothpicks, horseshit, etc. ad nauseam ‘in a private trade’...great…but please understand that what ‘the judge,’ ‘the man,’ etc. orders you to use to ‘pay’ taxes, fees, fines, settlements etc.. is and has been ‘the money’..

    NAP Dreamed: (most manifestly including me—I prefer private money with fraction reserve treated as what it is, fraud), but it may be a matter of informed disagreement rather than simple ignorance. (END)

    ...nice theory…can/will you, SOMEWHAT PRECISELY, explain how ‘the money’ originates in your favorite theory system?.. (hint: please under$tand ‘the market will take care of it’ is shit spew) ;o)

    “Man is the creature of God and money is the creature of man. Money is made to be the servant of man and I protest against all theories that enthrone money and debase man.”

    The right to coin money and issue money is a function of the Government. It is a part of sovereignty and can no more be delegated with safety to individuals, than we could afford to delegate to private individuals the power to make penal statutes or to levy taxes.” (both attributed to William Jennings Bryan)

    ...btw, it seems here’s a real opportunity for ‘Libertarians’ to STRONGLY TAKE THE LEAD ON THIS AND OTHER ISSUES BY MAKING “COMPLETE TRANSPARENCYA CENTRAL THEME IN ALL THINGS “GOVERNMENT”..

    ...ESPECIALLY WITH REGARD TO “THE MONEY THINGWHEREBY YOU REPUBLICRAT POLITICOS APPEAR TO HAVE WANDERED YOUR LIVES IN WORSE THAN IGNORANCE/UNCONSCIOUS UNAWARENESS!..”KNOWING” ONLY WHAT YOU “LEARNED” FROM MARIA BUTTAROMA, LOUIS RUSEGEYSER, etcetercrats galore.. ;o)

    ..and do tell mama you wuv her!..at least a quick call in between commercial$, you Pavlov’s Dog Republicrats! ;o)

  90. Anal Libertarian Says:

    I will enjoy being sodomized by Barr. You will too.

  91. Sean Scallon Says:

    So Vigurie /Rusher were rejected by the AIP in 1976 for Rarick/Maddox so let’s see what happens afterward:

    Split by factionlism after supporting extremist candidates, the AIP by 1980 pretty much ceases to exist as a national non-major party while the “eastern” conservatives who’s hand the AIP rejected jump on Ronald Reagan’s bandwagon all the way to the White House.

    I would agree with you that non-major parties have to be wary about “takeovers” by rank opportunists (Alan Keyes for example, who never officially joined the CP to start with and his stands on the issues were direct conflict with the CP platform.) In the case of the Reform Party, it was more personal pettiness and jealousy for power than anything really worth fighting over. Perot/Verney invited the Buchanan brigades into the party, use them to beat back the Ventura wing in 1999 to maintain control, then immediatelty dump on the Buchanan forces to keep them from controlling the party. The problem was they were trying to be too cute by half and many RP members like Pat Choate and Gerald Moan supported Buchanan and control was ripped away from them. Then the Buchananites tried to extend their control over the party and Moan and others objected and soon the Buchananites were out and they formed their own America First Party. Then that party splity into two factions and fell apart and well, you see how infantile this is getting.

    A non-major party cannot grow unless it can incorporate elements and voting blocs from the majors. Bob Barr gives the LP an opportunity to do this (This was NOT the case when it came to Alan Keyes. He is a spent force). because he was a former Congressman, has far more name recognition nationally than Ron Paul had back in 1988 and polls show he has some drawing power. Barr may not be the purist of the pure but at 75-80 percent it’s not going to be a bad deal for the LP and he can be a bridge to other disguntled Republicans and increase the number of LP activists and candidates on the local level.

    Some persons you have to be wary of, but others you can bring into your ranks. Where would Christianity be if the Disciples rejected St. Paul’s conversion. They were pretty suspicious too but they benefited in the end by putting their doubts aside and LP members should to when it comes to Bob Barr.

  92. Sean Scallon Says:

    Ron Paul’s Wisconsin camapaign run by MoveOn.org and George Soros? I live in Wisconsin and that’s news to me. Put up or shut up Mr. Rittberg before making such stupid claims.

    I know, saying stupid things is all you can do but please try.

  93. Susan Hogarth Says:

    Richard Winger writes

    I fear the ElfNinosMom list of Barr contributions to Republican candidates is misleading. I suspect most or all of those Barr contributions were more than a year ago. I’m not sure, but one of the examples is Barr contributing $1,000 to Larry Craig. It’s been almost a year, I think, since Craig said he isn’t running for re-election. Anyway, in the Virginia example, I also think the Barr contribution was far earlier than Bill Redpath’s decision to run for that same US Senate seat.

    The list in question is here:
    http://lastfreevoice.wordpress.com/2008/05/09/bob-barr-an-enemy-of-libertarians

    and I will repeat the comment I made there in reply to a similar point you made:

    To me, the important issue here is that Barr’s PAC made these contributions while Barr was serving on the Libertarian National Convention. Even if these candidates did not at the moment of the contribution have a Libertarian Party candidate, wasn’t Barr’s chief responsibility as a leader within the LP to be finding and supporting LP candidates? Instead, he chose to work for Republican Party candidates on a widespread basis. Why should we expect anything different of presidential candidate Barr than we have seen from Libertarian National Committee Representative Barr?

  94. Peter Orvetti Says:

    Susan makes a very fair point. There is a difference between a libertarian, Libertarian, or even prominent Libertarian backing GOP/Dem candidates, and a LNC member—who has taken on the task of growing the LP as a personal charge—to do so.

  95. Thomas L. Knapp Says:

    Clark,

    I haven’t read enough of Zarlenga’s stuff yet to determine whether or not he understands what money is. I have read enough of your stuff to determine that you don’t have the slightest idea what it is, so I’ll teach you:

    Money is a medium for facilitating the exchange of dissimilar goods. That’s what it is, and that’s ALL it is. Every other question or debate on money is a question or debate over how to best fulfill that function.

    Government has no “rights,” and powers are delegated to it by people, not vice versa. If people don’t have the right to create money, then they can’t delegate a power to create money to government. One might argue that delegating the creation of money to government is the best or most efficient way to get effective money, but the whole “sovereignty” argument is BS.

  96. Susan Hogarth Says: