LFV Housekeeping: Comments

We seem to be having a problem with some legitimate comments being caught in the Akismet spam filter.  Unfortunately, I have no idea why this is happening, since our only criteria for spam is if the comment has more than two links in it.  Most of these comments have no links in them, so I can only scratch my head in wonderment.

If you post a comment and it doesn’t appear immediately, it is likely caught in the spam filter since we do not censor anyone’s comments on LFV.

Please take a moment to save the LFV email address [ enm.lastfreevoice@gmail.com ] in your address book.  That way, if one of your comments doesn’t immediately appear, you can shoot me a quick email, and I will release it as soon as I receive your message.

Voices from LFV Mailbag: Austrian Economist on the LP Convention

I received the below article, written by Austrian Economist, in the LFV inbox. Please note that the article does not necessarily reflect the opinions and views of LFV or its contributors.

___________________

The Poison of Purity: How Steve Kubby’s Loyalty Unraveled the Libertarian Party

(This is not meant to be anything more than an analysis of the LP presidential vote and what COULD have been, or perhaps what SHOULD have been.)

There was a point during the Libertarian Convention on Sunday at which all was not yet lost to Bob Barr and his Republican-lite sympathies.

You may have seen the eccentric pro-Mike Gravel signs encouraging delegates to “Fight Senator with Senator” or comparing Barr’s career accolades with those of Gravel. Signing the Patriot Act or ending the Draft? Defense of Marriage Act or releasing The Pentagon Papers? Hmmmm… Sufficed to say, it was amusing and poignant. Less amusing was proto-fascist and turd-for-hire Stephen Gordon ripping these signs down in the supposed “Free Speech Zone”.

On the first ballot, there were a few surprises. One: how Barr would seemingly flatline around 160-ish votes. Two: Mary Ruwart’s dedicated acolytes, pushing her into a similar vote range. And third, how Wayne Allyn Root had more support than many gave him credit for. But there was still plenty of room to wrangle support scattered throughout the delegation. Or so one would have thought.

Second round, Jingozian and Smith are out. Endorsement to Gravel from Jingozian, no major surprise following his introduction speech for Gravel. So then Kubby is low man on the totem poll. Here’s where things get interesting. Earlier that morning, I have it on good word that Kubby indicated to the Gravel campaign that he wanted the Senator to “be the standard bearer.” Very encouraging news. So where was this sentiment when he gave his concession speech & endorsement for Ruwart? In the end, Kubby chose friendship over principle, which is cute, but ultimately meaningless and irrelevant. THIS was the lynchpin moment of the election, the crux when Libertarians got it so damn wrong.

Let’s examine how things MAY have played out if Kubby made the principled decision of what he knew was best. The following scenario is narrated in the sequence of the convention voting. So, Kubby’s endorsement of Gravel not only rattles his own supporters, but as a long-time voice, icon, and martyr in the party, it bolsters the growing impression of Gravel as the most effective candidate.

Next round. Phillies is now in less of a quandary, and can contribute to the continual Gravel-anche of support. As a centrist himself, this is a major statement that Gravel is the glue to preserve and promote the Libertarian party. That would make THREE endorsements to Gravel, none to anyone else.

Suddenly, Gravel has leapfrogged Root in the votes, putting him in a position of leverage and influence. Root is amenable to Gravel, and recognizes what he brings to the party. Like everyone else, Root wants nothing to do with Barr. He strikes a deal and gentlemanly agreement with Gravel, yielding an enthusiastic endorsement. Gravel will serve as elder statesman of the LP, and Root a promising future voice (with good tutelage, not Barr’s indoctrination).

Given Root’s endorsement, Gravel is suddenly in 2nd place, either behind Ruwart or Barr. Were he behind Ruwart, those previously for Barr would recognize Gravel’s star-power and Libertarian pragmatism, thus shifting his way. Were he behind Barr, any purist would swing Gravel’s way, as would the 100-odd Root supporters. Regardless, he’d muscle out the final vote.

BOTTOM LINE—had he made the final ballot, Gravel would likely have succeeded in securing the nomination. Sadly, the LP fell prey to its worst vice, that of self-importance and self-indulgence. Delegates put themselves in the precarious situation of either nominating a shady Republican-goon or a lackluster, pedantic spokesperson who essentially condoned child pornography in writing. Let’s not forget the prominent article the morning of the vote that dealt with Ruwart and child pornography. Whether or not it came from the Barr camp, the LP would have been OBLITERATED the moment Ruwart received the nomination. Ultimately, could the choices have been any more stupid?

Personally, I voted None of the Above, because either vote would essentially destroy the LP, which it has now gleefully done to itself. Were a gun to my head, I’d probably have voted Barr, since scruples can be forgiven far more readily by the American people than a tolerance for pederasts. I wouldn’t like doing it, but hey, a gun’s to my head, so that’s already a violation of Libertarian principles (har har).

All that said, I congratulate the Libtards for failing to capitalize on the first (and potentially last) great opportunity to come your way. Whether that chance comes again, I know not. But I’d encourage you to aggressively court Jesse Ventura as your 2012 candidate. Otherwise, just go onto the NAMBLA listserves now and save yourselves the trouble.

Gravel was right all along… the LP could continue to be an irrelevant, half-a-percent party. Had they elected Ruwart, this would’ve been the case. At least with Barr, you’ll get national media, albeit inconsistent with your core values. In essence, you’re damned if you do, damned if you don’t, and screwed every which way but loose. The LP may now be remotely viable, but has compromised any integrity in order to do so.

There really isn’t much else that can be said. In a democracy, the voice of the people reigns supreme. Gravel readily recognized this is his most humble, accepting words following his defeat. Yet apparently, the democracy of the LP yields sleazy mustaches and utopian anarchists. Neither of which I enjoy, and neither of which I could bring myself to vote for.

Now we see that Kubby is calling for Libertarians to support Barr/Root. Coming from a guy who firestarted the convention with the statement that Barr had yet to “wash the blood from his hands” as a bellicose, anti-medical marijuana czar, that’s an abrupt change of heart. I don’t begrudge this at all… I like Kubby and hope that he can salvage what is now a party ripped asunder. Too bad he is playing smart politics after-the-fact, when he could have made the wise decision when it actually mattered.

Remember—you did this to yourselves, so shame on you all, and better luck next time. The road to irrelevance is a gleefully indulgent path, for sure! Gravel’s words might be well-advised next time around:

“We are Americans first, and Libertarians second.”

Sadly, some didn’t get that memo.

So, what happened at the LP of Massachusetts meeting?

The following notice from George Phillies appears at http://www.lpmass.org/

What Do You Think? – Message From the Chair

Fellow Libertarians!

The Libertarian Party National Convention has nominated Bob Barr to be our Presidential candidate.

As state chair of LP of Massachusetts, I am now in a rather difficult position. Not ten years ago, Bob Barr tried to persuade the army to ban Wicca services from fields near Fort Hood. He also, I am told by Art Torrey, referred to Art’s religion as ‘bogus’.

I am in the same position as a State Chair who has a majority-African-American State Committee, and whose Presidential candidate was, ten years ago, a Grand Dragon of the KKK who spent his time trying to persuade storeowners not to rent out their storefronts to African-American churches.

Such a history is not something that you can talk your way out from.

What is your advice?

I have already been presented with a request for a Special State Convention as found in our State Party ByLaws to consult with the Party Membership.

The Libertarian Party of New Hampshire is already I gather having a special state convention to deal with the issue.

I of course welcome your advice on the matter. Please note that the State Party at the moment has planned to spend $11,250 to put a Presidential and US Senate candidate on the ballot.

Your state committee will be meeting this Thursday at 7:30 PM at my home, 48 Hancock Hill Drive, Worcester MA 01609. Members whose dues are current of the Libertarian Party of Massachusetts are welcome to attend. Please call in advance 508 754 1859 to tell me how much soda and iced tea to have on hand. Almost without exception, if you are such a person you received the last issue of the newsletter.

George Phillies
508 754 1859

Although I am not a Member whose dues are current of the Libertarian Party of Massachusetts, I am in the process of circulating a petition to put the LPMA presidential ticket, electors, and Senatorial candidate on the ballot.

It so happens that I was at this very meeting. In addition to the LPMA ballot access petition, prior to going to the LP National Convention in Denver, I was also petitioning to put the End the Income Tax and Marijuana Decrim ballot questions before the voters.

When I got back from Denver, I caught a ride from Carol McMahon, LPMA Political Facilitator, who was nice enough to let me crash a couple of nights on her couch (thanks, Carol!). Carol and I went up to Worcester, Mass, to get paid for our work on the two ballot questions, which had gathered sufficient signatures to no longer require our services while we were away in Denver.

Right after that came the aforementioned gathering at Dr. Phillies’ place of residence. Since Ms. McMahon was giving me a ride, and no one voiced any objections, I went ahead and participated in the LPMA State Committee meeting, other than for the purpose of voting, for which I was not eligible.

I took no notes, so the following is from memory; please forgive and correct any errors that may result.

All (or at the very least, almost all) who were gathered expressed great disappointment with the presidential ticket choice of the delegates at the national convention. There was a lengthy and contentious discussion as to what, if anything, the LPMA could or should do about it.

Contrary to this report at IPR, the vote against having a special state convention was far from unanimous, and came after a long and complicated discussion.

The report at IPR (which I have still not received a log-in for, BTW) was brough to my attention by the following comment:

George Phillies Says:

May 31, 2008 at 4:44 am edit

I shall first congratulate my good friend Jake Porter on his election to the Libertarian National Committee.

I shall now hijack the thread to note that Austin Cassidy’s new blog, whose web interface is so fractious I cannot log into it, has posted a report on a Massachusetts Libertarian meeting last night. The report is from someone who was not at the meeting. The report bears absolutely no semblance to reality, down to not getting right the name of the group that met.

The report’s author appears to be the same person who keeps circulating reports that I was attacked at the National Convention by an armed gunman.

If I had been contacted as State Chair, I would have been happy to offer corrections–make that ’suggest a total replacement for the report’. I wasn’t.

This moved up the schedule of my plan to issue this write-up of the LPMA State Committee meeting in Worcester.

Anyway, returning to our high Shakesperean drama:

Several of those assembled were also among the electors lsited on the petition. They all agreed to remain listed on the petition, although Mr. Torrey for one made it clear that in the highly unlikely event that he is actually a member of the College of Electors (that is, if Barr carries a plurality of Massachusetts votes for president), he would not feel bound to vote for Bob Barr. Carol was charged with finding out if the willingness to remain listed also held true of those electors not present.

Dr. Phillies made it clear that even if the State Committee voted to hold a Special State Convention, LP National would still draw up new nomination papers, with a new slate of electors loyal to Mr. Barr, and would quickly gather sufficient signatures to place Mr. Barr on the ballot here through the services of a local petition company. Furthermore, this new nomination paper might not include US Senate candidate Robert Underwood, and the LPMA would not have enough time and/or money to place any other presidential slate on the ballot. The possible threat of a lawsuit by the LNC Inc. against the individual members of the unincorporated LPMA State Committee was also broached.

Another option was discussed at length, to have a state convention for the purpose of such things as discussing a resolution of censure against the national ticket, but with the stipulation that the LPMA would not do anything to jeopardize the status of the petition which has already been circulating and has somewhere in the neighborhood of 5,000 or 6,000 signatures.

At the end, after said lengthy and contentious discussion and several rounds of voting on various motions, it was agreed that at this time the LPMA would not plan a formal special convention, but would instead plan an informal party at George’s house, possibly for the purpose of an extended two-minute hate against the dastardly Mr. Barr, or, perhaps alternatively, for soda, crumpets, and awed admiration of Professor Phillies’ impressive collection of board games.

In other news, one person who had made plans to circulate the petition before Mr. Barr’s nomination (the aforementioned Mr. Torrey) thought better of it, while the remaining three individual contractors all decided to go ahead and keep circulating, even though we all were also delegates who voted against Mr. Barr’s nomination. Not that it really matters, since the vast bulk of the signatures is being gathered by the previously referred to petition company in any case. Additionally, one or more donors to the petition drive cancelled their pledges, leaving the state party far shy of its previous commitment to the cost of the drive.

Press Release: Jake Porter elected as LNC Region 6 Alternate

I would like to thank all of my supporters for their assistance in this endeavor. I look forward to helping build the party as I serve on the Libertarian National Committee as an Alternate to Region 6.

---

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

May 27, 2008

media@jakeporter.org

PORTER BECOMES REGION 6 ALTERNATE

Denver, CO –On Saturday, May 24th Jake Porter was elected to the Libertarian National Committee as an Alternate to Region 6 which includes the following states: Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wisconsin.

Porter, 20, had originally intended on running for the Libertarian National Committee as an At-Large Representative, but decided against doing so after St. Joseph Missouri City Councilman; Mike Bozarth nominated him for the Region 6 Alternate position.

Porter formerly served as Chief of Staff to the George Phillies 2008 Presidential campaign and was as an At-Large Representative to the Libertarian Party of Iowa.

For more information on Jake Porter’s campaign, see:

http://www.jakeporter.org.

Barr, Barr-Root, Boor-Ratt, Borat!

For any of you who speak Russian, this is how the ex-USSR press is covering the Barr nomination.

Жертва Бората (Borat’s victim)—about Barr’s candidacy

http://gazeta.ru/politics/election_usa_2008/2008/05/26_a_2735420.shtml

My dad emailed me the link the morning after Barr’s nomination. He is having a field day mocking me for being an LP member with this.

This is not to put me in the camp of those who oppose the party, or those like disinter who have precluded the possibility of supporting Barr.

On the other had, neither am I willing to give a ringing, and, as far as I can tell, unconditional endorsement of Barr-Root, a la Steve Kubby.

Although I am as yet far from certain, my initial inclination is to take a wait and see attitude, as described by Less Antman:

This is going to be a balancing act for radicals. We DO want to keep pressure on Barr so that he doesn’t feel emboldened to tell conservatives what they want to hear to draw votes from McCain.

We will have NO influence if we declare our unconditional refusal to vote for Barr, and even less if we let him know he doesn’t have to worry about our being in the LP after the election.

The proper approach for LP radicals is to constructively work for state and local candidates and ballot access and to focus on better internal education (or any internal education, which would be a good start). We can work for the party through November without having to specifically work for Barr-Root, and neither an unconditional commitment nor an unconditional rejection makes sense.

However, what practical incentive do Barr and Root have to listen to us? Surely, they can find more votes, and, even, more activists outside of traditionally hardcore radical LP ranks? If ever they had to compromise with us and make concessions, that time has passed now that they have safely secured the nomination. From now on, as anyone with practical political experience knows, their job is to move away from trying to please the party base, and towards reaching out to grab votes from the great undecided muddle. This is true of all parties.

In fact, if they were to pay me as a political consultant for advice on how to package their message with a view towards increasing their vote total in this election, I would be ripping off my client if I told them anything other than downplaying hardcore libertarian positions. That is, if their job as candidates is what most people define the job of candidates to be – getting the maximum number of votes possible in THIS election.

I happen to think that the job of the Libertarian Party should be somewhat different than that; but it is currently clear that those who agree with me on this have lost the fight, at least for the time being, to those who do not. Given this fact, is it possible to stay and fight and win this battle in the future, or is it time to cut my losses?

I’m not yet sure; stay tuned for an upcoming post: “I haven’t left the Libertarian Party, but has the Libertarian Party left me?”

Briefly speaking, I do not know the answer yet.

My support is not unconditional, and is based on actions rather than party loyalty. In other words, I will see what the campaign looks like. If I was into the idea of “my party no matter what,” I would still be a Democrat.

But it does not matter much either way – I will still collect signatures for Barr if he pays well enough (if I can collect signatures for Greens and Constitution Party, which I will, I can certainly collect signatures for the LP regardless of who the candidate is), and I will still most likely personally not be able to actually vote in November, regardless of my support level, for logistical reasons. Regardless of my support, I’m unlikely to have the financial means to make any donations to the campaign. In other words, very little changes based on how I feel about the campaign.

As far as my writing, I will continue to tell the truth the way I see it – I’ll say good things about the ticket when they do good, and bad things when they do bad, as I see it. If anyone at any point thinks that I am worth commissioning to write anything (hasn’t happened yet, and I have no indication that it ever will), he who pays the piper calls the tune.

I highly encourage the pro- and anti-Barr factions to engage in a bidding war for my services. And I expect that the offers will come pouring in just as soon as I hit “publish,” and not long after hell freezes over.

Reason eats some Cannolis

“Paulie Cannoli,” a Kubby supporter and blogger who’d been unceremoniously de-credentialed by Third Party Watch, joked around and proposed that radicals make an end run around Barr. “Give him all the tokens,” Cannoli said. “Let him take the stage all by himself. Then get all the candidates back in here and tell C-SPAN!” Cannoli, who brandished the media credentials of former LP Executive Director Shane Cory (a man about as popular in this circle as Donald Rumsfeld), handed out Kubby buttons and asked for support: “A token for the tokin’ candidate!”

http://www.reason.com/news/show/126663.html

Texas Supreme Court orders polygamist children returned to parents

From MSNBC Breaking News:

The Texas Supreme Court ruled Thursday that children taken from a polygamist sect’s ranch should be returned to their parents, saying child welfare officials overstepped their authority.

The high court affirmed a decision by an appellate court last week, saying Child Protective Services failed to show an immediate danger to the more than 400 children swept up from the Yearning For Zion Ranch nearly two months ago.

“On the record before us, removal of the children was not warranted,” the justices said in their ruling issued in Austin.

You can read the entire MSNBC article here.

Previous LFV articles on the same topic:

Sickos: What’s a free market solution? by Nigel Watt

Another viewpoint on FLDS case by ElfNinosMom

Libertarian Debate on Google

The Barr dilemma: What’s a radical to do?

Going into the convention, CIA asset and FairTaxer Bob Barr was unquestionably my last choice for president. I thought there was no way I could support his candidacy, and then the possibility of a Barr/Kubby ticket caused me to reconsider. Alas, it was not to be, and I left Denver with no intention of even voting for (much less supporting) the LP this presidential election.

I floated the idea of Libertarians for Baldwin at Independent Political Report. It was a non-starter. A few of my Rockwellian allies were/are amenable to the idea — with the same reservations I have — but most folks see the anti-gay, protectionist, anti-immigration Baldwin as at least slightly worse than Barr. To his credit, Baldwin is not a “former” CIA operative and he does take a strong stand against the Fed.

I’ve listened to and read the arguments posed by Less Antman, and I’m inclined to agree. I’m personally going to take a wait-and-see approach, and I suspect many of my fellow radicals (especially Rockwellians) are going to do the same. Word is that two very prominent Austrians may endorse Chuck Baldwin — which I can’t believe could happen without him restating his opposition to the free market — and that could change things for me.

I do not feel I’m under a moral obligation to support the Libertarian Party ticket, as some “reformers” — who I know would have stormed off it a real libertarian had won in Denver — want to claim. Although I don’t think the Barr campaign engaged in any type of shenanigans at the convention, I do believe they participated in a terribly unethical plot to smear Mary Ruwart prior to it — a plot involving abuse of power at LPHQ and the semi-covert conversion of a third-party news site into a propaganda mill for Barr. A fair and square loss would have been hard enough to swallow. But when Republican hate tactics are used to advance a Republican candidate within the LP, the pill’s a little bitterer. And so am I.

At LFV, I’ve read comments from a number of disgruntled radicals who feel the same way I do. The healing process is going to take some time. Maybe in a few days, a few weeks, or a few months, we’ll be ready to get behind Barr. Maybe not. Many of us and most of our candidates have taken bruises for the libertarian movement. Barr and Root are both unscathed. Let them leave some blood on the battle field, and I think plenty of on-the-fence radicals will come rushing to their aid. But if they play it safe and market themselves as “conservatives for medical marijuana,” don’t expect much from us.

LP’s Antiwar Resolution

Whereas the War in Iraq was sold to the American people based upon lies, exaggerations and half-truths,

Whereas the War in Iraq was prosecuted for the private interests of the Administration and its cronies and was not, and is not, in the national security interests of the United States,

We call for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq as quickly as can be safely accomplished.

Hat tip Thomas Sipos

Thanks Everyone!

This will be my final LFV post. I’m just real busy at the moment and I’d rather give up “my spot” to someone with more time to dedicate to posting here. Like to thank ENM & the other contributors here. The site is really taking off again.

If you are interested in posting here, shoot ENM an email. I’m sure she’ll consider you.

I’ll still be active in the comments area of the site, but I just don’t have much time to actively post. When I’m not leaving comments, I’ll be working my ass off, trying to get elected.

Again…thanks to everyone. Keep fighting the good fight. Oh yeah, if you missed tonight’s “LFV Live”, make sure you catch the archive. It was pretty sweet.

Humble request of Barr/Root backers

I’ve been hired to write an article about the convention, but I don’t have any pictures of Barr or Root. If you snapped some pics of decent quality (i.e. not from your cell phone) and wouldn’t mind them being used, please let me know.

Secondly, the article I’m writing is about the monetary policy of the candidates. I’ve heard nothing about monetary policy from Barr or Root — have they made any statements? I don’t want to mischaracterize their positions as “pro-Fed” if they are in fact not.

Thank you

Christine Smith: ‘The LP is dead, I’m outta here’

Christine Smith – the longshot LP presidential candidate who received only six delegate votes, and who blasted Barr at the convention on live television – has announced that she is leaving the “dead” Libertarian Party.

Here is an excerpt:

For those of you who have asked: I am leaving the LP. I think the party is a waste of time and resources for anyone who actually wishes to join with others whose priority is freedom (some advances are made on the local level which I think are very good-but as a whole I think the LP is unworthy of the participation of anyone with integrity, ethics, and character–that is my conclusion after witnessing what occurred at the National LP Convention this weekend.) Though some true libertarians will choose to remain in the LP, from the emails and phone calls I have received, I believe many will leave. Each true libertarian must make the choice that is right for him or her; my choice is to fight the battle for liberty in other ways. As for me, I want no part of an organization that could put Barr and Root as the 2008 Presidential/VP candidates. Their choice to do so is, in my opinion, a tragic mistake for the LP. The LP now stands for nothing different than the two major parties – it is a meaningless party as it has become what it always condemned; it no longer offers an alternative choice or voice for liberty at the highest level as should be represented in its presidential candidate. The resulting damage to the party as a means to advance liberty and to attract liberty-minded individuals has been done. No true libertarian would support (or defend) the selection of Bob Barr. (For those who choose to remain in the LP to try and repair it, it will take many years to even return to the place the party was a few days ago.) The hope and enormous potential the LP, as “The Party of Principle,” had in 2008 was enormous – now that has been destroyed.

LFV Live!: Final LP Convention wrap-up

LFV Live! will be on tonight at 7:30 EST. We will be discussing the convention.

I’d like to have some of our contributors who attended the convention as guests. Anybody up for that?

UPDATE: Paulie Cannoli, GE Smith, Chris Bennett, Brian Miller and Jeff Wartman will be on the show, so we will have viewpoints from all sides of the current controversy.

The call-in number is (646)478-4638, if anyone wants to call in with comments or questions. The show tonight will be one hour long, running from 7:30 to 8:30.

If there are any further updates, I will post them here.

Remember Our Enemy

From: BobBarrMoneyBomb.com

Root/Kubby could have been ‘unity ticket’

Yes, a lot of Mary Ruwart backers are quite bitter. Do you imagine it would be any different from the other side, had she won? I was reviewing the round-by-round results earlier today, and the thought struck me: Some pragmatist (not me, I would take a bullet for Mary) should have organized the vast center and engineered a compromise. If Root could have pulled off enough votes to leap over Mary and into second place, then the Mary backers could have been made the kingmakers one insider predicted they would be. We would have chosen Root, of course, but we could have gotten his support for a Kubby VP nomination. Thus, both Barr and Ruwart would be off the ticket, and neither side would have “won.” There would still be hard feelings, but Barr and Mary backers could each take solace in the fact that the other lost, and both would find the Root/Kubby ticket equally agreeable.

G.E. (no longer) live in Denver: Posthumous report

First, I want to offer my apologies to Elfninosmom for not being able to provide more coverage while in Denver.

I left off Thursday night after the Libertarians for Justice event. The next morning, a strange thing happened: I got put to work.

Friday

I manned the Mary Ruwart booth for much of the day. This is when I first got to really meet Mary, and she shocked me by asking me to giver her a nominating speech. I was afraid to say yes, but I couldn’t say no. I would be horribly nervous and dreading the idea of it for the next 48 hours.

I had lunch with Tom Knapp. He bought. He told me about an apparent attack on George Phillies the night before — I mean a real attack — by an armed gunman. I never found out anything more about this, and inexplicably, I forgot to ask George when I saw him.

A little later, Andy and I ran into the WWE wrestler, Kane. Andy talked him up. He was very knowledgeable about wrestling, and Kane was impressed. Andy asked Kane which candidate he supported, and Kane pointed his thumb at the Ruwart booth. “You support Mary Ruwart?” Andy asked for clarification. Kane shook his head affirmatively. I later told this to Lee Wrights and we made several efforts to build a bridge with Kane without being too pushy. The day of the voting, Kane gave me a big thumbs up after my speech and I noticed he was wearing a Mary Ruwart button.

But back to Friday: This was the night of the big “unofficial, all-inclusive” debate. I have to say I would have much preferred a “mostly inclusive” format, rather than all-inclusive. Candidates without even two supporters don’t need to be heard. This includes both the crazy (Imperato and Alden Link), as well as the sane and principled candidates with no support whatsoever (Jim Burns).

If there were any doubts (and I don’t think there were), Imperato firmly established himself as batshit crazy during the debate. Wow. Paulie was sitting next to me and cracking jokes all night long. The whole audience snickered and outright laughed every time Imperato would go into long multi-lingual rants — “Must be he bought Dondero’s book,” Paulie said — or bragged of his connections (knows George W. Bush very well, partner with bin-Laden, has adopted nephews and nieces in Abu Dabai who call him “Uncle Dammy”). Imperato would also redirect every financial, fiscal, or monetary issue to his theory of Jacob and Esau, whereby Arabs were now jealous of the Jewish money mastery.

Alden Link: What a waste of time. Totally not libertarian in the least. Energy socialist. Monetary moron. Literally supported the “military industrial complex” in both name and spirit. Bigoted against Muslims. For the war on terror. Paulie said, “New rumor: Alden Link is Eric Dondero’s grandfather.”

Jon Finan was the only candidate (other than Barr) not in attendance. I did see him on Sunday on the convention floor. I don’t know why he didn’t show at this debate, but I’m glad he didn’t.

Voices from LFV Mailbag: Barr pledges to repeal DOMA

LFV received a link to the following YouTube video from Brian Miller.

Barr/Root Have My Support

In private over the past two days, I’ve been interacting with other Libertarians who are upset about our ticket. Not all “radicals” either (and for the record, I hate labels). Anyways, I have no clue what they are going to do, but I do know what I plan to do.

In November, I will cast my vote for Bob Barr.

Will I help raise money for the campaign? No

Will I send donations? No

Will I put a graphic up on my campaign site & stand on a corner and hold a rally sign on election day? Maybe, if they send me a sign.

Will I go to any meet-ups? Sure, why not. I enjoy talking to folks.

In other words, my “involvement” with this campaign will be pretty limited. Bottom line is, I’m a Libertarian Party member and I will cast my vote for the Libertarian Party ticket in November.

Voices from YouTube: Video coverage of convention

Someone on YouTube commented that Christine Smith looks crazy.  She really does, when the video is up close like that.

I have no idea what Imperato is talking about in this video.  The man doesn’t make a lot of sense.

“Live From Court Street” Returns Tonight

We’ve been on hiatus for a couple of weeks due to injury and political ambitions, but tonight we return for a special Tuesday episode. Join Cilla & myself tonight at 7:30 PM Eastern as we discuss the Libertarian National Convention, the USA vs Mexico soccer friendly, Cilla’s Entertainment Report & our very popular “news” segment.

Please note: Unless we are conducting an interview, we do not take calls during the show.

Visit http://www.blogtalkradio.com/livefromcourtstreet and bring a friend or two.

Voices from LFV Comments: Less Antman on Steve Kubby

The following was written by Less Antman in the Last Free Voice comments section.

There was, by the way, some magnificent news during the LNC At-Large nominations: Kubby, at the start of his nomination speech for Ruwart, mentioned that he’d just received word that morning that all government charges pending against him related to his use of marijuana to control his cancer had been dismissed, and his record expunged. Since I was, at the time, going over remarks of my own on behalf of another candidate (Susan something-or-other, I forget her name), I wasn’t paying close attention to what he was saying, but the audience exploded in applause at his words, and I’m pretty sure he did say that it appeared the government’s harassment of him and his family had finally come to end. Let’s hope so.

Voices from YouTube re Libertarian Convention

LNC Election Results

I’m not going to break down all the numbers. If you want to see the round by round results, CLICK HERE.

Chair-Bill Redpath

Vice Chair- Michael Jingozian

Secretary- Bob Sullentrup

Treasurer- Aaron Starr

LNC At-Large

Mary Ruwart

Angela Keaton

Pat Dixon

Lee Wrights

Michael Colley

Not sure who all the regional reps are yet.

Just For Fun

GE: Ruwart To Seek LNC Spot

I hope this true. According to Jason Seagraves, Mary Ruwart May Seek a LNC Spot. I think electing a principled LNC is the only thing that can save this convention from becoming a complete disaster.

By the way, Bob Barr was on CNN this morning and apparently he said “The party is united”. Guess he figured he would get that first lie out of the way quickly or he’s very clueless.

Post-nomination thoughts and tidbits

I’m really disappointed in Christine Smith… not as a Barr backer, but as a 15-year life member of the LP.  Just a couple of weeks ago, she was on radio blasting Mary Ruwart over the child porn thing.  Put the spotlight on her again, and she turns 180-degrees and blasts Barr on national TV.  I publicly apologize to the Ruwart crowd for ever having said a word in Smith’s defense on the first point.  Smith then went on to try and disrupt the post-nomination press conference… at this point I just think all she cares about is getting on TV.

The VP thing didn’t have to play out the way it did.  I was cool with a Barr/Ruwart ticket initially… after the big wins that the reformers got on the Bylaws and Platform debates over the past two days, I thought it would be good for party unity for Ruwart to make the VP slot.  I talked with a few key radical leaders, and leaned Kubby’s way on the first round (with several other Barr supporters) for the unity factor.

On the second round, I shrugged my shoulders and voted Root.  For one thing, I learned that multiple offers had been made by the Barr camp to bring Ruwart on board… before the nominations, and during the rounds.  Ruwart wouldn’t budge, even after it became clear the way things were shaping up.  In all fairness, I’m hearing that she had a pre-existing pact in place with Kubby… and couldn’t find him right before the last vote to see if he’d be okay with her backing out of that.  However, there were multiple offers, and I’m not convinced that she (or Kubby) really would have gone that way regardless.

More importantly, Kubby lost on VP because 20 or more delegates left the floor following the Barr win.  Had they simply stuck around one more hour, Kubby would have WON.  Kubby and Nolan then gave speeches in lobby, and still more others pledged not to go to the morning session tomorrow… thus ensuring that a less-balanced LNC will be elected.  Again, that doesn’t HAVE to go that way either.  Say what you want, this convention has been no “purge”… things played out in such a lopsided manner largely due to all-or-nothing thinking, and poor floor management once emotions got too strong.

I personally hope that once people have an opportunity to blow off steam and vent their frustrations, that most of the disappointed people begrudgingly find their way back in the fold.  I might not have said that a couple of weeks ago, but meeting some of these people in real life (that I’d only known from online arguments) has changed my thinking somewhat.  Before I came out here, my preconception of Starchild for example was based on the portrayal he often gets online… I thought he was some guy who just shows up in costumes and tries to disrupt things because he doesn’t take matters seriously.  You know what?  That image is completely full of shit.  In the Bylaws and Platform debates, he was extremely knowledgeable about every plank being discussed, articulated his positions eloquently and respectfully, and was nothing if not 100% serious (attire aside).  The same was true for the arguments he was making while working the floor during Presidential votes.  I disagreed with him 90%+ of the time, but the guy’s NOT a joke… he’s probably one of the best libertarians we have, and just has a different vantage point than me on what’s best for the Party.  The same is true for several of the other key guys that I’ve gone to the mat with in blog debates.

Phillies probably delivered the best speech of his career when he refused to make an endorsement, but tried to stress that the enemy was outside the room rather than within.  I’ll be doing everything I can for the ticket over the next several months, and I do hope that the disappointed people come around once they’ve had their chance to vent some steam.

Liveblogging LP Convention: C-Span Coverage: Nominating Ballots

hey plan to ballot through lunch, but there will be natural breaks where they can take care of needs. Sandwiches available.

I heard the names George Phillies and Christine Smith.

The nominee will be chosen by majority vote. Those who receive the fewest vots and those polling less than 5% are removed from subsequent ballots. Lather, rinse, repeat until someone has a majority.

Something I wonder about with the LP is that the delegates don’t necessarily vote for who their constituents would want. I find that odd, since people are credentialed so they can represent their state, but in the end they represent themselves.

I heard Mike Jingozian’s name, and Christine Smith’s name.

I see PaulieCannoli just kind of wandering around by himself.

Did the Barr supporters actually think it was a good idea to interrupt the speaker by walking through with their signs? That doesn’t seem to be a very good idea, especially given the crowd’s extremely negative reaction. As I said before, I suspect that just lost him the nomination. I wonder whether he was behind that or approved it, and if not what he thinks about it.

They’re showing a guy with some major body modification. He has the giant rings in his earlobes, like you see in some native tribes. I wonder if it hurts to do that? I think they just do it very slowly, a little bit bigger hole each time until it’s the size you want.

They keep showing the same Barr delegate, trying to talk people into supporting him. He seems to be trying to convince either a Ruwart or Smith supporter to vote Barr for Prez, the female for VP, but the supporter shot him down and said she would not run with any candidate she has major problems with, and she has major problems with Barr.

Interesting if they were referring to Ruwart, because a lot of people have said that Barr/Ruwart is their preferred ticket.

Some guy just said “Vote Mike Gravel” into the roaming camera.

Hancock is saying he thinks Americans will wake up. Another guy is talking about the Federal Reserve. Hancock wants to stop the debt.

I need to put a television in my kitchen, because I really need to clean the kitchen but I also want to watch this. I guess the kitchen will have to wait. Argh.

I’ll be back, need to take my pain medication.

I’m back. I feel kind of guilty for spending so much time doing this, when it’s my partner’s only day off this week. I really wish some of the contributors would jump in and give me a hand.

They seem to be adding up votes. Wayne Allyn Root got zero votes from his home state of Nevada, they were shocked by that. That’s not a good sign for him.

I see someone in a “V for Vendetta” mask coming toward the camera.

State by state announcement of results in five minutes. I’ll try to keep up with that, but I’m on a different computer than usual so my fingers on a strange keyboard may not cooperate.

Some woman in a weird hat is talking about her mom watching it on C-Span, but is using a very strange voice in her impersonation. I get the impression she just wants to be on television.

Some guy is telling Gravel that he may have beaten Phillies in the first round.

I forgot to mention earlier, but someone wrote in Ron Paul.

Results in one minute.

Results starting.

By the way, did I mention on LFV that the LP’s Media Director, Andrew Davis, was photographed a couple of years ago carrying an “Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve” sign? I have it on my computer, if anyone wants to see it.

Results to be alphabetical. They have limited supplies of paper, so they want people to put votes on only a small piece of it. Huh?

New Hampshire: Talking about how great their state is, blah blah. Get on with it already. NOTA 1, Barr 1, Gravel 1, Phillies 3, Ruwart 3

New York: What happened to New Jersey and New Mexico?

New Jersey: Ruwart 3, Root 11

New Mexico: Gravel 1, Kubby 2, Root 1, Ruwart 3, Smith 1, William Colin 1 (Huh?)

New York: Barr 4, Gravel 4, Jingozian 1, Kubby 1, Phillies 0, Root 6, Ruwart 5, Smith 0, NOTA 0

North Carolina: Gravel 1, Barr 2, Ruwart 5

North Dakota: No delegates

Ohio: blah blah blah. Get on with it. Ruwart 3, Root 7

Oklahoma: Ruwart 1, Kubby 3, Barr 3

Oregon: blah blah, blah. Get on with it. That poor guy is so nervous he’s shaking like a leaf. Jingozian 9, Gravel 3, Barr 1, Root 1, Ruwart 1, Smith 1

Pennsylvania: Barr 6, Phillies 4, Gravel 7, Jingozian 1, Ruwart 2, Kubby 1, Penn Jillette also got votes

Rhode Island: Phillies 2

South Carolina: blah, blah. Root 1, Gravel 3, Barr 8

South Dakota: Root 3

Tennessee: blah, blah. Phillies 1, Kubby 1, Root 1, Barr 3, Ruwart 8

Texas: blah, blah. Barr 8, Gravel 4, Kubby 2, Phillies 1, Root 6, Ruwart 14

Utah: blah, blah. Barr 2, Gravel 1, Kubby 2, Ruwart 2

Vermont: Ruwart 1

Virginia: blah, blah. Barr 10, Gravel 1, Jingozian 1, Root 1, Ruwart 3

Washington: blah, blah. Barr 1, Gravel 4, Kubby 1, Phillies 2, Root 3, Ruwart 3

West Virginia: blah, blah. Gravel 1, Ruwart 2

Wisconsin: Gravel 2, Ruwart 4

Wyoming: Ruwart 1, Barr, 1, Gravel 1

Alabama: Gravel 1, Kubby 1, Ruwart 2, Barr 7

Alaska: Barr 1, Ruwart 1, Root 2

Arizona: Ruwart 8, Kubby 3, Barr 2, Gravel 2, Root 1, Phillies 1

Arkansas: blah blah. Imperato 1

California: blah, blah. Ron Paul 1, kubby 6, Gravel 9, Phillies 10, Barr 17, Ruwart 20, Root 38

Colorado: Barr 2, Gravel 2, Jingozian 2, Kubby 2, Phillies 2, Root 9, Ruwart 4, Smith 1, NOTA 1, Ron Paul 3

Connecticut: Ruwart 1, Kubby 2, Gravel 2

Delaware: Ron Paul 1

District of Colombia: Barr 3

Florida: Gravel 2, Phillies 2, Root 1, Ruwart 5, Barr 9

Georgia: Ruwart 2, Barr 33

Hawaii: blah, blah. Kubby 1

Idaho: Barr 1, Gravel 1, Jingozian 1, Kubby 2, Root 1, Ruwart 1

Illinois: blah, blah. Phillies 1, Root 1, Gravel 1, Kubby 2, Jingozian 2, Barr 2, Ruwart 10

Indiana: blah blah. Root 6, Gravel 5, Barr 4, Phillies 3, Jingozian 2, Ruwart 2

Iowa: Phillies 3, Root 2, Ruwart 1, Gravel 1

Kansas: Barr 4, Root 3, Ruwart 2, Jingozian 1

Kentucky: Root 3, Ruwart 1

Louisiana: Smith 1, Ruwart 1, Gravel 1, Barr 2, Root 3

Maine: He is so nervous he can barely speak, but tries to make jokes. Barr 1, Kubby 1, Ruwart 1, Ron Paul 1

Maryland: Barr 2, Phillies 5, Kubby 1, Ruwart 2

Massachusetts: blah blah. Phillies 6

Michigan: blah, blah. Barr 4, Gravel 3, Jingozian 1, Kubby 1, Root 5, Ruwart 12

Minnesota: Phillies 1, Smith 1, Barr 2, Root 2, Ruwart 1

Mississippi: Barr 1, Root 1, Ruwart 2

Missouri: blah blah. Gravel 1, Kubby 3, Barr 5, Root 4, Ruwart 4, Jingozian 2

Montana: Phillies 2, Ruwart 1, Kubby 1

Nebraska: Ruwart 3

Nevada: Ruwart 1, Kubby 1, Smith 1, Gravel 6

Results of first ballot:

Barr 153 votes – 25%

Ruwart 152 votes – 25%

Root 123 votes – 20%

Gravel 71 votes – 11%

Phillies 49

Kubby 41

jingozian 23

Smith 6

Plus ten write-ins

(Sorry, they didn’t keep it up long enough for me to copy all of them.)

Jingozian and Smith excluded from second ballot

He was asked to put the results back up, but he said he can’t do that because the computer is being used for something else. Eventually read out totals.

Jingozian concession speech; not giving up, will be back. Stumps for VP? Not about him, it’s about what’s good for the party. Endorses Gravel again.

Smith concession speech. Disappointed, but is visibly angry about Barr being on top. Bashes conservatives. She’s pissed. Says Barr is not a Libertarian, “we don’t trust you!” She thanks her supporters. Said “put a libertarian on the ballot”, got boo’d. Damn, that is one angry woman. I get the distinct impression that she is extremely pissed at getting only 6 votes. Did she really expect to get more than that?

Being interviewed, Christine Smith says libertarians are selling out. Says people are leaving LP if Barr is chosen. Damn, she’s angry again. Says Barr needs to use the media he brags about to apologize to people who are in prison because of his laws. Says libertarians are selling out by supporting Barr. Says it’s all for nothing if we sell out. Barr is not a libertarian, is wolf in sheep’s clothing, etc.

She kind of has a point, in my opinion, though she goes about expressing that point the wrong way.

No state-by-state ballots this time.

Bob Barr 30%

Ruwart 26%

Root 138

Gravel 73

Phillies 36

Kubby 32

Kubby eliminated from next ballot. Again, they didn’t leave it up long enough for me to get all the numbers. Argh.

They’re reading out the state-by-state, but I’m not even going to try to keep up with that.

Kubby giving concession speech. Endorses Ruwart.

My other half just told me he’s going to make us some steaks for dinner. Yum. I hope this is over by then, or that at least one of the contributors has come by to help. Otherwise, I’m closing up shop. I don’t want to spend my entire holiday weekend stuck inside liveblogging.

Some guy (Joe Johnson) was making a speech, but not about the candidates, so I walked downstairs to talk to my other half for a few minutes. I’m back now, and he’s still talking. Geez.

He finally stopped talking, thank goodness.

Mary Ruwart is talking to a small group of people, she seems to have serious concerns about Bob Barr. She says he will legalize medical marijuana, but not heroin or crack. She says our media is the internet. She also says Ron Paul supporters will not support Barr. Libertarians in the LGBT community are telling her that if Barr is elected, they’re leaving. She thinks Ron Paul might talk about her, but I think that’s doubtful.

However, I absolutely will not support Bob Barr under any circumstances, so she might be right about a defection. I won’t defect, but I also won’t give Barr any positive press.

Total results of third ballot:

Tied for first place between Barr and Ruwart (186), followed by Root, Gravel, and Phillies in last place. Someone wrote in Ron Paul again. They are just reading out the state totals quickly, so again I’m not going to try to keep up with them.

Fourth ballot; Phillies eliminated. That’s a shame, but on the bright side I guess he saved himself the $100,000 he was going to spend on his campaign.

Phillies concession speech. Disappointed that not one person has asked him to endorse someone they wanted to lose. Big laughter over that. Will not speak ill of a fellow Libertarian. Nice guy. Acknowledges Gravel for debating a Libertarian when he was running as a Democrat. Thanks Ruwart and Barr for entering race to do what they think is right for the party. Voting majority of his state is neopagan, he wanted to make that point, undoubtedly directed at Barr. Enemy is Democratic Party and conservatives. We are the party of the future. Nice speech, but I was hoping he would endorse someone.

I want to say this. George Phillies is a really nice guy. I realize some people have a problem with him, but I’m not one of those people. He has always treated both me and LFV with fairness and respect, and even offered to help get GE press credentials when they were denied by LPHQ, so LFV could cover the convention. George is a good man, a dedicated libertarian, and I will always think very well of him.

Barr, Gravel, Ruwart and Root on fourth ballot.

Root people talking about how he needs to take 40 votes from Gravel. That is never going to happen, because anyone who supports Mike Gravel is never going to support Wayne Root.

Gravel talking to someone, says this is a vehicle for him to get out his message, to give power back to the people.

Root walking by with his fake infomercial smile. Talking to Gravel, then someone pointed out the camera.

Barr and Ruwart still tied for first place, Gravel in last place. Gravel will be out of the fifth ballot. He doesn’t seem to be making a speech, though. I wonder why? They show him talking to people, so he is still there. he says it’s a collective decision, and he respects it. He said to that person that he voted for Root out of the three still left. What? Damn, now I’ve lost respect for Gravel. I would have thought that he was supporting NOTA.

Gravel says this is the end of his political career. He would not have done anything differently. He is not going to make a speech. He is going to push the National Initiative until the day he dies. He says this is all politics as usual, that representative government is broken, and libertarians have chosen not to fix it.

He says he would vote for Barr before he’d vote for Ruwart, if it comes down to the two of them.

Fifth ballot totals: Ruwart 229, Barr 223, Root 165, NOTA 6

Root is out of the sixth ballot. I have a feeling the Root supporters will support Barr, not Ruwart, based upon her statements about child porn; remember, it was Root who raised a big stink about that. If Ruwart wins, I will be very surprised.

Root making concession speech. It’s not over, he wants to be Barr’s VP. No surprise there. Says he has been respectful to all candidates, but that’s not true because he was not respectful to Mary Ruwart. He keeps raising his fist into the air and saying ‘Bang!” What a retard.

Sixth ballot is Barr vs Ruwart vs NOTA. It will be interesting to see how many votes NOTA gets this time.

Root and Barr are embracing. Root’s daughter is there, he’s talking about her running for president again. Boring. Root’s baby is on TV, cute kid. Root was asked why he didn’t endorse Barr. Root never actually answered the question, but says he and Barr can change the face of the country. Yawn. If it’s a Barr/Root ticket, I will no longer support the LP, because that will be proof that it has been taken over by conservatives. I have never supported a conservative candidate, and I’m not about to start now.

People are walking around with Ruwart signs. Some woman is telling people to vote Barr/Root, talking about the next 12 years. If that’s the ticket, the LP will be unrecognizable long before then.

Some guy is talking about VP voting, says Ruwart’s people will want her, but Ruwart will not accept running with Barr. You can hear people chanting “Barr/Root! Barr/Root!” Other people are chanting “Mary! Mary!”

If the winner of this round does not win by a majority, will they still have to go up against NOTA? That would be interesting, LOL.

Results of sixth ballot: Barr 324, Ruwart 276, NOTA 4

Ruwart speaking. Thanks supporters and campaign team. She thanked LFV’s own Jason Seagraves right after her husband. Jason, you’re supposed to clap for the other people she’s introducing, LOL. Then again, Nancy Neal clapped for herself, and that’s a bigger faux pas. She says it’s time to get on with the business of the party. She says nothing about being interested in becoming the Vice Presidential nominee.

Barr will address delegates about the Vice Presidential nominee. Called Redpath the greatest political leader in the US. Um, yeah. Talked about seeing people in a Barr administration cabinet. Um, yeah. Talks about his son, thanks him. Derek is his son’s name. Introduces his wife, Geri Barr (not sure of spelling, I just guessed). Russ Verney on staff. Gawd, this man is boring. Says it will be historic and positive campaign that will succeed, not in race to make a point, or to send message, is “campaign that will win”. Um, yeah. Introduces Steve Gordon and Shane Corey. The man is either lying or delusional, because there is no way he can win the general election.

Taking recess until 4:15, which should be 7:15pm EST.

C-Span did not pick up the VP nominations after all, but Root won.

The LP ballot for the 08 election is Barr/Root.

It looks like Barr has a live stream at http://www.ustream.tv/channel/bob-barr-2008, and I’m really sick of liveblogging (and even sicker of watching this crap on television), so I’m signing out.  (Thanks to Jacqueline Passey for the link!)

Liveblogging LP Convention: C-Span Coverage: Nominating Speeches

Sorry for the late start, I had computer problems.

The delegates had the opportunity to object to the 100 or so new delegates, and most didn’t even have the balls to do that. This really is the bush league, folks. No guts, no glory.

Anyway, Root is on first.

Root has put his teenage daughter Dakota on to make a nominating speech for him. She’s every bit as fake as he is, it’s a damn shame. What nitwit would put a kid on to make a nominating speech? Then he nominated her for president … um, yeah. Does he actually think libertarians are nitwitted enough to nominate him because his kid said we should?

He says he’s going to speak from the heart, but he keeps looking down at notes. He told a story about his mom dying 28 days after his dad, after fighting cancer and made it 13 hours after they disconnected life support. Nice story, but I don’t know what that has to do with the nomination.

Order of candidates: Root, Barr, Smith, Ruwart, Phillies, Kubby, Jingozian, Gravel.

The guy making the nominating speech for Barr looks and sounds a lot like Kevin from “The Office”. In the season finale, the new human resources rep thinks that Kevin is simple-minded, LOL. He’s saying the same things we have already heard, so maybe he’s more like Kevin than I thought, LOL.

Now a guy from the Marijuana Policy Project is nominating him. This is going to sound like a joke, but it’s not. The dude looks stoned.

Mark Rutherford is on now. Are these people really so dumb that they don’t realize Barr is going to rehabilitate his name then return to the Republican Party? Apparently so.

Mike Ferguson is on now, talking about how proud he is. He also supports Barr.

Bob Barr is on now. Says he caught a lot of hell at convention.

It should be interesting to see what Christine Smith has to say, given that she’s delusional and didn’t get enough tokens to make it to the debate.

Guy talking about Christine Smith now, says she gave some of her tokens to other candidates.

Gary Archer from New Mexico is nominating her. Damn, that guy looks dirty. What the hell?

Christine Smith is an extremely smug person, or maybe she is embarrassed by having buck teeth and that’s why she holds her mouth that way. She rewrote her speech based on what she saw at convention. I still cannot believe she thinks she can be an actress/model. She has sacrificed but libertarians made it worthwhile. She thinks we should nominate a female candidate. She wants to go into the inner cities, talk to the poor, talk to the Hispanic community. She bragged about her kill rate with a gun, as if that’s a reason to nominate her. Says we used to stand for all kinds of things, but no one calls us the party of principle but us. After what she’s seen at convention, allowing neoconservatives to come in and take over, she’s upset. America will have no hope if neocons take over LP.

Hell has frozen over, because Christine Smith finally made a valid point. She is still seeking nomination. Damn, she’s talking for a much longer time than Root or Barr did. Maybe it just seems that way.

She’s finally finished. She made the best speech so far.

Next candidate is Mary Ruwart. Dean Ahmad is nominating her. He’s going on for quite some time. Says she won’t give up principles to get a million votes. He brings up again that voters want to vote for a woman. He really doesn’t have a clue; does the Ruwart campaign actually believe that people will vote for her only because she is a woman?

Our own Jason Seagraves is nominating her! Cool! Hey, since you’re from Flint, do you know Grand Funk? I’m friends with those guys, didn’t know you are from there (and yes, I know I’m really showing my age by admitting that, LOL). Mary will continue Ron Paul Revolution. Great job, Jason – I’m proud of you!

Barry Hess is talking about her now. I guess that means he is no longer running. She has testicular fortitude. Um, yeah. Don’t be fooled by newcomers claiming they get media.

She’s finally speaking. Her hair looks better today. She says we need to talk to everybody in their own language. That’s true, but when she has tried to talk to others in their own language, all hell broke loose.

If any LFV contributors are reading this, I’d appreciate some help.

George Phillies is next. Carolyn Marbry is speaking. She joined his campaign because she believes in what he has to say, he’s a man of principle and will even speak his mind when it makes others mad.

Steve Kubby was up, but I had to do something else. Tom Knapp made a speech for him, and Kubby said it was the party of fun.

Jingozian is up next. The first guy is saying he has “rock star status”. Um, yeah. Has this guy ever actually seen a rock star?

Guys, I really need someone else to jump in here and give me a hand. I do have a life outside this blog, and I’m also kind of pissed off that one of my own contributors just suggested in comments in another thread that I join another party just because I thought the debates weren’t very good. Maybe that contributor would like to do this liveblog, since this is the second day in a row I’m liveblogging by myself? No, of course not; it’s much easier to make smartass comments than it is to actually pitch in and contribute. Argh.

Jingozian is staying onstage, and nominating Gravel. Smooth move, I like it. He says Gravel is a maverick, promoted libertarian values in Congress. Ended Vietnam, exposed the Pentagon Papers. He knew to survive, we need to know what’s going on in our government.

Now Gravel’s daughter is seconding the nomination. She remembers sitting in Supreme Court with mother and brother, wondering if her father would be sent to prison for releasing the Pentagon Papers. He said Iraq was the next Vietnam, and he was right. His daughter is very pretty. The libertarian message can save this country, and Gravel can bring the message to the country.

Gravel is speaking, said it’s touching that so many people have wished him good luck. Says following the libertarian platform is extremely important. Nothing in the platform that makes him uncomfortable. He has a gun, says he will die with his gun in hand if necessary, but if it comes to that, it’s too late. Good point. Government is an oppressive institution, that has to change. He is a very engaging speaker, the best one today by far. He supports the woman’s right to choose, civil liberties above all else. His base of power in Alaska was the minorities. The government wanted to reeducate the Alaska native children, he fought for them to be educated in their own communities. The people are smarter than their leaders, they just don’t know it. Says he’ll make us proud.

The end.

Redpath says there will be multiple ballots.

People are walking through with Barr 08 signs, getting very loudly boo’d. I think Barr just lost the nomination.

652 credentials voters. Expects more voters to arrive.

I’m starting a new thread for the balloting.

Jacqueline Passey Endorses Ruth Bennett for LNC Chair

The following is reproduced with the permission of the author, Jacqueline Passey.

I am delighted to discover that Ruth Bennett is running for LNC Chair and proudly watched her debate on C-SPAN tonight.  Although I feel lukewarm about our Presidential nomination candidates, I am enthusiastic and excited about Ruth Bennett’s candidacy for national party chair.

I had the great pleasure of working with Ruth within the Libertarian Party of Washington State during my 2000-2006 involvement (before I moved away).  She is a hard-working fair-minded long-time activist who knows how to get shit done.

Some of Ruth’s credentials:

• Libertarian Party member and activist for 30 years
• Has been the parliamentarian for the Libertarian Party of Washington for many years and is *very* good at it (so you know she knows how to run an effective, productive, fair meeting)
• Has served a wide variety of positions within the party, including most recently as the former Chair of the Libertarian Party of Washington State
• Has run for office as a Libertarian 5 times
• Her 2000 campaign for Lieutenant Governor, in which she advocated simply abolishing the useless office and all its related expenses, resonated so successfully with Washington voters that she won the highest vote percentage of any Libertarian candidate in a three-way statewide race in Washington’s history
• Very experienced with ballot access issues, including successfully lobbying the legislature to change ballot access laws
• A zillion other accomplishments that I don’t remember or know about because she’s been involved in the Party longer than I’ve been alive

Ruth Bennett will be a very effective leader of the national party.  She has the right balance of principled libertarian ideology and interview skills necessary to be the external “face” to the media as well as the organizational skills to lead the party’s internal operations.  She also has the diplomatic and people skills necessary to heal the rift between the different factions, bring back people who have left the party, and unite all of us in our common cause of liberty.

If any delegates are reading this before the vote (nudge) I implore you to please cast your vote for Ruth Bennett for LNC Chair.  You will be so proud of all that we will accomplish under her leadership.

___________________________________

Jacqueline Passey is the former Executive Director of the Washington state Libertarian Party, and former LP candidate for Washington Secretary of State. Blog enthusiasts likely remember her from her 2006 blog entry covering the Nevada LP presidential debates, amusingly titled “Two whackjobs, a convicted felon, and George Phillies”. That blog entry set into motion a short-lived “memogate”, in which a memo from then-LP Executive Director Shane Corey, referencing her blog and asking whether the LP can offer better candidates, was leaked into the blogosphere.

Ms. Passey lives in Las Vegas with her husband and dachsunds, and is currently working on her Master’s Degree at UNLV. Her current blog is “Jacqueline Gets Her Geek On”.

Be sure to bookmark this link to to her political posts, and check back often for her continuing convention gossip updates.

LP Debates now available on C-Span website

If you missed the debates, or if you want to watch it again, it’s in the C-Span archives.

Liveblog: LP Convention on C-Span: Chairman Debate

I sure hope this debate is more interesting than the presidential debate.

Not surprisingly, there don’t seem to be anywhere near as many people in attendance.

It’s the same moderator, hopefully he won’t mess this one up.

Candidates are Ruth Bennett, Ernie Hancock, Bill Redpath.

Asked them what they saw in the presidential debate that the LP should go forward with.

Bennett: Could support any of them enthusiastically.

Hancock: Libertarian principles upheld as trait to be admired.

Redpath: Unusual year, very bright and talented straight-talking forthright people.  Great presentation, everybody knows LP much different from Rs and Ds after that debate.

How can people use internet better as a tool?

Bennett: Need to build personal relationships, internet can be powerful tool but is no substitute for personal relationships.

Hancock: Set high standard, provide central resource for people to do it on their own.  Allow people to do what they want and to act in own self-interest.

Redpath: Will be using it better very shortly.  Revamped website in a week.  Will be using internet better.

Moderator: Federal government is not paying for LP convention.

Question: What would you do for fundraising?

Bennett: Increased membership is most important through state and local organizations.  “Unhidden Agenda” (previously posted on LFV).

Hancock: Be the can opener.  If we build it, they will come.  Audience just stared at him, LOL

Redpath: Fundraising harder than for Rs and Ds (duh).

Question: Ballot access.

Bennett: Involved in litigation in Washington state to end initiative (not sure on what).  Has been active in ballot access in her state.  Bill Redpath good on ballot access.  Must work with state legislators to get ballot access passed.  Learn how to lobby successfully.  President of 100,000 member not-for-profit.  Ran for office 5 times.

Hancock:  If we had 50-state ballot access, will put us in the debate?  No.  Talk show host on Air America affiliate.  Many politicians in Arizona try to be libertarian in votes.  Did Ron Paul money bombs.  Let people know on state and local level that they are being supported.  Chastising no-compromise libertarian should never have happened.  Being libertarian is a good trait.

Redpath: Worst ballot access laws among established democracy worldwide. On board of Fair Vote.  People don’t realize it will take change to get away from two-party monopoly.  Legislators have conflict of interest in ballot access issues.

Question: Redpath explain instant run-off voting, then get response from Bennett and Hancock.

Redpath: Eliminate least votes, does away with spoiler problem, allows people to vote conscience.  People like it.  In short term doesn’t make libertarians more electable, but will get libertarians into debates etc.

Bennett: Have it in Pierce County, Washington, called “rank choice voting” there.  It’s a way to save money on primary, go right to general election.  Has people from all third parties in her speed dial, proposing to put that statewide, working with legislature now, can’t promise it will happen. Is involved with Compassionate Choices, which allows death with dignity, big believer in initiatives because it lets the people decide issues the legislature won’t touch.

Hancock:  Told background.  (Boring)  Blah, blah, blah.  Party system gives special privileges.  Libertarians sought him out.  Talked on and on before coming to his point that he already has that in his county.  Will not allow people to be chastised for being too libertarian.  Says there is election fraud because cannot compare paper ballots to electronic ballots.  He seems to go on and on without even really making a point.  He suddenly jumped to talking about restaurants, believe it or not.

Q to Hancock: what was it like to run against John McCain.

Hancock: Didn’t address voters until after voting started.  Makes fun of media.  Never did really answer the question, moderator finally just cut him off.

Q: How do you fix the media

Bennett: Ran for office five times.  Several newspapers treated her like a major party candidate.  She’s a lesbian, did an article on her partner called “First Mates”.  Hancock has passion, but we’re talking about chief officer of non-profit organization.  Has worked with non-profits and led boards into new directions.  She is competent leader who likes to build coalitions to get things done.

Redpath: New website, mentioned Andrew Davis (boo!), going to have helluva presidential campaign this year, will introduce new people to LP, field more candidates.

Question from audience (Starchild):  Ideological drift in national office, LP news not helping in education, website shows presidential race for sale.  Embarrassed to see Imperato on party website.

Bennett: Need more education through LP News.  Considers self pragmatist and radical libertarian.  Need to do outreach, re-radicalize LP News with pragmatic twist.

Hancock: National party shows preference, that’s not their job.  Job is to defend libertarianism and national office has failed in that.  Tired of explaining away actions of national party which is non-libertarian.

Redpath: Hiring new Executive Director, defended Liberty Decides and Ron Paul letter because they brought in money.  I guess that puts an end to the rumor that Shane Corey is going to be rehired.

Thank goodness this is over, but it was more interesting than the presidential debate.  I don’t have a favorite, but I don’t like the way the LP has been handled at the national level, so I think Redpath should be replaced.

Tomorrow’s schedule:

At 10:30 am (EST), two elected Libertarians from Colorado will speak.  At 11:30 am, the presidential nomination process starts.  Viguerie will be on at 7:30 am to talk about his speech, I’m sure we’ll all wake up early just to watch that (not).

Liveblog: LP Convention on C-Span: Presidential Debate

For those of you who don’t get C-Span, or for some reason want to feel like you’re not watching alone, we present the LFV liveblog. I’m ElfNinosMom (ENM) and I will be joined by TitaniumGirl (Tigirl); others may join in as well.

ENM: The guy doing the introduction is boring. They are going to cover the presidential debates, and then the Chairman debates. They are showing Mike Gravel, and I can see Wayne Root. There’s Phillies and Barr as well.

Jim Pinkerton is moderating. When the person introducing him pointed out that he worked for Bush, he got boo’d. Seems like a lively crowd, to say the least.

The candidates debating are Bob Barr, Mike Gravel, George Phillies, Mike Jingozian, Mary Ruwart, Steve Kubby, and Wayne Allyn Root. The moerator called him “The King of Las Vegas!” as if that’s something that makes him qualified for the presidency. Can you see my eyes rolling?

Each gets a two-minute introduction, then will answer in the order in which they were introduced. Pinkerton wants the delegates to hold applause, booing, etc in order to allow more time to ask questions.

Pinkerton made some really strange jokes, which didn’t really go over very well.

Question: What philosopher most closely represents your views?

Barr: Ayn Rand. (Yeah, right.)

Pinkerton actually screwed up and forgot to let them make their opening statements first. I wondered about that.

Barr says his journey has taken many years to get to libertarianism. He brings up Ayn Rand again. he says he has lived in societies with no freedom, no liberty, and said he was referring to Congress. That joke fell flat, he was the only one who thought it amusing. He said people think he is not charismatic. He did okay, but not great.

Gravel said we’re in a mess, and it’s silly to think the ones who got us here can fix it. Only libertarians can fix it. The Dems and Reps have a monopoly, follow the money to find out what will happen when they are elected. I thought he did well.

Phillies is proud to be a Libertarian, and have the opportunity to spread the message of peace, liberty, and prosperity. Proud to have had many opportunities to serve the party, mentioned his congressional run and his PAC, made a jab at Barr without naming him. Phillies will cover issues the American people care about. He is the centrist who can hold the party together. He actually did very, very well.

Jingozian talks about what we have seen in this country. Does he have pink eye in his left eye? It looks odd for some reason. Hopefully it’s just a shadow, because pinkeye sucks. He sacrificed his own time and money to get us where we need to be.

Ruwart got applause right off the bat. Interesting. Democrats made this “the year of the woman”, then dropped the ball. Her hair looks like it’s plastered, she looks much prettier when it’s more natural. She’s still very attractive for a woman her age. Libertarianism is the passionate choice, decrease crime, slash healthcare costs. Only liberty can deliver those things. She has the experience and the depth of understanding of principles to accomplish it. Big applause at end.

Kubby has good news and bad bews. He has 6 months to live, adrenal cancer. Good news is that this is the 34th year they’ve told him that. Big applause. Medical marijuana is the only treatment which has worked. His campaign is not about marijuana, it’s about liberty. Applause again. Has nearly died and gone to jail for liberty. Most cant define liberty. It’s not freedom, it’s freedom from government. He looks like he has some splotches on his forehead. is he okay? I sure hope so!

Root claims we’re the anti party. Anti this, anti that. He talks like a used car salesman. Claims he’s the first Jewish American to get presidential nomination (not true). SOB, blah, blah. Obama, blah blah. Does he not realize that people are tired of hearing the same crap over and over again from him? I know i am. He’s a SOB, for sure, but the B doesn’t stand for butcher.

Okay, now back to questions about philosopher. Gravel says laws permit us to have the sovereignty. Small applause at first, then big applause. Didn’t catch the name of the philosopher, sorry.

Phillies: Goldwater. He got applause during his answer. Then mentioned Marcus Cicero, wrote “Essay on Duty”, sacrifice for country. Small applause.

Jingozian said (dammit, dog was barking, missed it). He says this is the year we will put LP on map.

Is it just me, or are these guys not really answering the question about philosopher?

Ruwart named Ayn Rand. Judge and be prepared to be judged. Unity of our party being challenged. We need to practice non-judgment and love. Big applause.

Kubby said many, but most influenced by David Nolan, LP founder. Taught him liberty works. Without liberty, everything in jeopardy. Moderate applause.

Root said “Yogi Berra”. What a retard. Who wears a fuschia tie on television? Root, that’s who. Ugly, ugly tie.

Question: any part of the world where you’d send troops?

Gravel: No. Wants to withdraw troops from around the world, close bases around world. Treat everybody as equals. Golden rule is answer to meaningful foreign policy. Huge applause.

Phillies: Cold war is over, bring troops home, close bases. End foreign aid, compete economically. Applause.

Jingozian: Most people in world just want to live in peace, have a good standard of living, hope kids have it a little bit better. It’s the governments at war, not the people. War will not end unless we vote libertarian. big applause.

Ruwart: bring troops home. They’re in a Middle Eastern Vietnam. Were at war with Japan just a few decades ago. Be friends to all, trade with all, offer hand in friendship. Applause.

Kubby: strange feedback sounds. We have competitors, we need to figure out that bombing civilians won’t help. People look to US as leader. Some applause.

Root: Thomas Jefferson is hero. Impoundment. Damn, this guy sounds like a broken record. He has said the same things in other debates. He claims he has come the farthest of everyone in the panel. Cut military budget, give money back to taxpayers.

Barr: Missing emphasis on word defense. It is not defending America to occupy foreign nations. Bring troops home, remove security blanket propping up foreign regime. Conveniently doesn’t say anything about his recent statement about invading Colombia. Applause.

Sorry, missed a question because I had to let my dogs out.

Gravel bashed Barr on energy, LOL, and got some applause. Got big applause at end.

Question: Are you familiar with the tragedy of the commons(?)

Jingozian: I don’t know. Big applause. He’s successful not because he knows all the answers, but knows what questions to ask. We need to work together, need a president who admits he doesn’t know. Learn from other countries. Big applause.

Ruwart: Restitution. Make people clean it up. Mentioned taxes, then corrected herself and called it a “fine”. Her response makes no sense, she’s stumbling over her own words. I get the impression that she’s just making it up as she goes along.

Kubby: US government is biggest polluter on planet. He looks really tired.

Root: Al Gore is 2nd biggest polluter, pollutes more when he gets on his private jet to get a Nobel Peace Prize. What a stupid statement. Ends with “government is a failure”. What a retard.

Barr: He says he has no idea what the question was about, but he keeps talking anyway. Retard.

Gravel: Concept of private property should be honored, let people sue polluters, that’s the answer. Applause. Lobbyists set up barriers to stop citizens from doing this. LP offers freedom. Big applause.

Phillies: Not going to bash people because they are conservatives or liberals, is running for President of all. Scientific truth is that there is global warming. Suing people not the answer. If somebody pollutes, put them in prison.

How would you deal with Patriot Act and Real ID Act?

Ruwart: Abolish them both. Ron Paul. Mentioned herself? That fell completely flat. Liberty gives us the way to choose.

Kubby bashed Barr, got laughter. Set clear limits for government. Big applause.

Root: Patriot Act turned him into libertarian. Get rid of it all.

Barr: Full-body x-ray, fear is driving public policy. Claims he has been working with broad coalition to drive a stake through its heart, burn it, blah blah blah. Methinks he doth protest too much.

Gravel: Ask the American people if they want this stuff gone, brings up his National Initiative for Democracy, let people make their own decisions. Cheering from audience.

Phillies: Accidentally said “Congress” instead of president, put Bush et al into prison. Applause.

Jingozian made crack about how can’t you like the Patriot Act, it has the word “patriot” in it. First joke that actually went over well.

Question about American Indian immigration policy. What an incredibly stupid question.

Root will open borders only if he can be guaranteed that there will be no welfare recipients. Secure borders.

Barr says we have no immigration policy. We should require people to go through checkpoint, provide verifiable identification, and check them for communicable diseases.

Gravel says 6 countries in Europe lowered all barriers. Do they know something we don’t? We’re great because we are an amalgam of people of the world.

Phillies said he will actually answer the question, unlike the other candidates. Indian immigration was a failure. We’ll go broke if we have open borders and a welfare state.

Jingozian says we have a “feel good legislation policy”. Native Americans didn’t have welfare state. We must end welfare state. If he used the same practices in his businesses the government uses, he’d be in prison for life for accounting fraud.

Ruwart says government has limited the number of jobs we have. If we got rid of government, we’d be begging for immigrants. Government too busy at border.

War on Drugs question.

End international drug war on drugs. Legalize all drugs. I can’t get over that ugly ass tie he’s wearing.

Barr says drug war hasn’t worked. Turn it over to states. What a cop-out answer.

Gravel says treat addiction as a public health problem. Got big applause.

Phillies: Prohibition was a failure, never underestimate the power of stupidity. We can’t afford it. Applause.

Jingozian agrees with everybody else. Legalize it and deal with it honestly. Can’t win war on drugs. Property crime comes from drug abuse. Will pardon all nonviolent drug offenders first day in office.

Ruwart: War on drugs kills more people than drugs themselves through AIDS. Says legal drugs are also problem, talked about people who tried to buy unapproved cancer drugs. Big applause.

Kubby is “getting a major buzz right now”. Never imagined he’d see such diverse group all agree that medical marijuana should be legalized. Wrote two books on it. Passed Prop 215. 12 states and 2 countries now copy that law. End the drug war by executive order. Big applause.

Barr is really boring compared to the other candidates. At least he’s wearing a nice tie, unlike Root.

Phillies’ tie is crooked, but at least it’s not fuscia.

Sorry, I had to take a break.

Why is Root always yelling? I feel like I’m on a used car lot. Sheesh.

What involvement should the government have in medical care, including FDA?

Gravel: If you’re not healthy, you’re not free. You don’t have freedom if you have a dumb or unhealthy population. Wants to empower people, they will shrink the government better than anyone else.

Phillies: Will propose answers Americans will support, not a philosophy. Vetern healthcare is government obligation, they paid for it with their arms, legs, etc and their friends’ lives.

Jingozian: Deregulate.

I dislike Root more and more, as he talks and gives his fake smile. I’m getting to the point that I actively dislike both him, and Barr. Root in particular, though, grates my nerves. He makes this debate seem like an infomercial, which cheapens it.

How will your campaign help the LP?

Jingozian: Harry Browne enrolled all Americans, not just libertarians. Focusing on issues all Americans have in common.

Ruwart: Invokes Ron Paul. Says women want to vote for a woman. Huh? I’m a woman, and I’m going to vote for the best candidate regardless of whether they have a penis or a vagina. That’s insulting as hell. I suddenly don’t like her. At all. I hate it when people pander and condescend simply because I am female. I hate it even more when the person doing it is a female, because a female should know better.

Kubby: Too many conservative candidates for LP. Invokes Ron Paul.

Root: Fundraising. Will get small business vote (yeah, right). He needs to stop yelling. Education reform. Online poker enthusiasts who consider him a celebrity. Gee, I thought they considered him a scammer.

Barr: Travels, need change. Can reach voters in way they can understand. I don’t think he realizes how much he is hated by Democrats for Clinton impeachment. Seize Libertarian era.

Gravel: Judge people by actions, not talk. Ended the draft, stopped nuclear testing, Alaska pipeline, risked jail with releasing Pentagon Papers, did all that in four years.

Phillies: Has already reached out, so won’t say what he might do, he’s already done it. He’s got the campaign, the volunteers, etc. Will build stronger party.

Root turns his closing statement into an infomercial, by trying to excite the crowd. Gawd, I despise that man.

My least favorite candidate is Ruwart, she lost any possibility of my support or respect when she made the comment about how women want to vote for a woman. That is almost as annoying as Root’s yelling and ugly fuscia tie. I don’t have a favorite, it wasn’t a very good debate in my opinion. It was almost a waste of time to even watch it, I’m very disappointed.

Voices from LFV’s Mailbag: “Basic Democracy – Election Reforms July 1, 2007″

I’m not sure what this means, but I received it in LFV’s inbox and it looks like they put a lot of work into it. Perhaps someone here can translate it for me. -ENM

__________________________________

Do the delusional utopian NO government anarchists in the national and State LP regimes know and/or care about the EVIL monarchy / oligarchy gerrymanders controlling the U.S.A. ???
———-
The U.S.A. has been in a brain dead indirect minority rule gerrymander death spiral since 1776.

One very major gerrymander result — the 1929-2007 combined Fed / State / Local government deficits of $12.3 TRILLION = a DIRECT threat to the survival of Western Civilization.
————
ALL 50 States in the U.S.A. have ANTI-DEMOCRACY gerrymander regimes [derived from the de facto gerrymander formation of the English House of Commons in the 1200's -- a mere 700 plus years ago] –

1. Half the votes in half the gerrymander districts [political concentration camps] for 1 party control = about 25 percent ANTI-DEMOCRACY indirect MINORITY RULE — with much worse minority rule due to special interest gang primary math with *open* (NO incumbent) gerrymander district seats.

2. UNEQUAL votes for each gerrymander district winner.

3. UNEQUAL total votes in each gerrymander district.

See ALL of the MORON gerrymander math opinions in Vieth v. Juberlier, 541 U.S. 267 (2004) [PA] and L.U.L.A.C. v. Perry, 548 U.S. 34 (2006) [TX] due to MANY, MANY, MANY lawyer MORONS — unable to detect the above 3 UNEQUAL points in their New Age ignorant MORON brains.

Result — the nonstop brain dead gerrymander ANTI-DEMOCRACY *politics* in ALL 50 State regimes in the U.S.A. since 1776.

ATTACK the ANTI-Democracy gerrymander systems in the media and the courts.

U.S.A. Const. Art. IV, Sec. 4 [Republican Form of Government -- NO monarchy / oligarchy regimes allowed to control a State] and 14th Amdt, Sec. 1 [Equal Protection Clause].
——
The same sort of nonstop brain dead gerrymander ANTI-DEMOCRACY (or worse) *politics* has been in the U.S.A. regime since 4 March 1789 — the gerrymander U.S.A. House of Reps., the gerrymander U.S.A. Senate and the gerrymander U.S.A. Prez/VP (with severe ROT effects on the appointed party hack U.S.A. Supremes).

Some business- as- usual EVIL gerrymander results — genocide of the American Indian tribes to about 1890, slavery until 1865, undeclared wars, inflations, depressions, giant government debts, etc., etc., etc. — i.e. a minority rule government of the EVIL gerrymander monarchs, by the EVIL gerrymander monarchs and for the EVIL gerrymander monarchs — with all the accumulated special interest gang laws.
——-
Major Reforms –

1. Proportional Representation in all legislative body elections –

Total Votes / Total Seats = EQUAL votes needed for each Seat Winner

ALL voters get represented with Majority Rule (DEMOCRACY) and minority representation.

2. NONPARTISAN nominations and elections of all elected executive officers and all judges.
——————
Basic Democracy Election Reforms 1 July 2007

Sec. A. All candidates for the same office in the same area shall have the same nominating petition requirements to get on the [general] election ballots.

Sec. B. (1) The Electors shall elect the members of each legislative body (odd number at least 5) in each year for 1 year terms.
(2) Each legislative body district shall have between 5 and 10 times the total number of electors at the last [general] election in all districts divided by the total members in the body.
(3) As nearly as possible, each district shall consist of 1 or more local governments or part of 1 local government and be contiguous and square.

Sec. C. (1) Each legislative body candidate shall get a list of all candidates for the body in all districts at least [4] weeks before the [general] election.
(2) Each candidate shall rank the other candidates in all districts (using 1 (highest), 2, etc.) and file such list not later than [4] P.M. [3] weeks before the [general] election.
(3) The lists shall be made public immediately at such deadline.
(4) If a valid list is not filed, then the candidate’s name shall be removed from the ballots.

[Equal Votes per winner P.R.]

Sec. D. (1) Each Elector may vote for 1 candidate for each legislative body.
(2) The Average shall be the Total Votes for all candidates in all districts divided by the Total Members to be elected in all districts, dropping fractions. Ave = TV/TM.
(3) A candidate who gets the Average shall be elected.
(4) The most excess votes above the Average shall be repeatedly moved to 1 or more unelected candidates, using the elected candidate’s rank order list.
(5) Only the votes needed to get the Average shall be moved to any 1 unelected candidate.
(6) If all members are not elected, then the candidate with the least votes in all districts shall lose.
(7) The loser’s votes shall be moved to 1 or more unelected candidates, using the original losing candidate’s rank order list and subject to (5).
(8) Steps (6) and (7) shall repeat, if necessary.
(9) Example- 100 Votes, Elect 5, Average 20
A 26 – 6 = 20 Elected
B 20 Elected
C 18 + 2 = 20 Elected
D 16
E 9
F 7 + 4 = 11
G 4
Excess A votes moved.
—–
A 20 Elected
B 20 Elected
C 20 Elected
D 16
F 11 + 4 = 15
E 9
G 4 – 4 = 0 Loses
—–
A 20 Elected
B 20 Elected
C 20 Elected
D 16 + 4 = 20 Elected
F 15 + 5 = 20 Elected
E 9 – 9 = 0 Loses

Sec. E. (1) A legislative body candidate or member may file a written rank order list of persons to fill his/her vacancy, if any.
(2) The qualified person who is highest on the list shall fill the vacancy.
(3) If the preceding does not happen, then the legislative body shall fill the vacancy with a person of the same party (if any) immediately at its next meeting.

Sec. F. (1) All elected executive officers and all judges shall be nominated for and elected at nonpartisan [general] elections.
(2) Each elector may vote for 1 or more candidates for each elected executive office or judge (including 1 write-in for each position).
[This is the Approval Voting method]
(3) The candidate(s) getting the most votes shall be elected (for the longest terms respectively in the case of 2 or more positions with different terms).
——

The above has modified parts of a Model State Constitution — available on request.

NO caucuses, primaries and conventions are needed.
NO gerrymander commissions are needed.
NO citizens’ assemblies are needed [with *experts* controlling the amateurs].
NO vetoes — a vestige of the EVIL divine right of kings era.

Democracy NOW via 100 percent Proportional Representation — before it is too late — and a Red States – Blue States Civil WAR II happens because of the EVIL incumbent gerrymander MORONS — much, much, much worse than the horrific Civil WAR I in 1861-1865 (that killed about 620,000 Americans and maimed multi-thousands more for life — no eyes, hands, arms, feet, legs — in the many, many slaughterhouse battles at short range) due to the gerrymander election in 1860.

See the end of the Roman Republic in 120 B.C. – 27 B.C. and its destruction by the TYRANT monarch Augustus Caesar — due to the UNREPRESENTATIVE ANTI-Democracy Roman Senate and other Roman legislative bodies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustus_Caesar
—–
PAPER MAIL BALLOTS NOW [counted ONLY by human eyeballs] — regardless of ALL of the MORONS who love having rigged / hacked E-voting systems (loved also by the domestic and foreign hacker ENEMIES of Democracy).

Oregon Vote by Mail — NO lines on Election Days (with NO rigged UNEQUAL voters per E-voting machine — such as in Ohio 2004).

http://www.sos.state.or.us/executive/votebymail.htm
———–
Election Law 000000001

Electors – Registration
Ballot Access – Candidates/Issues
Make Ballots
Vote Ballots
Count Ballots
Election Results

Add *LEGAL* to each of the above.

All New Age so very difficult.

Candidate lineup for the LP debate

Tokens are rolling in, and here’s the line-up I have for Presidential debate right now. This may change when the official count is released.

Root, Barr, Ruwart (in the 90’s range so far… each within one token of the other)

Gravel, Phillies, Jingozian, Kubby (in the 60’s… within 5 of each other. SORRY I DOUBTED YA, GRAVEL!)

There are tons of rumors swirling about what deals might have been cut… who the candidates coming up short threw their tokens to… who the top-tier candidates might have given some excess tokens to, etc. I get a general sense that it all came out in a wash, ultimately.

I’ll try to post hard vote totals later today when the official results are announced.

Liveblogging LP Convention

Coverage of the LP Convention will start on C-SPAN tonight at 9pm EST, and again tomorrow starting at 10:30am EST.  That is on regular C-SPAN, not CSPAN2 or 3 etc.

I have double-checked to be sure, and it is showing up in my on-screen cable television guide as follows:

Today (Saturday 5/24):

9:00pm – 11:00pm  “Libertarian Party Presidential Debate”

11:00pm – 12:00am “Libertarian Chairman Debate”

Tomorrow (Sunday 5/25):

10:30am – 1:00pm “Libertarian Party Speeches”

1:00pm – 6:00pm “Libertarian Party Candidates”

C-SPAN told Independent Political Report in a telephone conversation that the coverage will continue if it does not end by the appointed times.

I am planning to liveblog it, for those who don’t have C-SPAN.  Would any LFV contributors like to join me?  If so, let me know, and I’ll explain how that works with multiple bloggers.

Of course, our readers are also more than welcome to leave comments as we go along, either about our statements or about the convention itself if you are watching it from home.  You will need only to refresh the page, to see our updates in real time.

PaulieCannoli at LP Convention with Mary Ruwart

Photo originally posted at Independent Political Report.

Saturday business sessions

**NOTE** This thread will up updated throughout the day…

[9:30 am] We started off with a minor credentials fight, for delegates that were added to the roll near the deadline. One delegate gave a rant about “rumors that some campaigns are stacking the delegation with paid delegates” (by the way, there were about a dozen late additions… out of 552 credentialed delegates). The Bylaws required a whopping 7/8’ths majority to allow seating of these delegates, yet even that threshold was easily met.

[9:45 am] The radicals are still seething over the Statement of Principles debate yesterday (I think the reformers were being too aggressive in bringing that up yesterday… the tone shifted against them a bit from that point on). They threw a couple of motions out there to have the parliamentarian leave the convention… but after blowing off a little steam there, we moved on to Platform business.

[10:00 am] And HERE WE GO! David Nolan starts out a motion to have a 30 minute debate of the majority report and “Restore04” report on an en banc basis, and have a straight-up majority vote on “deciding which overall direction we want to take”. Looks like Nolan had a majority, but came up well short on the 2/3′rds needed to suspend the rules.

[10:15 am] Someone made a motion to change the rules for the rest of the Convention, requiring a minimum of 40 delegates (rather than 20) to force a hand-count of votes. Motion gets two-thirds and passes. I get a sense that the radicals will find traction on some individual plank votes, but the reformers are 2-for-2 so far on killing off delay tactics.

[10:30 am] We’re debating Proposal 1 (”Omissions”), which basically says that our silence on any particular law or government policy does not imply approval of it. Passes easily with pretty much no disagreement from anyone… the crowd erupts in laughter when the Committee Chair asks if we think they’ll all go this easily.

[10:35 pm] Proposal 3 (i.e. campaign finance and ballot access). We’re not tackling proposals in the order in which they’re listed in the binder. The committee says this is because they want to hit the ones that had the highest level of survey support first, so that we can handle as many planks as possible before time runs out. There are objections from the minority side that some of the planks more likely to go their way are listed earlier in the binder, and the majority doesn’t want to give them early wins and set the tone.

The majority and minority heads take turns reading their respective versions of this plank. I don’t know that there’s a ton of substantive difference, the main difference is that the minority version is the size of a small novel. Speaking of incoherent and wasting time… the minority-backers spend half the allotted debate time arguing about the fact that we’re not considering yet OTHER proposals too.

The majority version wins.

[11:00 am] Proposal 4 (”Rights and Discrimination”). The majority version is three sentences long, and deals with… rights and discrimination. The minority version scrolls over multiple pages on the monitors… and goes into OSHA, the NLRB, and contract law. Somebody makes a motion to ignore the minority report altogether on this plank, because it’s not germane to the subject matter of the topic. That passes.

There have been about a dozen frivolous “point of information”’s in a row, to try and slow things down. We finally get to the ultimate vote, and the proposal passes.

[11:20 am] Proposal 6 (”International Affairs”). The majority version is a few sentences long… and basically calls for non-interventionism, while morally condemning terrorism. The minority version is ENORMOUS, and spends a ton of time on immigration. There’s another motion for declaring the minority report non-germane to the issue (because we already have a separate Immigration plank that was retained yesterday). Passes easily.

[11:30 am] Here it comes… the reformers are emboldened and going for the big win. Motion made to adopt the majority report in full… then entertain motions to drop individual planks and/or replace them with minority versions. This would essentially turn the majority report into the new Platform of the Libertarian Party, and make it the starting point for all further debate.

Reformers just fought off some procedural attacks easily, and are getting hyper-aggressive now. Motion made to divide the previous motion up and vote on each element separately. This means that the majority report could become the new Platform WITHOUT then considering deletions or minority planks. That attempt fails.

That move might have turned off some people like the Statement of Principles thing did yesterday. The original motion fails… we move back to regular plank-by-plank debate (after burning up a ton of time).

[12:00 pm] Proposal 7 (”National Security”). Even I’m voting with the radicals on this one… the text as written is way too broad (e.g. the military couldn’t classify information about troop movements on a battlefield, etc). The plank FAILS.

A few peers weren’t happy with my vote, and I’m starting to see why now. The “no” vote opens the door to a million wacky amendments (somebody’s moving to abolish the CIA right now). This goes on to eat up all the remaining time in this session, and nothing passes at all.

[MORNING RECAP] Majority report wins on proposals 1, 3, 4, and 6. Minority (or at least anti-majority) crowd blocks proposal 7. Most procedural spats have gone the reformers’ way, although the radicals find support to knock them back when they overextend. DEADLINE FOR PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES TO TURN IN THEIR TOKENS IS IN 30 MINUTES. See you after lunch.

[3:40 pm] I’m back from lunch, and kinda distracted with other stuff, but there’s not much to report on anyway… the majority report recommendations are now flying through with only token opposition. The proposal numbers that have been made part of the platform are #’s 11 (health care), 12 (labor), 13 (financial markets), 16 (govt. finance and spending), 17 (energy), 18 (environment), and 20 (economic liberty).

[3:50 pm] Proposal 21 (”Self Defense”). The committee asks for consents to fix an extra comma that was a typo… the radicals raise an objection over the COMMA (just to grind down the clock), and we waste time debating that. It ultimately passes.

[4:00 pm] Proposal 22 (”Crime and Justice”). Another objection over another COMMA. This is absolutely ridiculous, and now the tone is shifting against the radicals… just as it earlier shifted against the reformers for pushing their losing point too far. This passes with less than a dozen people opposed.

[4:01 pm] Proposal 24 (”Personal Relationships”). This plank calls for gay marriage, but the radicals argue that we should vote it down… so that we can add further amendments about child custody. For the record, the Barr supporters just voted for an LP Platform plank calling for gay marriage… and we lost. I’ll be back later, we’ll be arguing about every amendment under the sun for the next half-hour…

It ultimately passed, with a minor amendment to reference child custody as well. Again, the “far-right neocon Christian theocracy” Barr crowd backed the plank… backing gay marriage and adoption in our Platform.

[5:10 pm] The abortion plank chews up over an HOUR of time… believe me when I say that I’m doing you a favor by not blogging it all. Ultimately we adopt a modified Platform plank that basically makes the LP neutral on the pro-life / pro-choice debate, with the exception that government should stay out of it.

[5:15 pm] The clock is running out. A motion passes to DELETE ALL PLANKS FROM THE PLATFORM NOT YET DEALT WITH, and add replacement planks as time permits. Effectively, all remnants of the old platform are now gone.

[5:45 pm] We’ve added a few more planks (gay rights, corporate liability). Surprisingly, all the factions are working together pretty well to hammer out amendments and fashion compromise language. There are still a handful of folks who vote against everything, but there’s much less rancor on the floor at this point than there was this morning.

[5:50 pm] Drug War language doesn’t gel together… immigration passes.  The very last plank is a general “Self Determination” statement fashioned from Declaration of Independent text.  If this passes, we actually managed to complete the full Platform agenda (there’s less than 5 minutes to go before the clock runs out).

[5:59 pm] It passes… we actually have a (more or less) full platform!  Presidential debates start in an hour… this thread is a wrap.

Restore04: The Cult of the Zombie State

An agency not listed above is urged for abolition by the Restore04-backed minority report not just once, but in two separate planks.  That agency was abolished in 1995.  Will the LP today challenge the cult of the zombie state?

Barr re-elected to the LNC

Yesterday afternoon, Bob Barr was re-elected to another term representing his region on the LNC (along with Stewart Flood also… that region is a consolidated region which has two rep. slots). Say what you want, and I’m sure some people will continue to do so, but Barr’s showing no intention of slacking up on his LP support no matter how the Presidential race pans out.

Anti-Barr graphics at convention

The “Unofficial” LP Presidential Debate

I just got back from the “unofficial” LP Presidential debate… sponsored by Jim Burns, Jingozian, and I believe one other candidate (someone please fill me in if there was a third and I’ll update this post). Basically the participants were all announced candidates not named Bob Barr. I’m sure there will be tons of jeers on that point… but Barr already had a reception scheduled for the same time, and the organizers seemed pretty anti-Barr to begin with… so ultimately everyone will reach the conclusions that they want to reach. I’m pretty exhausted, so I’ll just post some random thoughts and observations before turning in for the night.

Overall, I genuinely enjoyed watching the event and wish we had more of these. I came out of the debate feeling more comfortable about supporting whichever nominee our Party chooses to pick. There were some that made me less comfortable than others, but my silence on any particular candidate shouldn’t be interpreted as condemnation. I’m just going to focus on the people and issues that particularly stood out for me…

This is my first time watching Ruwart on the stage, and she was very smooth and polished. She made only subtle digs at Barr (warning about “recent converts”, and stressing the Patriot Act)… as opposed to Phillies and Kubby, who were the main two really hammering on Barr by name and making an issue out of his PAC. The crowd loved her.

Root is an awesome public speaker, and was probably more high-energy than the rest of the field combined. There was a bit less “red meat” in most of his answers, and I thought he put WAY too much emphasis on the fact that he and Obama graduated from the same college (err, okay?). However, the crowd was with him for the most part and he had no real stumbles.

Gravel did pretty good, and his supporters were loud. He didn’t really try to dance around the fact that many LP’ers disagree with him on some issues… and while there was some very quiet murmurs around me on some points, overall the crowd was pretty gracious and welcoming toward him.

Phillies is a much better speaker than I had been given the impression from people who’ve heard him before. He stepped up, although I though he did get a little shrill toward the end there. He basically made an honest pitch for being the compromise candidate if and when Barr and Ruwart cancel each other out… (I’m paraphrasing) “Both sides may not agree with me, but I’m the candidate that everyone can live with.” I was surprised when he acknowledged that he’s still short on tokens… and promised that once he has enough to get into the main debate he’ll distribute any excess to the other candidates who need them.

Jim Burns was another speaker who exceeded my expectations. I don’t see him having a chance at getting enough tokens for the Presidential debate, but he made a pitch for Vice-Presidential tokens as well (the only candidate to do so)… and I wouldn’t be surprised to see him get enough for that race. Really good straightforward answers to questions.

Christine Smith had good stage presence, and I’ve enjoyed talking with her on the floor. She just struggled to really find a particular “hook” that resonated with people and set her apart from the field.

Turnout for the debate seemed larger than expected for what was probably an undersized room (that room was about 800-degrees and started off standing-room only). After the first hour or so the crowd thinned a bit, and Barr’s reception picked up… so that the latter had a somewhat bigger crowd. We’ll find out soon enough who got the tokens and who didn’t, and the main debate tomorrow should be pretty spirited.

Can we pull off a miracle in Denver?

As many of you know, I attempted to run for VP this year. It was quite an experience. Unfortunately, I didn’t have Bob Barr or Ron Paul type contributions to make it to Denver. I wish I could be there having a beer with Paulie, Michelle, Angela and Tom. Maybe 2010? We are at a crossroads this year. I am not an anarchist but I am a principled and practical Libertarian who does not like the direction this country is headed. Our party has been infiltrated by Republicans willing and capable of turning the party I have been an activist since 1992, into another wing of the “Torture Party”.

My preferred candidates in order are Ruwart, Kubby, Barr and Phillies. A Barr nomination will not destroy the LP but allow these Republitarians to control the LP for at least the next 2-4 years. A Root nomination will purge principled libertarians right out of our party immediately. So what do we do?

From the reports I have been gathering all day, Barr delegates are stacking state delegations. To make sure these people are legit, we need to question their credentials before the vote. We want to make sure that delegates are eligible to cast their vote as to what our bylaws say. If we do not succeed in doing this; we need to try to win as many of our LNC spots as we possibly can and that includes making sure that Bob Barr does not have a seat on the LNC, if he is our presidential nominee. The LNC will meet at least twice during the election and to have our presidential candidate as an LNC member is a direct conflict of interest and unethical.

What if we do not succeed in Denver and we get crushed? We need to take over our state parties one by one. We need to separate ourselves from those hostile Republitarians and become better organized for 2010. I want to see more libertarians elected but it’s impossible to get principled libertarians elected when we are invaded by those who do not share the same goals and principles the LP was founded on. However, in order to get elected we can’t get elected on ideas alone. A good campaign is organized and run like professionals. We need to be strategic, get out the vote, speak well, have a short campaign platform and look somewhat professional (I hate suit and ties but I got plenty of respect).

Those who will not support Bob Barr I have a proposition for you. Do not leave the LP, fight for your party. Support candidates across the country who share your principled libertarian values and ideals. Don’t give a dime to the Barr campaign but pull the lever for him on election day. If Root gets the nomination, don’t vote for him nor give him a dime; let the LP collapse, we can pick up the pieces and start over. Most of the Barr/Root infiltrators will not be around long after the election, very few will stay but many will go back to the “Torture Party”.

As for what to do with LPHQ; I have a solution that may or may not work. In the coming months the Chair will have to hire a new Executive Director. There is a rumor that Shane Cory, who admits he’s not a libertarian, could be re-hired but I think he’s done enough damage with his ill-advised press releases. They need to hire someone who will reach out not to just conservatives but to liberals as well. They need to hire someone who is able to bring in members from all walks of life, not just disgruntled middle aged white males. They need to hire someone who will put out press releases that toe the party line. They need to hire someone who isn’t already entrenched in the D.C. culture and will bring a new perspective to the party and headquarters. That person I believe can be me. I will explain what changes I would bring to LPHQ as the Executive Director in another post in the near future. Don’t give up, the fight has just begun!

Will Gravel get to speak at Denver?

I’m writing notes on the Bylaws debates in another thread, but this was interesting enough to warrant a separate thread. About an hour ago, one of the Gravel guys made a motion to expand the amount of time for Bylaws debates until later on in the evening. I raised an eyebrow, but that motion failed and I didn’t think any more of it.

However, we’re running close to the end of the session, and now the Gravel folks are scrambling around like crazy (Gravel himself’s on the floor)… and made a motion to skip directly to a proposal for changing the threshold for Presidential candidates being entitled to give nominating speeches and/or enter the debates. From the chatter I’m overhearing from his volunteers, they don’t yet have enough delegate tokens to get in the debate under current rules.

They still have time to gather more, but they better hustle… their motion failed, so they’ll have to work with the rules as they currently stand.

**UPDATE** As laid out in the comments by G.E. and myself below, the actual text of this proposal would have raised the required threshold of tokens. I’m not sure if that camp was hoping to defeat it and then offer more favorable amendments (as is the parliamentary procedure), or if things just got really mixed up.

Jacqueline Passey: Credentials fight at LP Convention?

This article is reproduced with permission of the author, Jacqueline Passey.

Delegates: Robert Stacy McCain reports that delegates are being seated for states other than their home states, noting that Libertarian Party convention rules allow for this.

Note: This is pretty significant. Most state LPs do not fill all of their delegate slots for the national convention prior to the convention. This means they have extra slots to give away at the convention, if they so choose. If a candidate can convince one or more existing state delegations (or just their chairs?) to seat additional delegates, the candidate can effectively stuff the ballot box with extra voting delegates who favor that candidate. This news, combined with a pre-convention report of Bob Barr’s campaign recruiting supporters to make a day trip to the convention for the nomination vote, suggests to me that Barr and his supporters have indeed found an effective strategy to “take over” the convention and win the Presidential nomination as some have feared.

I predict a credentials fight on Sunday.

___________________________________

Jacqueline Passey is the former Executive Director of the Washington state Libertarian Party, and former LP candidate for Washington Secretary of State. Blog enthusiasts likely remember her from her 2006 blog entry covering the Nevada LP presidential debates, amusingly titled “Two whackjobs, a convicted felon, and George Phillies”. That blog entry set into motion a short-lived “memogate”, in which a memo from then-LP Executive Director Shane Corey, referencing her blog and asking whether the LP can offer better candidates, was leaked into the blogosphere.

Ms. Passey lives in Las Vegas with her husband and dachsunds, and is currently working on her Master’s Degree at UNLV. Her current blog is “Jacqueline Gets Her Geek On”.

Be sure to bookmark this link to to her political posts, and check back often for her continuing convention gossip updates.

Tucker Carlson NOT seeking LP presidential nomination

From ABC News:

In any case, Carlson tells me he was never running.

He’s right now with his family in Maine rather than in Denver with the Marijuana Policy Project and the like.

“I probably should have done it,” Tucker emails me.” Imagine the bus trip.”

Voices from LFV comments: Steve Perkins at LP convention

Things are turning out to be a lot more murky and less clear-cut than I was expecting (not that I really knew what to expect). I stopped by a get together of Barr supporters, and was pretty surprised by the number of hardline anarchists who turned out. It seems that some delegates reason that hardline downticket candidates could have a better opportunity to spread their message with Barr at the top of the ticket than they would be able to at the top of the ticket themselves. I thought it was notable that the Barr camp is stressing strict neutrality on platform and bylaws debates.

On the flipside of the coin, the Ruwart ranks are starting to turn out. I’ve heard secondhand reports that at the David Nolan speaking event there was a “vocal straw poll” of sorts, and Ruwart drew the loudest response… followed by Barr, followed by Root. Of course that WAS a Nolan event, so I’m not shocked… but there were more “I (heart) Mary” lapel stickers in the lobby when I headed back upstairs. I’m seeing more Gravel signs as well, and the Root folks have been hyper-aggressive so far. I don’t have any sense yet as to who people’s second picks are, if and when the race goes to multiple rounds and their first-pick falls out. Tomorrow should be interesting.

One last thought before I head to bed… I don’t know WHAT the chatter is all about with Tucker Carlson. No sign of that whatsoever here in Denver.

Friday LP Business Meetings

Part of the upside of being in law school is that I’m actually dork-enough to ENJOY procedural debates, so I’m sitting in on all the General Business sessions. I believe that today is all platform and bylaws debates, and the convention hall seems 10-20% full AT BEST. I’m pretty stunned by the low level of participation. No matter which “faction” you lean toward, you have basically no cause to gripe about whatever comes out of these sessions. With a body this small, ANY faction could “hijack” the agenda by simply being organized enough to show up in full. Over half the LP delegation is out wondering around the vendor exhibits… waiting to complain later about whatever comes out of this meeting that they COULD have helped determine themselves.

Unbelievable.

Anyway, I’ll be updating this thread throughout the day as business proceeds.

[9:45 am] At the opening, David Nolan made a motion to basically cut the platform / bylaws debate time in half… shifting the unused time over to Presidential / Vice-Presidential selection. I’ve been hearing that the radicals intend to try to minimize platform discussion as much as possible… and/or have the “majority report” and “minority reports” discussed at a general high-level, moreso than on a plank-by-plank basis. Here comes the opening salvo. M Carling spoke in opposition to the motion, and then a series of delegates made “me too” comments on both sides. Nolan’s motion failed… and a subsequent motion passed to proceed with the agenda as originally planned.

[11:00 am] We just spent FOREVER debating the proposed amendment to Article 8 of the Bylaws (allowing the Judicial Committee to hold a hearing based on appeal by 10 percent of convention delegates… the current rule requires 3% of sustaining Party members). Good LORD… no one here has any knowledge of parliamentary procedure at all! After dueling amendments from Nick Sawark and Guy McClendon, what we came up with was adopting the new “10% of convention delegates” method… while lowering the old method to 1% of sustaining Party members.

[11:30 am] We’re debating the proposed change to Rule 9 of the Bylaws. I get the feeling that around 95% of the room has NO IDEA what this proposal is about. I just finished a year of Civil Procedure class, read the proposal in advance, communicated about it by email with the committee… and **I** barely understand what this proposal is about. I think the general thrust is that no more Vice-Presidential nominations can be made once the Presidential debates start. The motion ultimately passed. It seemed like the Barr, Gravel, and Root crowds seemed to favor it… the Ruwart, Phillies, etc crowds were opposed. Don’t ask me WHY it broke down along those lines… I voted “no” simply because I didn’t really understand the problem this is supposed to address. I’m off to lunch.

[12:00 am] After poking fun at Michelle Singhal on Reason Hit & Run, for confusing Richard Viguerie with Russ Verney, I was just introduced to Verney a few minutes ago. I immediately proceeded to blurt out, “Yes, I know you… you just took over Third Party Watch!” Doh… sorry Michelle.

[2:00 pm] Richard Viguerie is giving the Keynote Address. He kinda oscillates between appeals to the base and to disgruntled Republicans, saying “We libertarians…” in one sentence and “We conservatives..” in the next. Still, the crowd has been surprisingly positive. Turnout is not as high as it was for other morning sessions, but the rumored “protests” haven’t happened.

[3:00 pm] Amendment to Article 8, to provide for removing National Committee members who miss too many meetings, passes easily.

[3:30 pm] Debate on Article 9, setting up staggered terms for the Judicial Committee. Nick Sarwark rose to point out that this proposal would essentially expand terms from 2 years to 14 years. Also, the intention was to block a potential hostile takeover… but a hostile takeover would go through the LNC rather than the Judicial Committee. This goes down in flames, and the body votes to suspend the rules to move on without bothering with amendments.

[3:40 pm] Debate on Article 11… basically setting up former elected officials as “superdelegates” for life. I can’t believe that I’m 100% on board with Starchild on an issue… this is a bad proposal in my opinion. However, the body seemed pretty overwhelmingly in favor of it.

[4:00 pm] Debate on Article 12… establishing certain thresholds (i.e. endorsement, raising $5000 in funds) before a Presidential candidate can get access to LPHQ resources. Seems like a no-brainer to me (best line from the floor: “If you can’t raise at least $5K for a PRESIDENTIAL race, what the heck are you doing?”)… but it generates significant debate and requires a hand-count of the vote.

Ugh… a bunch of new faces ran in from the exhibit hall during the hand-count, and was able to get just over one-third… blocking the motion.

[4:20 pm] WHOA. The Gravel crowd just made a motion to skip over directly to debate on Article 6, changing the rules for which Presidential candidates get to give nomination speeches and/or participate in debates. Gravel himself is on the floor, and his volunteers are scrambling around. From the chatter I’m overhearing from them, Gravel doesn’t have enough delegate tokens yet. They better hustle… their motion failed, so they’re stuck with the current rules.

[5:00 pm] We’re switching over from pure Bylaws debate, to a mixed Bylaws/Platform session. The only two planks which have collected enough tokens for “speedy deletion” are the “Reproductive Rights” and “Immigration” planks. We’re about to have straight-up majority votes on whether to delete or retain those two planks.

The abortion plank of the LP platform has been RETAINED.

The immigration plank of the LP platform has been RETAINED.

[5:10 pm] We’re debating over whether or not to change the Bylaws… to lower the 7/8′ths majority requirement currently needed to alter the Statement of Principles. Are you sitting down? I actually agree with the radicals on this one. If a 7/8′ths majority is required to change the Statement of Principles, but a 2/3′rds majority can change the bylaws to lower this threshold… then there is no 7/8′ths requirement at all.

We spend what feels like forever arguing about this… the Reformers clearly don’t have enough support to change the SoP even with parliamentary tricks. The Chair’s interpretation of the rules ends up defeated. On the flipside of the coin, however, a motion to close the potential loophole is defeated likewise. The status quo on the Statement of Principles debate rolls on for future conventions to wrestle with.

[5:40 pm] Debating over a Bylaws change to appoint the convention committees (Platform, Bylaws, Credentials, etc) earlier.  Most of the debate is drifting off onto unrelated rants about big states having more clout than smaller states, etc.  Time finally runs out on the debate, and the motion to change fails.

[5:50 pm] Proposal for a Bylaws change to speed up Platform debates, by encouraging amendments to be written down in advance rather than thrown together ad hoc from the floor.  This looks to have about 80-90% support, but the radicals are throwing every procedural trick in the book out here to slow things down.  We’re now crawling through a hand-count of all votes.  (Best comment from the floor:  “The sole purpose of all this [radicals' motions] are to deliberately obstruct things so we can’t conduct any platform business at all”).  Final vote count… it passes by about 10-to-1.

[5:50 pm] Debating a Bylaws change to allow the Secretary to make “stylistic changes” (e.g. fix typos). Ruth Bennett tries to hijack the agenda and resurrect the 7/8’ths-majority-for-the-Statement-of-Principles thing, but even the radicals have had their fill of that for the day and groaned that off. After some brief debate (everyone is getting tired), this gets voted down.

We’re done for the day.

Safety Alert from National Propane Gas Association

SAFETY ALERT

INTRODUCTION: Readers of this bulletin should consult the law of their individual jurisdictions for codes, standards and legal requirements applicable to them. This bulletin merely suggests methods which the reader may find useful in implementing applicable codes, standards and legal requirements. This material is not intended nor should it be construed (1) to set forth procedures which are the general custom or practice in the propane industry; (2) to establish the legal standards of care owed by propane distributors to their customers; or (3) to prevent the reader from using different methods to implement applicable codes, standards or legal requirements. The National Propane Gas Association assumes no liability for reliance on the contents of this bulletin. It is offered as a guide only to assist expert and experienced teachers and managers in training in service personnel in their organizations.

Caution!

The brass valve in a propane cylinder will be damaged if it comes in contact with anhydrous ammonia. This deterioration will lead to cracking of the valve body or its components and can ultimately result in a violent, unexpected expulsion of the valve from the cylinder, causing personal injury or death.

Background and Recommended Action

It has come to the attention of the National Propane Gas Association that propane cylinders are being used in the manufacturing of Methamphetamines. This drug is commonly referred to as ‘crank’. Manufacturers of this illegal substance are using propane cylinders for the storage and the use of anhydrous ammonia. These cylinders have been found in many states at cylinder exchange and refilling locations as well as in hotel rooms and mobile laboratories, where the manufacturing of this illegal substance takes place.

As observed in the illustrations, a blue-green stain on any brass portion of a service valve is evidence that it may have been in contact with anhydrous ammonia*. The pungent odor of ammonia on or near the cylinder is also an indication. If you suspect that a propane cylinder contains or has contained anhydrous ammonia, exercise extreme caution and restrict access to the area.

It can be dangerous to move the cylinder due to the unknown integrity of the cylinder’s service valve. If you determine that it must be moved, keep in mind that hazards due to valve expulsion can be reduced by pointing the end of the container in which the valve is placed away from yourself and others and towards the most safe direction.

Immediately contact your Fire Department, Hazardous Materials Emergency Response Unit or the nearest office of the United States Department of Justice’s Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) for information on properly disposing of the cylinder. If these respondents are not sure what to do, for assistance call 1-800-728-2482, which is the contact number for PERS, an independent hazardous materials information resource.

*Note: Sherwood valves contain a green coated valve stem. Additionally, a green thread sealing compound is used on some valves. These valves should not be confused with those that have been exposed to anhydrous ammonia.

Jim Casarjian-Perry: LP Convention Update version 1.0

The following was written by LFV contributor Jim Casarjian-Perry, and originally posted on his blog. It is reproduced here, as he was kind enough to send the link to me via email.

Good morning everyone!

I’m writing to let you know how the convention is going thus far. We haven’t had our opening session yet so no business has been discussed.

There is quite a buzz about the Bob Barr campaign both for and against him and it seems there isn’t a single delegate here without an opinion on Barr. As you all know, I am actively campaigning for George Phillies and against Bob Barr.

Things are going well for George and we’re hoping to have enough “tokens” to get him into the debate and to speak on the floor.

The Massachusetts delegation is going to hold a delegation meeting shortly and will discuss the issues at hand. The delegates are Mr. Phillies of Worcester, Mr. Torrey of Billerica, Dr. Santos of Charlton, Mr. Blau of Brookline, Ms. McMahon of Munson, and myself. All MA delegates have endorsed Mr. Phillies for President.

I’ll update again just before Shabbat, MDT.

Jim Casarjian-Perry photo in Reason Online

LFV Contributor Jim Casarjian-Perry’s photo made it into Reason Online, with the following caption:

Anti-Barr Massachusetts delegate Jim Cassarjian-Perry smiles after asking Barr about DOMA. He wasn’t satisfied with the answer: Barr didn’t apologize for the provision that allows the DMV to reject his marriage certificate and refuse his hyphenated name change.

Attempting To Kick A Bad Habit

I have so much respect for anyone who can quit smoking or quit whatever it is you may be addicted to. I use to smoke and I was given some advice. If you want to quit smoking, start chewing tobacco (or “snuff” in my case) and you can get off that very easily. Well 10 years later, instead of a pack a day smoker, I’m now a can a day “dipper”.

I’ve tried to quit a few times cold turkey but that didn’t last very long. My wife has always been pretty supportive of me and wants me to quit, but she understands how tough it is. Anyways, this week I decided to quit again, this time with a different method. I bought some “Hooch Herbal Snuff” online because someone told me it helped him kick the habit. I was a bit skeptical because I’ve tried “mint snuff” before and it tasted like ass. But, anything is worth a shot.

The 12 cans I ordered arrived yesterday. I tried it out and let me say this, this stuff tastes like the same tobacco I chew. Thats great actually, tricking the mind is half the battle. It has a bit of cayenne pepper as well, so it gives it a bit of a kick. You can even work up a good spit with this stuff!

Anyways, my plan is to alternate between the real stuff and fake stuff for awhile and slowly ween myself off. The only problem is, the guy who recommended this to me has been hooked on the fake stuff for like 3 years now. Guess the oral addiction is hard to break as well. But if I end up only chewing this fake stuff for 10 years, hell, I’d be willing to do that if it means extending the time I get to spend with my wife in the years to come.

I’m a bit jittery, but I think I can do this. Much respect to anyone who has kicked a bad habit, it’s not easy at all.

LP Deathblog Update

In case any of you have been wondering, I am not really actually dead.

Just extremely sleep deprived and without a laptop, or money for the Sheraton business center. Just found a free cybercafe by the exhibitor booths. Standing room only, unfortunately. Anyone with a laptop I can borrow, come see me or give me a call. My number is on my facebook.

Floorspace to crash always appreciated. Thanks to several of you who offered, but I lost y’all. when the time came. I was not supposed to be allowed to sleep where I got my two hours, so I won’t say where, but thanks.

In answer to a question on my last deathblog, best dressed at the masquerade: my award goes to Mr. and Mrs. Pimperato. Dannyboy was sporting a white ice cream suit with an open collar shirt straight out of Scarface, and Mrs. Imp had on all-black leather zippered get-up with a gold chain and Carmela Soprano hairdo. It reminded me of partying on Long Island in the 1980s. Speaking of which, anyone know if there is any snow left in the Rockies this time of year? I haven’t been outside much. Let me know.

Skipping ahead around 36 hours, I tried to go for a run with Michelle this morning and lasted about a block and a half. Reminded me why I’m no longer in crime for a living. Outrunning cops is pretty much not going to happen. I’ll fill you all in later on the 36 hours or so. Someone please fix my spelling, I do not have my glasses on.

Oh yeah, come see me if you want Kubby buttons and signs or if you want to give a token to the tokin’ candidate.

And thanks to GE for saying I’m cool. Actually I used to be a lot cooler, I’m kinda lame now. But I appreciate the compliment.

G.E. in Denver III: Gravel vs. Starchild (and Andy)

Next was Q&A. One of the first questions was asked by Starchild. I don’t know the proper pronoun to use here, and I don’t want to be offensive, so I’ll say SC. SC asked the candidates, [note: please assume all quotes are paraphrased], “Do you believe the core of libertarianism is that you should be able to do what you want with your own body, life, and property, so long as you infringe on no one else?” They (Link, Mary Ruwart, Kubby, Gravel and Jingo all raised their hands). “Okay, then how can some of you support coercive taxation to fund education.” It was targeted to Gravel, of course.

I’ll skip the blow by blow and tell you that Gravel and Starchild had a rather length exchange. Stardchild kept SC’s cool, but dismissively (and deservedly) shook SC’s head and smiled at some of Gravel’s outlandishly statist propositions, but Gravel got fuming mad, shouting down SC. Gravel said you can’t have liberty without education and that without government schools, everyone would be dumb. And of course, we are too dumb now precisely because government schools are too decentralized. SC pointed out Gravel’s many contradictions which made the old man rage. “What do you want?” he asked, “voluntary education?” YES!, the crowd roared. “Show me where that has worked,” Gravel demanded.

At this point, Andy got into the act. “Right here in this country,” he said. Gravel disagreed. Andy set him straight. “FINE!” Gravel barked. “You want to go back to the 18th century, go right ahead.” Andy rejoined: “It’s not going back to the 18th century, it’s going back to freedom.” (That was a direct quote). The crowd erupted in cheers while the Maoist Gravel cohort sat on their hands.

Finally, Jim Duesning made Gravel shut up and let Steve Kubby speak. “There’s never a justification for using force to achieve goals,” he said. Short and sweet. Jingo said the same thing (he may have said it before Kubby, actually), and I waned to ask him how he saw protectionism as non-coercive.

There were a lot of questions on which Gravel’s anti-libertarian colors were exposed. At one point, he literally ridiculed libertarians for never getting anything done. Mary Ruwart pointed out that libertarians have changed people’s attitudes. This did not register with Gravel, who thinks change can only come through coercion.

A gentleman asked a question about the Fed and central banking. Link had disappeared by now and no one noticed. Jingo recalled a conversation with the Liberty Dollar founder (Bernand something) and agreed with him that a competing currency would destroy the Fed in a less tumultuous manner than an outright abolition. Jingo pointed out that saying “let’s allow competing currencies” seems completely logical to average voters.

Kubby and Ruwart gave predictably sound answers. Kubby pointed out that the dollar’s value, when compared to the loony, has halved. Ruwart blamed regulations for gold-standard-era depressions.

Gravel’s answer was thoroughly statist. He said gold and silver were dumb because Russia and South Africa had all the gold and silver (as if that matters). He then lionized that great libertarian, Abe Lincoln, as the pioneer of fiat money, with his government-issued greenbacks. Gravel thought it was great that these helped fund the War Against Southern Independence. He wants more authority for the government over money.

Oh, and I should mention that Jim Duesning said, “I wish George Phillies were here to answer this question.” Phillies, of course, supports the Fed’s monetary fascism. It was the second potshot at Phillies. Earlier, someone asked, “Where’s Bob Barr?” Duesning said all candidates had been invited and that anyone who did not think 9/11 needed an investigation, who trusted the government, was not a libertarian. He specifically mentioned the names Phillies, Root, and Barr (although allowed for as how they may have had legitimate commitments to other events).

Andy asked the next question: What do you think of the Fair Tax and the NAU. No one really talked about NAU, but a FairTax debate erupted, with Gravel supporting it strongly. Kubby made a whole new set of arguments against the FairTax that I had not even considered — as if that even needed to be done! Mary Ruwart said, “the only FairTax is NO TAX.” The crowd liked that. Gravel rambled on about how the LP was a “half-percent party” because of things like this. He is Dear Leader, and if we only follow him, we will win. What a hollow victory that would be.

There was some other mild drama, although I don’t remember when. A weird guy tried to take the stage, and Jim Duesning had to have him thrown out. “Don’t make me come off this stage!” he yelled at the dude. I felt bad for Duesning. He put on a good event.

G.E. live from Denver: Part 2 – Libertarians for Justice

I left off last time just as I was about go to to sleep, having had only four total hours the past two days. I did, and woke up four hours later, just in time for the Libertarians for Justice event. I chatted with some nice “Truthers” (I hate that word but don’t know a better one). There is no doubt that there are unanswered questions that need answering.

Anyway, I lost track of time, and when I went into the actual event, Mary Ruwart was speaking. I had missed Jim Burns. Ruwart gave a nice Ron Paulian speech, but the crowd had not warmed up yet.

Next up was Imperato. He was wearing some kind of papal knight accessory. He said he had an office next door to the Twin Towers and that he had friends who jumped out of windows. He said his employees heard bombs go off in the basement, but that he thinks they were planted by the terrorists. The cover up, he says, is to protect the bureaucrats who failed. Plausible enough. Then he goes into how the reason Muslims hate America has to do with Jacob and Esau, and that Christopher Columbe, a Jew, consecrated America as a Judeo-Christian land (no mention of the fact that “Columbe” never set foot on North America). George Washington also took his oath of office on the exact spot of the Twin Towers, according to Imperato, and Muslims attacked out jealousy . . . Jealousy over the Jewish people’s “shrewdness” at “controlling Wall Street.”

I can’t remember who came next, but I’m pretty sure it was Jingzian. Mike Jingozian is a really good speaker, and he did a great job. Seems like a nice guy. Not 100% libertarian, though. Also puts on airs. Presents self as expert on foreign policy and finance and is mildly condescending.

When Gravel came to the stage, there were cheers all over the place. I thought maybe the general audience “Truthers” were fans of his, but in reality, he had packed the crowd. He went on about his Maoist “Direct Democracy” and offered a free signed copy of his book, Citizen Power, to any delegate who agreed to read two chapters. Gravel’s big message was that the Libertarian Party is full of overly principled morons who’ve never accomplished anything, and that he can win if we give him the nomination. We have our heads in the clouds, he argues. Gravel is big on “power” (his word). He says Nixon should have been put in jail, and wants to use subpoena power (presumably on citizens as well as government officials) to get to the bottom of 9/11. When he was done speaking, there was huge applause and then, when he left, so did about 1/3 of the crowd.

This was unfair to Steve Kubby who went on next. Wow, Steve looks a lot better (not to sound Donderian) in real life than in his pictures. He looks very healthy and he is an excellent public speaker. He got the crowd riled up unlike any of the others before him, despite its smaller size. He dealt with the matter at hand, and limited his comments to the demand for an investigation. The crowd liked that.

Then came Alden Link. Yeah. He talked about socialist energy policy — he approves. Bragged about the solar panels he’s having installed on his house. Said the military-industrial complex was a good thing, for it kept us safe. But then talked very libertarianly and knowledgeably about ending the Drug War.

DRAMA ALERT!!!

That was supposed to be it, but then John Finan arrived. He seemed normal enough. He’s a handsome guy (I swear this is not Dondero posting under my name) who would be a believable as a business titan in a movie. His speech was fairly straight forward — although he did say he would get on Oprah, Letterman, and Conan O’Brien if made the nominee. He didn’t really address the issue at hand. Then, when he was finished, Jim Duesning (leader of Libertarians for Justice) stood next to him on the podium and, completely innocently, said (I’m paraphrasing) “I’ve just been informed that John Finan has not signed our pledge calling for an investigation. I have this glossy page right here, and this fancy marker, would you like to sign right now?”

It seemed to be that Duesning was giving Finan a nice little publicity opportunity here, but Finan did NOT take it that way. He took the mic from Duesning, he gladly gave it to him, and said (again, paraphrasing), “What do you think of me being put on the spot to sign this? Should I sign it?” The crowd was, surprisingly mixed. “I WILL NOT BE AMBUSHED! I WILL NOT BE PRESSURED!”

I should also mention that, while Finan’s speech seemed normal enough, after the following events, some of his gestures and facial expressions took on a Mussolinian context.

Duesning snatched the mic back from him and was like, “I’m giving you a chance to sign this or not.” Finan tried to grab the mic, but Duesning wouldn’t let him have it. Finan screamed in a booming voice, “I DON’T NEED A MICROPHONE! I WILL NOT BE PRESSURED!” And then made was looked like a Nazi salute and walked off stage, still carrying the apparently precious silver marker. “Give back the marker,” Duesning demanded. “I’m keeping the marker!” Finan declared.

Wow.

Eventually, a little lady in a red shirt stormed across the room saying she had paid for this event and the marker and demanded it! Finan passed it to a guy sitting down, who gave it to the lady. He was then escorted out of the conference hall.

And that wasn’t the end of the drama… (to be continued)

Jacqueline Passey’s LP Convention roundups

Jacqueline Passey is posting daily roundups of LP Convention information and rumor on her blog. Be sure to check her blog for the newest juicy convention gossip, compiled from around the net.

NOTE:  Updated with direct link to her political posts – thanks, Jacqueline!

Voices from LFV Comments: Steve Perkins convention update

Just got back from dinner, to change clothes and take a break before seeing what’s happing with hospitality suites. Other candidates are starting to show a presence… Root in particular has been wandering around working the floor pretty hard. I just met Gravel, and it’s kinda funny… usually with make-up and lighting and so forth, people look better on TV than they do in real life. Gravel, however, looks about 10-20 years younger and healthier in person than he does on TV. He also has a booth running now that’s about as large and professional-looking as Barr’s.

The approximate order in which I’m seeing buttons and signs is: Barr, Imperato (?), Root, Gravel, Ruwart, and Phillies. I’m not sure who’s running against Dixon for LNC, but it seems like three-quarters of the delegates are wearing Dixon stickers.

It seemed like almost all the volunteers and workers with the Barr camp are either: (1) Ron Paul activists who moved over, or (2) Stephen Gordon.

It’s really strange running into people that I only know from the blogosphere, and noting the difference between that and the real world. I’ve argued a ton with Knapp online, but met him in person and found him to be really cool guy.

I found out about an hour after I checked in that my state affiliate could have gotten my press credentials if I’d thought to ask (oh well).

Tucker Carlson to announce last-minute LP presidential candidacy?

A number of sites, including Reason Hit and Run, are reporting that delegates have received calls from a polling firm today, and the LP options they were offered included Tucker Carlson as a presidential candidate.

Is Tucker going to throw his hat in the ring for the LP presidential nomination?  If so, why did he wait until the convention to do so?

I have criticized Bob Barr for announcing a last-minute candidacy, and I cannot help but also wonder why Tucker would also wait until the last minute to announce, if in fact that is what he is doing.

Can he walk away with the LP presidential nomination?  Given the fighting between factions and Tucker’s name recognition, I think he could.

What do you think?

Voices from LFV Comments: Steve Perkins at the LP Convention

I just finished getting credentials downstairs, and am settling into my room from the travel out here. The vendor/candidate area downstairs is just ridiculous. Barr has a huge oversized booth staffed by attractive girls collecting delegate tokens and giving out Bob Barr cowboy hats. It has video projectors, an array of buttons / stickers / signs, and Barr himself is roaming the floor flanked by two or three camera crews filming him. On the table is a list of pledged delegates that’s starting to run into multiple pages.

All the other candidates’ booths are either completely unmanned, or have one person standing there twiddling their thumbs. Granted, it’s Thursday and people are still traveling… but sheesh. I’m almost worried that the Barr presence is “too much” and might alienate people. I’m a supporter and it still gave me a weird vibe. Then again, maybe a true professional campaign DOES look a bit out of place at an LP convention.

I bumped into Root in the elevator. Came across nice, but obviously had a ton on his mind.

My “Anyone who doesn’t buy me a beer isn’t a ‘REAL Libertarian’” t-shirt has not earned me a single beer since my arrival. There’s no principle left in this Party, I suppose.

G.E. live from Denver: Part 1

Arrived in Denver 9:00 a.m. local time. Found a dude waving a “Libertarian Party” sign and figured he was a fellow LPer. Instead, he was trying to round up Libertarians for the 45-minute shuttle trek from the airport to downtown Denver. I saw one guy walking around that I was sure was a libertarian, but the sign-waver was covering another area. Sure enough, he joined in a few minutes to wait for the shuttle. Come to find out, he was (is) a friend of Austin Cassidy and hopes to run with him on the multi-seat Soil and Water board.

Anyway, joining us in the shuttle six other Libertarian — three of them women. Taking shotgun was none other than Susan Hogarth. Susan heartily endorsed Ruth Bennett for chair. One of our shuttlemates, a guy named Scott who does ballot-access work for the LP, says a change would be disastrous to the LP’s ballot-access program. Maybe he has a point. But my vote goes against the current regime.

When I got to the hotel, the first thing I saw gave me chills: Allan Hacker and Daniel Imperato walking hand in hand. Is there a new conspiracy in the works? How do thetans relate to the Knights of Malta? Regardless, Austin’s friend and I got turned around in the hotel, and Allan Hacker lent us a helping hand. A little later, Daniel Imperato approached me — seeming totally normal and nice — trying to get my debate token. When I told him “I have to think about it,” he was totally cool with it.

No hardcore bad blood so far. But rumor has it that the former owner of TPW (and not the one now affiliated with IPR) wants to initiate force against my face. I guess I have become a scapegoat for everyone who sees this certain someone as part of a plot — call it a neocon plot. To the best of my knowledge, I have never called him a neocon, and if I have, I shouldn’t have.

Had lunch with Paulie, Angela Keaton, and Michelle Shinghall (sp). All of these people are way cooler in real life than they seem online, and they seem pretty cool online. Angela in particular has been very helpful to me and to the bloggers who were stripped of press creds following the Viguerie coup. I was invited by Angela to blog the LNC meeting, but my laptop was in my room which is like a mile away. I got here and decided to write this blog instead, and then I’m going to sleep. (I’ve had a combined total of four hours in the past 48).

Anonymous source: The radicals have, at best, 15 percent strength and either Barr or Root is going to be the nominee. This multi-person source supports Kubby/Ruwart. He/she/they all agree that the role for radicals will be to be kingmaker — who will do less damage to the LP: Barr or Root?

Not-so-anonymous source (Susan Hogarth): “I think Ruwart will take it.”

More to come.

CSpan Convention Coverage Schedule

According to Independent Political Report, the Libertarian National Convention will be covered on C-Span as follows (all times are Eastern time, so adjust accordingly for your time zone):

Saturday -  Coverage begins at 9:00pm and continues until midnight or later

Sunday – Coverage will begin at 10:30am and continue for the reminder of the day

I’m Running For Office

I first need to apologize up front. It really wasn’t my intention to make this announcement here, but since my website is still being designed and nobody pays attention to me on myspace (haha), I figured I would give my friends here a heads up.

It’s been a very stressful year. I don’t want to get into it here, but some of you know what I’ve been through. Anyways, it was my original intention to represent the Libertarian Party on the local ballot here in Michigan this year. That won’t happen. However, I will still run for office & will appear on the November 4th General Election ballot in a non-partisan race.

I filed the paperwork today & paid the filing fee, so I’m pleased to announce my candidacy for Lake Michigan College Board of Trustees. There are 2 seats up for grabs this year with a 6 year term on the line. I’m very relieved this part of the process is finally over with and I look forward to the challenges a head.

I want to thank Elfninosmom for being very supportive of me. I’ve confided in her several times during the past year and someone I will always consider to be a friend. I would also like to thank “G.E” because when I thought I was running for State Rep, he took a real interest in my campaign and was very supportive.

I can’t promise much at this point, but I do promise to run a positive campaign based on REAL libertarian principles.

The website isn’t even close to completion yet, but I’m sure my wife will have it ready in the next week or so. The site will be located at http:///www.votegatties.org. Wish me luck.

Deathblogging the Libertarian Party National Convention

Deathblogging refers to not-quite-live blogging; not the LP per se.

Trying to stick within my five free minutes, $16/hour after that. Business center

2 PM. Danny Imps is in the house. The lobby of the Denver Sheraton smells like a case of Eau de Palermo fell off the back of a truck in South Boston.

4 PM. Helped unload Laissez Fair Books. Said hello to Mary Ruwart, hubby Ray Carr and campaign staffer Brian Irving getting off the elevator. Headed off to get herbalife uppers from Carol McMahon of the Phillies campaign.

6-7 PM. Said hello to (among other people) VP candidate Daniel Williams (we discussed whether my punk rawk friends from New York were here; the answer is no, they barely leave Bay Ridge, Brooklyn, much less New York); LNC member and Wayne Root staffer Scott Lieberman (we talked about ballot access, especially in regards to Oklahoma); Rob Power from Outright Libertarians; Deb and Steve-O “The Fixer” Gordon; my acting region rep, Stewart Flood, who lobbied heavily for my vote, and told me we had a deal with Texas and Louisiana to become a superregion with two reps; rumored challenger for his position, R. Lee Wrights; John Wayne Smith; The Duensings; Tony and Bette Rose Ryan; and Bob Barr, who seemed to be under the impression that I might not make it here.

Oh yeah, and I finagled a free shower up in Casa Phillies. In what may be a move to get support from Steve Kubby backers, George is passing out Phillies Blunts.

TheSpoof: Clinton Concedes to Obama, Steals Libertarian Nomination from Barr

From The Spoof:

Facing certain defeat due to Barack Obama’s insurmountable lead and his refusal to look for sex in public bathrooms, Senator Hillary Clinton resigned from the race for the Democratic presidential nomination on Tuesday night.

She then immediately accepted the Libertarian Party nomination, which was offered to her outright in a shocking and unprecedented move by a political party long believed by casual observers to identify more closely with Republicans than with Democrats.

Former Libertarian Party frontrunner and Johnny-come-lately Bob Barr could not be satisfactorily sedated for comment.

Read the rest of the (fictitious, obviously) article here.

Steve Kubby Show covers Dallas Accord, hostile takeover, faction fight

Steve Kubby had an interesting show last night. Here is the description, and a link.

Date / Time: 5/19/2008 9:00 PM

IS THE DALLAS ACCORD DEAD? / HOSTILE TAKEOVER OF LP?

Libertarian Party and the Dallas Accord. Less Antman joins us on discussing the fight between radicals and reformers. David Nolan also joins us to discuss an apparent hostile takeover of the Libertarian Party.

Click here to listen

LFV Mailbox: Voices across the blogosphere

Last Free Voice has received several emails today (thanks, everyone!) referring me to various blogs which have discussed the Libertarian Convention, and in particular the Barr/Viguerie connection.

The Ron Paul blog discussed how Viguerie offered to help Ron Paul, for a “huge cut” of the donations raised; he then set up a shadow site, “Ultimate Ron Paul”, wherein he captured email addresses.

LP Founder David Nolan fears that Viguerie is trying to buy the Libertarian Party, and outlines the steps which led to the current situation.

Liberty for All opines that the “Republicanitis” of the Barr and Root campaigns will destroy everything the Libertarian Party stands for; and opines that they shouldn’t even be in the LP, much less running for the LP presidential nomination.

Tom Knapp ponders whether the Barr/Viguerie connection is a “hostile takeover” attempt.

Dirty cop convicted in no-knock warrant death of 92-year-old woman

After two Atlanta cops (Gregg Junnier and Jason R. Smith) pled guilty to voluntary manslaughter and federal civil rights violations in the death of 92-year-old Kathryn Johnston, a third cop (Arthur Bruce Tesler) has been found guilty by a jury of lying in the investigation into the woman’s death. Tesler did not fire any of the shots in the raid.

Tesler and his partners Junnier and Smith had gotten a no-knock warrant, claiming that there was a kilo of cocaine in the house, but they lied about whether they had confirmed the information from their informant. Consequently they busted into the elderly woman’s home in plainclothes, shot and killed her when she shot at them – undoubtedly in self-defense, believing them to be intruders – then planted drugs in her house to make it look like a “good” bust.

From the Atlanta Journal-Constitution:

The jury acquitted Tesler on two charges from the illegal 2006 narcotics raid in which officers shot and killed Kathryn Johnston in her northwest Atlanta home. It found him guilty of lying in an official investigation in the cover-up of police wrongdoing that followed the shooting.

“It is not like anyone intended to hurt her, but that’s what came out of it,” Woltz said. “Right will win out.”

Tesler, 42, faces up to five years in prison when sentenced Thursday. If he had been convicted on all counts, he could have been sentenced to 20 years in prison.

The verdict came shortly after the jury reviewed a transcript of Tesler’s defense testimony. He and his two partners were accused of lying to get the no-knock search warrant for Johnston’s home on the mistaken belief it was the house of a drug dealer.

The Johnston killing shocked metro Atlanta and enraged many in the African-American community, who complained that shoddy or heavy-handed police work in the war on drugs was a source of repeated abuses.

You can read the article in its entirety on The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

Restore04: Bill of Rights

Click here for hi-res version.

(7th in a series of images found in the curbside recycling bin outside Restore04 HQ. Reliable sources claim that this slide will be distributed on the floor in Denver, but are not sure by which side.)

The LPHQ NeoConspiracy

1. 2003: Bob Barr, disgraced by an electoral loss engineered by the Libertarian Party, becomes hellbent on revenge.
2. He joins the LP and the LNC, and cozies up with the Beltwayite Statotarians who parasitically live off our membership dues.
3. Among them, Stephen Gordon and Shane Cory.
4. Gordon and Barr bond while suggestively slobbing the nobs of expensive cigars, and the Beltwayite Gordon — awestruck that a real, live Congresscritter is paying attention to him — falls for Barr’s plot hook, line and stinker.
5. Gordon leaves the LPHQ and purchases the heretofore “fair and balanced” Third Party Watch. He skillfully gets the site indexed on Google News. Now the stage is set to use TPW as a bully pulpit for Barr, for whom Gordon has secretly been working behind the scenes.
6. Barr and Viguerie hook up. (This may have come much earlier).
7. Viguerie is made keynote speaker by the LPHQ neocons.
8. Mary Ruwart emerges as the presumptive nominee.
9. “Uh-oh.”
10. The Beltwayite cabal engages in the lowest of lows, “anonymously” pegging Dr. Ruwart as a child pornographer — a story which “just happens” to break on Gordon’s TPW.
11. Shane Cory, traitorous executive director of the Libertarian Party, unilaterally issues a press release to smear Dr. Ruwart. He knows this will result in his termination at LPHQ, but just like Gordon, he doesn’t care. He has “other opportunities.”
12. Gordon sells TPW to the deep-pocketed Viguerie, who immediately censors all anti-Barr speech and revokes the press credentials of libertarian bloggers.
13. The odious Shane Cory is made editor of TPW — the site that brought him down in the first place. Irony is a word often misused, but I think it’s apropos here.

The purpose of this plot: To use the LP like a 99-cent blowup doll and discard it in the trash afterwards, thus making the electoral world safe for warmongering statists on the Right forevermore.

Restore04: Private WMD

(6th in a series of images found in the curbside recycling bin outside Restore04 HQ. Reliable sources claim that this slide will be distributed on the floor in Denver, but are not sure by which side.)

Unofficial All-Inclusive “Great Debates” in Denver

The Non-Official
All-Inclusive
Great Debates

Who: All candidates for the Libertarian Party nomination for President who wish to engage in debates under rules agreed to by them. All delegates and alternate delegates to the Libertarian Party Convention, the public, and the media are welcome to view the event (this means you are welcome).

When: Thursday, May 22, 2008, 9pm – 11pm.

Friday, May 23, 2008, 8pm – 10pm.

Where: Sheraton Hotel Denver, Tower Building, Terrace Level, Columbine Room. Seats 150, first come first seats, plus standing room. Employees at the front desk (a short distance from the Columbine Room) and all Sheraton employees will be happy to give you directions.

Why: For the first time, each delegate when they register for the convention will receive two tokens: One to be given to the Presidential Candidate and one for the Vice-Presidential Candidate of their choice. The Candidates must receive enough tokens in order to be given time to address the convention. These tokens may also affect who will participate in the “official debate” Saturday evening.

You and your tokens are important. If you do not see and hear the candidates in action, how can you make an intelligent and informed decision? So, don’t give away your tokens until you have seen the Great Debates!

This Event is Hosted by The Libertarian Party of Kentucky.

This Event is Sponsored by: George Phillies and Jim Burns, plus Alden Link

Ruth Bennett’s “Unhidden Agenda”

From Ruth Bennett for LNC Chair:

Ruth Bennett, candidate for LNC Chair, today released her “Unhidden Agenda” highlighting her plans for the LNC and Libertarian Party if elected chair.

“Too many campaigns for office involve hidden agendas,” said Bennett. “That’s why I thought it was to turn things on their head and present an unhidden one.”

“These are the areas where I would like the LNC to focus its attention.”

1) Elections. So much of the material I see coming from Libertarian candidates is, well, just not very good. I would like us to develop a “Candidate in a Box” with a CD of basic brochures, principled text on a wide variety of issues, sample press releases, buttons/stickers/yardsigns, etc. We have some incredibly talented artists and designers and writers in the LP. When I was State Chair we produced two brochures that I will be distributing around the Convention. Take a look and see if they are the kind of thing you’d like the National LP to produce. Let’s engage the talented people we have in our Party to help make it easier for candidates to have a professional, polished appearance without a huge cash outlay!

2) Election and Ballot Reform — I support freer and fairer ballot access across the country. I have worked with and lobbied the state legislature for a better ballot law in Washington and am willing to carry that issue to any state that needs help. Ranked Choice Voting, IRV, and proportional representation are all possible antidotes to our election problems and we need to build on the small successes we have had to get more jurisdictions to expand their ballot access and reform their elections.

3) Lobbying — Lobbying at every level is an important part of our election process and should never take a back seat to just getting Libertarians elected. Toby Nixon, a Life Member of the Libertarian Party, was a Republican State Representative in Washington. Toby told me that he was surprised that when he really explained the consequences of a particular piece of legislation, he could often change a fellow Representative’s vote. We need to be lobbying our state and local legislative bodies on all kinds of issues to explain the consequences. This is a way to slow down or stop the increase of government in our lives and a great opportunity to show that Libertarians can actually accomplish something! Lobbying usually takes place outside of the election cycle, so it is a good way to keep volunteers involved and engaged. It is a fantastic outreach tool. It shows that we care about the same issues that others care about. I have successfully lobbied my state legislature and regulatory boards on issues related to the rights of families to care for their own dead. Sounds depressing, but it was exciting to help keep the state from taking power from families and giving it to funeral directors. Now I have a reputation in the community for being a person who cares. That, too, will help me should I run for office again. I also have a much better understanding of the legislative process and that is useful information.

4) Ballot States — without ballot access, the Libertarian Party becomes irrelevant. While this is Bill Redpath’s passion, he told me that the current LNC has not been as supportive of ballot access as he thought necessary. I want to make ballot access a top priority, so it is up to you, the delegates, to send a loud message to the LNC that you want ballot access support! Be sure to ask candidates their position on ballot access, take notes, and then hold them to it!

5) Outreach and grassroots activism — Fair booths, Google ads, and meet-ups; there are many ways to reach out, to educate, and to engage. I would like the National Party to seek out best practices from around the country to make them available to state and local affiliates. I also want to encourage Libertarians to get more involved with their communities. Join your local community council, fraternal or civil organizations, churches, and/or non-profits. We will gain contacts and learn about the issues from the ground up. As much as I consider myself a “principled” Libertarians, not everything is as black-and-white as some Libertarians seem to believe. Getting involved in your community is a way to see how the “real world” works… and it makes us better candidates! I had a full-page article about me and my work to get a cremation tax removed on the front page of the local homeless newspaper, “Real Change.” Do you think this will be valuable should I again decide to run for office? You bet it will!

“These are the issues I will work on over the next two years to set a better stage for the Libertarian Party in election season in 2010 and beyond. This is my Unhidden Agenda. Will you join with me?”

Restore04: Every Child Gets A Pony

(5th in a series of images found in the curbside recycling bin outside Restore04 HQ. Reliable sources claim that this slide will be distributed on the floor in Denver, but are not sure by which side.)

Endorsement: Tom Knapp for LP Judicial Committee

I would normally write an endorsement, but in this particular case my endorsement is based more on the person and their principles, than on my knowledge of the office sought.  For that reason, I will let the candidate tell you why he should have your support.  From an email written by Tom Knapp:

I’ve served on the party’s Judicial Committee once (from 2002-2004). This year, I’m seeking election to that committee once again. I request your support and your vote.

I understand if you’re not excited. The Judicial Committee elections are almost an afterthought, coming after the “exciting stuff” — presidential and vice-presidential nominations and LNC elections. We dispensed with electing a Judicial Committee altogether in 2000 after a quorum call and sine die adjournment of the convention in Anaheim. The world did not end.

And, frankly, I can’t remember the last time the Judicial Committee had to swing into action — I’m pretty sure it was in the late 1980s, before I joined the party. The Judicial Committee is an appellate body. It acts only when an action of the National Committee or the national convention is sent to it for review under specific rules (which you can find out more about in the bylaws).

So, if you’re still reading, you probably have two questions: Why is this committee important, and why should I vote for Tom Knapp to sit on it?

The Judicial Committee is important because it functions as the LP’s “Supreme Court.” Its job is to review actions of the national committee on appeal by a percentage of the party’s membership (for regular actions), or by suspended committee members or disaffiliated state parties. It may also be called upon to review actions of the national convention as they relate to the Statement of Principles (and can be overruled by that convention in its findings). It’s to the party’s credit that the Judicial Committee is so seldom called into action — but it’s a necessary party institution.

As to why I am qualified, well, I meet the bylaws qualifications (I’m a party member). Beyond that, I pledge that if a matter is brought before the committee for review, I will adhere to a “strict constructionist” interpretation of the bylaws: They say what they mean and they mean what they say. If overwhelming evidence that an “original intent” trumps my own “strict construction,” I’ll give that evidence due consideration. I will vote in accordance with that “strict construction,” as possibly modified by evidence of “original intent,” and I will do so without regard to whether or not my vote gores anyone’s ideological ox — my own included. Finally, I will recuse myself from any appeal to the Judicial Committee which represents a personal conflict of interest.

I believe that service on the Judicial Committee requires personal honesty, respect for truth and fact, and a willingness to apply the party’s rules impartially. I leave it to you to judge whether or not I possess those qualities in sufficient measure to properly discharge the duties I’m asking to be given.

Court says FRNs discriminate against blind people

From Yahoo News:

WASHINGTON – The U.S. discriminates against blind people by printing paper money that makes it impossible for them to distinguish among the bills’ varying values, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday.

The ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upholds a decision by a lower court in 2006. It could force the Treasury Department to redesign its money. Suggested changes have ranged from making bills different sizes to printing them with raised markings.

The American Council for the Blind sued for such changes but the Treasury Department has been fighting the case for about six years.

“I don’t think we should have to rely on people to tell us what our money is,” said Mitch Pomerantz, the council’s president.

The U.S. acknowledges the design hinders blind people but it argued that blind people have adapted. Some relied on store clerks to help them, some used credit cards and others folded certain corners to help distinguish between bills.

The court ruled 2-1 that such adaptations were insufficient. The government might as well argue that, since handicapped people can crawl on all fours or ask for help from strangers, there’s no need to make buildings wheelchair accessible, the court said.

“Even the most searching tactile examination will reveal no difference between a $100 bill and a $1 bill. The Secretary has identified no reason that requires paper currency to be uniform to the touch,” Judge Judith W. Rogers wrote for the majority.

Courts can’t decide how to design the currency, since that’s up to the Treasury Department. But the ruling forces the department to address what the court called a discriminatory problem.

You can read the rest of this article here.

Jacqueline Passey: Endorsements

The following is posted with the permission of the author, Jacqueline Passey. You can view the original on her website here.

Endorsements: Wayne Allyn Root, Steve Kubby, Mary Ruwart, or George Phillies for President; adopt the World’s Smallest Political Platform

The Libertarian Party national convention is this weekend in Denver. I won’t be going, but I know at least one delegate reads this blog, so I’m posting my endorsements for candidates and issues in the hopes that they are at least somewhat influential in the delegates’ decisions.

First, to give my endorsements the necessary context, I should explicitly disclose my history, positions, and biases: I’ve been involved in the LP since 2000, including working as the Executive Director of the Libertarian Party of Washington State (2001-2002) and running as a Libertarian candidate for Washington Secretary of State (2004), but I’ve been less active since the 2006 election. I’m a minarchist, but I welcome anyone who supports reducing the size, scope, and power of government as a member of the Libertarian Party and libertarian movement even if they don’t share my exact vision of what Libertopia should be. I think that the Libertarian Party has the greatest chance for success in local races (state legislature and lower) and thus the role of the national party and Presidential candidates should be to first do no harm (do not say or do anything wacky that will hurt local candidates), and second, help recruit and develop a pool of Libertarian activists, donors, and voters that local candidates and organizations can tap into.

To get caught up on the candidates and issues, I read their websites, their Wikipedia biographies, searched YouTube for videos of them speaking, and sought out opinions and gossip from other Libertarians on blogs. I’ve also had personal interactions with George Phillies and Mary Ruwart, and I heard George Phillies and Steve Kubby debate at the LP Nevada convention last year.

GOOD CANDIDATES

Unfortunately, none of the candidates this year really excite me. However, there are a few that I think would help our party grow if they won the nomination:

Wayne Allyn Root:

Pros: Moderately famous for his gambling TV shows/books and Millionaire Republican personal finance book. He’s a very good speaker and smooth with the media, as shown here. Has raised the second most money of the “good” candidates”.

Cons: He only recently made the switch from the Republican Party and is a little on the conservative side. He also seems to have already alienated a lot of people within the LP, although it’s not clear to me what exactly he did to get their panties in such a bunch.

Steve Kubby:

Pros: Relatively famous politically. He was successful in getting California Proposition 215 (Medical Marijuana) passed, so we know he has the connections and resources to get things done. He would probably get media attention for being a convicted felon, but this is a good thing because it would show the stupidity of the Drug War. He’s been campaigning for 2 years. Consistently libertarian positions.

Cons: Most Americans are more concerned about other issues than the Drug War right now, so Kubby’s biggest strength is sort of wasted this year. Despite campaigning for 2 years he hasn’t raised much money.

Mary Ruwart:

Pros: Is an excellent speaker and communicator. Is moderately famous within the libertarian movement. She’s able to explain fairly radical libertarian positions and policies without scaring the crap out of people. Running a woman for President or Vice President this year might win us more media attention than we would otherwise get. She’s been involved with the libertarian movement for a long time so we all know her pretty well by now. Consistently libertarian positions.

Cons: She entered the race pretty late and hasn’t raised much money or probably built much of a campaign yet. She doesn’t seem to know how to dress appropriately for a Presidential candidate. Please, Mary, go get some black or navy suits and wear them to all future events instead of that hideous gray thing.

George Phillies:

Pros: George is probably the most sane/mainstream candidate for the nomination — he consistently advocates reducing the size of government, but in incremental ways that are actually politically viable. Has raised the most money of the “good” candidates. He’s a long-time member and activist in the Libertarian Party, so we all know him pretty well by now. He “gets it” that the Presidential campaign should be a recruiting tool for building the party and helping elect local candidates. He’s been campaigning for 2 years.

Cons: I think George might have a touch of Aspergers Syndrome — those of you who have met George know what I’m talking about. He’s not at all notable outside of the party.

I wish that George was working as the campaign manager or strategist for a prettier, more charismatic candidate instead of running for the nomination himself. Regardless of who wins the nomination, I hope that George stays involved in the Presidential campaign, because I think he’s got the right mix of libertarian ideology and strategic pragmatism that we need to run a party-building Presidential campaign.

MEDIOCRE CANDIDATES:

I don’t think these candidates would either help or hurt us that much:

Christine Smith:

Pros: She seems to have consistently libertarian positions on all the issues. She’s a decent public speaker as seen here. Although I generally wish that female candidates would dress more conservatively, she pulls off the red suit look well. Running a woman for President or Vice President this year might win us more media attention than we would otherwise get.

Cons: She’s just not that notable — it’s too bad that she decided to jump into running for President, because she would have made a great candidate for local office if she actually wanted to be elected to something. She desperately needs a web designer to improve the look and feel of her campaign website.

Other: She shares a name with a Playboy Playmate (NSFW Google images search). Inevitably, some people will get the two mixed up — not sure if that will help or hurt her campaign.

Michael Jingozian:

Pros: Seems comfortable speaking, as shown here. Long-time member (claims he joined the LP in 1980). Founder and CEO of a successful small marketing company. Managed to score a Wall Street Journal blog post about his campaign (”A Small Business Owner for President“). I think his internet-focused campaign strategy is a smart idea given the LP’s lack of resources for conventional campaigning. Has raised the most money of the not-bad candidates. Hasn’t done anything to motivate people to write nasty things about him on blogs.

Cons: That no one is writing nasty things about him on blogs indicates that he’s not campaigning hard enough or being taken seriously as a candidate. Complete lack of notability — again, he should have run for local office instead of President. Campaign literature is way too cluttered and too focused on negative things.

Alden Link:

Pros: Seems innocuous. The positions he describes on his website are fairly consistently libertarian.

Cons: I had never heard of him and didn’t know he was running until I did one last check of the LP’s website to make sure I hadn’t missed anyone. Has he raised any money or spoken anywhere? His website is pretty sad.

Jim Burns:

Pros: Seems to have consistently libertarian positions (although I couldn’t bear to finish slogging through all the text on his website, so there might be something that I missed). Strategically-minded.

Cons: I couldn’t find much about him so he doesn’t seem to be campaigning very much. Seems a bit nutty. His campaign website was difficult to find and is pretty lame. Keeps referring to himself as an “old, bald, fat white guy,” which may be accurate but is not the winning campaign rhetoric we should be looking for. He’s so very earnest that I want to pat him on his little bald head, but I don’t want him representing our party.

BAD CANDIDATES:

I think these candidates would be harmful to our party and I would be very disappointed if any of them were nominated:

Bob Barr:

Pros: As a former elected Congressman, he’s much more famous than most of the other candidates. His experience in public office gives him credibility, and demonstrates that he is able to run an effective campaign. His campaign website is very professional-looking.

Cons: HE’S NOT A LIBERTARIAN. He’s still really a Republican at heart, and he’s running to get Republicans to vote and help down-ticket Republican candidates (via), not to build the Libertarian Party. He’ll never be accepted by many libertarians due to his support of the Drug War, Defense of Marriage Act, and Patriot Act while he was an elected Congressman — he may give lip service to libertarianism now, but his actual legislative record on libertarian issues is abysmal. He waited until the last minute to officially announce, which seems to me like a slimy tactic to avoid giving Libertarians adequate time to investigate and debate his candidacy before the convention. I don’t trust him or his supposed change of heart (he doesn’t even declare his current positions on drugs or gay rights on the Issues page of his website) — this is a guy that we helped defeat for re-election in 2002, and now he sits on the LNC and is seriously being considered for our nominee for President?! Ron Crickenberger must be spinning in his grave.

Mike Gravel:

Pros: As a former elected Senator, and as a former candidate for the Democratic Presidential nomination, he’s much more famous than most of the other candidates. His experience in public office gives him credibility, and demonstrates that he is able to run an effective campaign. His campaign website is very professional-looking.

Cons: HE’S NOT A LIBERTARIAN. The only reason he’s running for the Libertarian Party nomination is because he couldn’t win the Democratic Party nomination. He is campaigning for socialized medicine, which would be a massive increase in government. Need I say more?

Bob Barr and Mike Gravel are examples of one of the worst threats to third parties — major party candidates who can’t get along in their own party and decide to leave and try to co-opt a third party’s ticket. We saw this happen with the Movimiento Libertario in Costa Rica (which was the most successful Libertarian party in the world to date). There, the co-opters were successful, and the Movimiento Libertario doesn’t even call itself “libertarian” anymore. Let the fate of the ML serve as a cautionary tale to US Libertarians — don’t be so excited over the prospect of an experienced and proven “electable” candidate from a mainstream party that you ignore their ideology.

Daniel Imperato:

Pros: He seems to be putting a lot of effort into his campaign.

Cons: He’s not actually a Libertarian, he’s just a slut for third parties — he’s also tried to win the Green Party, Reform Party, and Constitution Party nominations, and seems to just want to be on the ballot regardless of whose ticket he’s on.

PLATFORM:

I support the World’s Smallest Political Platform (click the link to sign the petition):

“The Libertarian Party supports reducing the size, scope and power of government at all levels and on all issues, and opposes increasing the size, scope or power of government at any level or for any purpose.”

I support it because I know from experience that opponents and media can and do go to the national Libertarian Party website, dig up something wacky from the platform, and use it confront local candidates in potentially winnable races. So while I personally don’t object to much in the current or old platform, I think it is a handicap and not a help for winning elections at the level we can realistically win them at. Let our CANDIDATES define their own platforms individually, based on the issues that THEY want to campaign on, instead of having to fend off questions about issues not related to the office that they’re running for or about positions much more radical than they themselves espouse.

________________________________

Jacqueline Passey is the former Executive Director of the Washington state Libertarian Party, and former LP candidate for Washington Secretary of State. Blog enthusiasts likely remember her from her 2006 blog entry covering the Nevada LP presidential debates, amusingly titled “Two whackjobs, a convicted felon, and George Phillies”. That blog entry set into motion a short-lived “memogate”, in which a memo from then-LP Executive Director Shane Corey, referencing her blog and asking whether the LP can offer better candidates, was leaked into the blogosphere.

Ms. Passey lives in Las Vegas with her husband and dachsunds, and is currently working on her Master’s Degree at UNLV. Her current blog is “Jacqueline Gets Her Geek On”.

New third party political blog

I ran across Independent Political Report via Google alerts, and was pleasantly surprised to see some familiar names there.

If you get a free minute, cruise over to see what you think.

Bob Barr bringing in ringers to manipulate the convention vote

An allegation was made recently, that Bob Barr was bringing in “ringers” to vote for him at the convention. It is true, as the below message proves.

Is it even legal in the LP, to bring in ringers like this? If so, it shouldn’t be, and it is a very good example of why the major parties choose delegates well in advance of the convention.

Either way, it shows just exactly how “principled” Bob Barr really is, that he would engage in such distasteful and fraudulent practices in a blatant attempt to manipulate the Libertarian Party, its delegates, and its convention.

While normally I would redact personal information before posting, in this case – given that fraud against the convention is involved – I have decided to leave it all intact.

By now, I’m sure you’ve heard the media buzz surrounding Bob Barr and his recent announcement to run for the Libertarian nomination. Everyone, including the media, has been talking about Barr and the Libertarian Party. According to Tobin Harshaw at the New York Times, “While Paul has been a thorn in McCain’s side ever since he became the presumptive nominee, Barr seems to be the threat the G.O.P. is taking more seriously for now.”

If you’re like me, you’re getting excited about the spotlight this has brought to our party, and you’re excited about what a Bob Barr nomination would mean for the Libertarian Party. But Bob Barr has one more hurdle to overcome first…the Libertarian Party’s nominating convention this coming weekend in Denver. Remember, at the 2004 Libertarian National Convention, the top three candidates polled within 12 votes of each other on the first ballot (Russo 258, Badnarik 256, Nolan 246).

Don’t let this happen to Bob Barr! Join the campaign and be a delegate for Bob Barr. For those of us without the means to get to Denver on our own, we’re organizing a charter bus trip that will take 55 Bob Barr supporters out to Denver for the vote, and then drive straight back after the vote. No hotel fees or convention “extras” needed!

Cost per person for the bus trip: $182

Tentative Bus schedule:

Leaving Columbus, OH 11am EDT on Saturday, stopping for pickups in Indianapolis, St. Louis, and Kansas City, arriving in Denver Sunday morning for the general session (and presidential vote).
after the voting is complete (probably around 5pm), eat dinner and load the bus for the trip home, returning to Columbus, OH late Monday evening.

If you’re interested in joining the Bob Barr team out in Denver, and you live within driving distance of Columbus, Indianapolis, St. Louis or Kansas City, please email me TODAY at maguire_tj@hotmail.com. Remember, the vote is this coming Sunday, so your response is needed immediately.

–
Timothy J. Maguire
9166 Cinnebar Drive
Indianapolis, IN 46268
317-372-6436

Restore04: Pipes

(4th in a series of images found in the curbside recycling bin outside Restore04 HQ.  Reliable sources claim that this slide will be distributed on the floor in Denver.)

Restore04: Transitions

(3rd in a series of images found in the curbside recycling bin outside Restore04 HQ.Reliable sources claim that this slide will be distributed on the floor in Denver.)

Restore04: Immigration

(2nd of a series of images found in the curbside recycling bin outside Restore04 HQ.)

From LFV comments: Restore04

Hat tip “Tennessee_Whiskey” (url not given):

From my friend:

I thought I would share with you a letter I sent to the Tennessee Delegation to the LP convention. You may share this with any Delegates you know if you wish.
-Allan Wallace

Dear Fellow Tennessee Delegates;

The pendulum of change swings slowly in the Libertarian Party. I’ve been an LP activist for over 20 years now, and when I first came into the party, the LP was just then coming back into balance after a leftward swing of that pendulum. But, its momentum has carried it on, slowly rightward over the years.

I was there when we had a nominal balance in the party, but the pendulum has continued on, fueled by political circumstances that have made libertarian leaning conservatives seek a new political home. By the time we started Outright Libertarians in 1998, the pendulum moved far enough to the right to worry us that someday soon those on the right-leaning side of the party might start to push us out. That’s why we wrote the party watch-dog section into our Mission Statement.

After years of influx from disaffected Republicans, they have finally taken key positions in the party and have started remaking the LP into what they believe the Republican party should have been.

Do not misunderstand me, these ex-republicans have a place in the LP, and they should take part in the leadership of the party. But, they should not attempt to change the LP into any kind of a conservative ideal. They should not prevent the party from reaching out to BOTH sides of the political spectrum. And, they should not water down our party Platform so that it won’t offend their still-republican friends.

When a party tries to change the face of politics as we are doing, the fact is that it will offend some people. It is inevitable. The question becomes, do we try to heap all the offense on one side of the political spectrum or the other, or do we try to equalize the offense between Both of the old political partys, charting a middle course, a mainstream libertarian course.

The still-somewhat-conservative ex-republicans in the LP believe that their numbers have moved the mainstream of the LP closer to their own ideals. This is a false belief. Libertarian principles, the central beliefs of our party, that are based in libertarian philosophy decides where our mainstream is, NOT numbers or public opinion.

We who joined during more balanced Libertarian times and want a more balanced party now, see what has happened especially in the last four years. We recognize that the party is at the point in that pendulum swing when we must either give the pendulum enough of a nudge to stop its right-ward swing and allow gravity to start moving it back toward center, or we must sit by and watch it swing further right, past the point where we in good conscience can follow.

Producing that needed nudge will take the effort of a lot of people who are willing to stand up and say “enough is enough!”

They will accuse us of being overly concerned with principle and dogma, and unconcerned with winning elections, as if winning elections is an option in any but local races. When winning an election is not an option, then the emphasis changes from winning to party building, to branding and name recognition building, and to paving the way for future LP candidates.

One of the battlegrounds at this convention will be over the Platform!

Certain members of the Platform Committee have labeled those of us who support the Restoration movement as “radicals.” We are not radical for wanting to preserve an excellently designed platform that took 6 years of hard work to craft.

They claim that they have simply removed the offensive parts and left in the basic principles; but the “offensive” parts in reality defined the principles, made them understandable. Undefined Principles offend no one because they illuminate NO ONE!

The restoration movement wants to preserve an excellently designed and versatile platform. They have taken a Jaguar, pulled all its teeth, declawed it, and chained it to a tree. THAT’S what I call radical.

-Allan Wallace

http://www.restore04.com/petition.htm

Shane Corey goes to work for Viguerie

From Ballot Access News:

Former Libertarian Party National Director Begins Working for Richard Viguerie

Shane Cory had been the Libertarian Party’s national director for many years, but he resigned recently. He has now shifted to working for the Richard Viguerie organization. As noted in an earlier post, Viguerie’s company recently purchased ThirdPartyWatch.

New TPW owner revokes libertarian contributors’ convention press credentials

The following was posted on Third Party Watch today:

Over the weekend, Third Party Watch was acquired from Stephen Gordon by Richard Viguerie.

[snip]

Richard Viguerie, is known as the “funding father” of the modern conservative movement and is the co-author of America’s Right Turn and, more recently, author of Conservatives Betrayed.

Also today, Stephen Gordon received an email from Andrew Davis, saying that Viguerie had requested that Libertarian Convention press credentials be revoked for three libertarian writers, who coincidentally all dared to speak out against Bob Barr: Tom Knapp, PaulieCannoli, and Michelle Shinghal.

Welcome to my world, guys.

Paulie and Miche are also LFV Contributors, of course, and they were caught completely unaware; they didn’t even know that TPW was for sale, much less that it had been sold. One would think that Steve Gordon would have mentioned that to them, but apparently he didn’t, and they didn’t know anything about it until after the deal was done, and their press credentials had already been revoked by the new owner.

From: Andrew Davis [mailto:[email address redacted]
Sent: Monday, May 19, 2008 9:19 AM
To: Stephen Gordon
Cc: Shane Cory
Subject: Press Credential Removal

At the request of the new owners of Third Party Watch, I am removing three writers from your credentials request:

[snip]

Because the original request for credentials came from you, I am leaving it as your responsibility to notify [the contributors] as to their removal from the credentials list.

Thank you.
_________________________
Andrew Davis
National Media Coordinator
Libertarian National Committee, Inc.
[email address redacted]
Office: [redacted]
Cell: [redacted]

Incidentally, notice that Andrew’s cell phone number was in that message, but I redacted it.  He’s lucky he’s dealing with a principled libertarian, and not a fellow “radical Republican”, since they would not give him that consideration if they had the same valid complaint about him that I have.

At any rate, I can only just shake my head in amazement, not only that Vigueria revoked their press credentials so quickly, but also that Steve didn’t even let the contributors know the site was for sale, or even that it had been sold.  I have a lot of respect for Steve Gordon, so I’m giving him the benefit of the doubt in this situation.  I’m not especially inclined to do that with Vigueria, though.

As if all that is not bad enough, Vigueria is already deleting articles which are not supportive of Bob Barr.  Though Steve Gordon is on Barr’s staff, he never deleted others’ articles, even if they were critical of his candidate; and that action by Vigueria shows that he refuses to cover the convention and its candidates in a fair and impartial manner.  That being the case, why does TPW even still have press credentials at all?  I cannot help but wonder why their credentials were not revoked as soon as Steve Gordon sold the site.

I was told today that Andrew Davis is just trying to keep his job, and that is why he refused to give LFV convention press credentials; after all, we are highly critical of Bob Barr, and Bob Barr sits on the LNC.  Of course, if Andrew Davis were really a libertarian, or if he even had principles, he would do the right thing in this situation no matter what the personal consequences.  Instead, he allows a site which is now nothing but another Bob Barr campaign site to retain its credentials, while refusing credentials for a site which actually earned those credentials by doing real journalism, even beating the Atlanta Journal-Constitution in the disclosure of the very serious problems with Bob Barr’s PAC.  For all anyone really knows, given that LFV is in the top ten Google hits for “libertarian convention”, the AC-J actually got that information initially from LFV.

But, I digress.

Obviously, Miche and Paulie are more than welcome back home here at LFV, and displaced libertarian writers (and readers) from TPW are, of course, more than welcome to make LFV their new home.

Restore04: Personal Secession

(First of a series of images found in the curbside recycling bin outside Restore04 HQ.)

Candidate Endorsement: Mary Ruwart will continue the Ron Paul rEVOLution

As a congressional-district coordinator and office manager for the Ron Paul for President campaign, I came into contact with hundreds of spirited rEVOLutionaries. These people from diverse ideological backgrounds had come together for the common cause of liberty. They were conservatives, liberals, moderates — but very few self-identified libertarians. Ron Paul had given them their first exposure to the Austro-Jeffersonian gospel, and while their hearts and minds had embarked on the road to libertarianism, they had not yet reached the Promised Land. Mary Ruwart can take them there.

Dr. Mary Ruwart is the logical heir to the Ron Paul rEVOLution. Her book, Healing Our World in an Age of Aggression, won the hearty endorsement of Dr. Paul, and he also wrote a letter on her behalf urging President Bush to appoint her to the FDA (which, like Dr. Paul, she would like to see abolished). Dr. Ruwart has a unique talent for articulating libertarian solutions to the problems facing everyday people. She embodies the Principled Populism of Murray Rothbard without rancor or divisiveness. Mary Ruwart will not only unite the Libertarian Party, but she will bring in throngs of new members by proudly carrying the banner of the rEVOLution.

Libertarians have the woefully undeserved reputation of being a party full of angry white men with no concern for others. Through her Principled Populism and velvet touch, Dr. Mary Ruwart can heal our world and grow our party — if only we give her the chance.

Jason D. Seagraves
Saginaw/Bay City/Midland Ron Paul Meetup Organizer
Saginaw County Coordinator, Ron Paul for President
Michigan’s 5th Congressional District Coordinator / Flint Office Manager, Ron Paul for President
Former Green Party candidate for Congress (converted to libertarianism by Dr. Mary Ruwart)

Atlanta newspaper (finally) looks into Bob Barr’s PAC

Barr writes (or wrote) a column for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, but that didn’t stop the paper from doing a little digging into his PAC now that he has declared for president.

Here’s the story (which was previously covered by Last Free Voice):

http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/stories/2008/05/19/barrpac_0518.html

Barr’s group is a so-called “leadership fund,” a type of political action committee used by current and aspiring party leaders to collect money and disperse it to candidates and committees. …Barr’s use of donations for fund-raising and his own expenses is unlike most leadership funds, said Sarah Dufendach, chief of legislative affairs for Common Cause, the Washington-based nonpartisan public-interest advocacy group.

“It’s not supposed to be for the benefit of that particular person,” she said. “The leadership PACs are supposed to be for the support of other candidates. He is just sustaining himself. …

In the last five years the fund has given $125,200 — about three cents of every dollar raised — to federal candidates and other campaign committees, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution has found in a review of reports filed with the Federal Election Commission. Another $81,875 went to state and local campaigns.

On April 1, former Congressman Bob Barr wrote to rally conservatives across the country to stop liberals from solidifying control of Congress.“If we don’t act fast – I’m afraid conservatives may well lose out again!” he implored in a letter sent by his political action committee. …

The letter made no mention of Barr’s recent campaign for the Libertarian Party’s nomination for president, in which he has criticized many Republicans in Congress. Libertarians will choose their candidate at a convention this week in Denver.

Barr, a former federal prosecutor, defended the fund’s solicitations and expenditures in a telephone interview. He declined to answer questions about individual donations and the letter’s characterization of their importance.

“I won’t be cross-examined” about the fund’s finances, he said.

In an e-mail, the fund’s treasurer, Paul Kilgore of Athens, wrote that the letter was “in production well before the decision to form an exploratory committee was reached. … [T]here is certainly no requirement that we mention anything specifically in our letters.”

The story has also been picked up by other news outlets.

You can read LFV’s exclusives on Bob Barr at the following links:

Barr still “exploring”, with convention just 18 days away. Why?

Bob Barr’s “emotional distress”

Jim Casarjian-Perry: Bob Barr hits home

Bob Barr: An Enemy of Libertarians

How will Bob Barr spend your money?

What positions does Bob Barr support?

Bob Barr proves he’s a Republican.  Again.

______________________________

Hat tip Susan Hogarth

Video: Faith in Freedom

About the Platform Committee’s proposal to help re-awaken America’s faith in freedom.

Candidate Endorsement: Mary Ruwart

With less than a week to go until the Libertarian National Convention, I felt it was time to offer up my endorsement. This has been a long process and I must admit, I’ve bounced back and forth between candidates. From George Phillies to Steve Kubby, every time I began to feel comfortable about a candidate, I quickly found something in their platform I just couldn’t agree with.

That is until Mary Ruwart entered the race.

Mary Ruwart was a key figure in my decision to join the Libertarian Party back in 2000. She sold me on libertarian values & I’ve been a determined activist ever since.  I feel Mary represents the core principles the party was built on. I feel she represents not only my voice, but those of the majority of Libertarian Party activists.

We have several great candidates heading to Denver and for the most part, I could see myself voting for any of these candidates when November rolls around. However, there is one candidate who gets me excited. Only one candidate who I will go the extra mile for. Only one candidate who I feel truly represents my voice.

That candidate is Mary Ruwart.

Video: Liberators Wanted

For Angela Keaton and the dreamt-of futures that will always bind us.

George Phillies: An Open Letter to Libertarian Activists

Fellow Libertarians!

A week from today, our Libertarian Party reaches a fork in the road. We’ll choose a Presidential candidate.

On the plumb-line/libertarian/radical side are Jim Burns, Steve Kubby, Mary Ruwart, and Christine Smith, with Mike Gravel giving very different yet very radical positions. On what Reason magazine called the right-leaning/pragmatic/celebrity side are Wayne Root and Bob Barr.

We have huge opportunities this year. John McCain champions the statist war philosophy that is conservatism, and Barack Obama’s Party voted to go along. To seize our chance make our party stronger, we need to stay together. If we choose either a radical or a right-leaning Libertarian, staying together will be a challenge.

Staying together is the problem, and

Libertarian centrism is the answer.

I’m George Phillies, Libertarian centrist. I’m not a radical and equally I’m not right-leaning. Like our party, I’m in the middle. That’s not the faint-voiced, compromising middle. Our Libertarian Party is the party of the outspoken, principled middle, and I am an outspoken, principled centrist candidate.

I’m your best choice to become our Presidential nominee, because I’m the candidate that most radicals and most pragmatists can come together to support. I happily work with people more radical than me, and happily work with people who make me look radical.

Then there’s the second-best reason I should be our candidate. I have a campaign up and running. If nominated, I have over $100,000 in the bank ready to go to launch my campaign. I was Badnarik’s national volunteer coordinator, so I’ve seen the practical limits of Libertarian resources.

For more on me, please go to http:/ChooseGeorge.Org

Being a centrist doesn’t mean that I don’t take radical stands. I do. That’s why Outright Libertarians endorses me. That’s why I call for an army of special prosecutors to send to prison the Bush administration people who illegally wiretapped every telephone in America.

Being a centrist doesn’t mean I don’t take right-leaning stands. I do. That’s why I denounce the national debt as the grandchild tax. We spend. They’ll pay for life. That’s evil.

Being a centrist does mean I take issues that concern real Americans, issues like medical care costs, education, energy, and the environment. I give sensible libertarian answers that Americans will support.

I support fellow Libertarian Party candidates, because when you support a candidate, your support counts twice. Your support counts once for him, and once for his party. I don’t support Democrats or Republicans, because when you help one of them you help their party avoid extinction.

A closing thought. The Nolan chart has four corners. The two party system means two corners govern, and two corners are ineffective. I want to change the world, so the “Republican conservative” corner is an ineffective joke, and “libertarian” is the governing corner.

Please make me our nominee.

George Phillies
http://ChooseGeorge.org
phillies@4liberty.net
508 736 7333

P.S. To read my strategic plan to start changing the political world, go to http://phillies2008.org/files/qwerty.pdf

P.P.S. I am hearing rumblings about ballot access. I’ve pledged 20% of my donations, up to $300,000, to pay for ballot access, and have already spent thousands. If I am the nominee, I have a hundred thousand dollars in place not already committed for office rent, high-paid consultants, or television production; that money could go to ballot access right away if need be.

George Phillies answers Susan Hogarth’s questions

Though Bob Barr still has not responded to Susan Hogarth’s questions, his opponent George Phillies has stepped up to the plate.

Taken from comments on Susan Hogarth’s blog, here are George Phillies’ answers to Susan Hogarth’s questions to Bob Barr:

Support for the Libertarian Party and the libertarian message:

1. Why has the leadership PAC bearing your name continued to raise and distribute funds to support Republican congressional candidates in districts where a Libertarian either is or could be running even after you joined the LP’s governing board? Do you not consider recruiting and supporting Libertarian candidates to be an essential part of the LP leadership’s mission? Will your leadership PAC continue to support Republicans if you are selected as the LP’s presidential nominee?

My PACs contribute to real Libertarians. Freedom Ballot Access, the 527 organization that I lead, raised more than $18,000 for ballot access for Michael Badnarik. In addition, from 2000 through 2006, I published Let Freedom Ring and Libertarian Strategy Gazette, which between them cost around $3-4,000 to circulate beyond paid subscriptions, not counting an electronic readership far larger than the appermail readership. With Bonnie Scott, I generated the Liberarian Candidate Campaign Support disk, with about a thousand copies now in circulation among Libertarians across America. I’ve also spent close to $100,000 of my own money on my own campaign, including AdWards and Facebook campaigns that have generated more than 27 million impressions.

2. In a radio interview in Charlotte, NC this week, you indicated that Republicans should support you because your candidacy will bring out voters who are dejected by McCain, and will now vote for Republican candidates down-ballot. What will you do to promote Libertarian Party candidates down-ballot?

The most important thing Libertarians can do for the Libertarian Party is to kill off one of our opponent parties–the Republicans appear to be volunteering–so voters who believe in the two-party system view “Libertarian” as one of the two choices. By discouraging Republican voters from voting, so that all across America the Republican Party is as effective as it is right now in Massachusetts, we take a major step toward that end. Mind you, I would rathers realize that they are really libertariansm and positively choose our candidates, but I’ll take the smaller step of enying the Republicans their voters.

3. You have said that there are parts of the LP’s platform that you disagree with. Can you be specific? What parts of the LP’s platform do you agree with?

I am not seriously unhappy with our current platform. Gaps in the current platform need to be filled.

4. Why have you consistently sold yourself in interviews as ‘conservative’ rather than ‘libertarian’? Do you think that ‘libertarian’ and ‘conservative’ are the same thing?

“Conservative” is one of the three opposites to “libertarian”.My strategy is simple. The Nolan chart has four corners. We have a two-party first-past-the-post system. I want us to occupy one of the important corners. To do that, we need to reduce ‘conservative’ to one of the minor corners. To do that we convince voters that when they read ‘conservative’ they think ‘Bush Republican War Party’ and when they read ‘Republican’ they think ‘Bush conservative fruitcake war party’. We also minimize Republican strength among elected officials.

Questions about some of your antilibertarian votes in congress:

1. PATRIOT Act – you voted ‘for’ the Act. Would you vote the same way again? Do you think it was a mistake to trust the sunset provisions?

I oppose the Patriot Act.

2. Do you still support an anti-flag-desecration amendment to the constitution? How does this tie in with your ideas of federalism? How does it support individual liberty?

I condemn and reject the flag desecration amendment. Mind you, the thought of taking every politician wearing a flag lapel pin and arresting them for flag desecration is really amusing, but it is not libertarian.

3. DOMA – you have indicated that DOMA was an exercise in federalism (devolving power to the states), but this does not explain the part of DOMA that defines marriage federally as man-woman only. Do you stand by this definition? In your state, would you support a government definition of marriage as man-woman only?

DOMA is an abomination in the sight of the Founding Fathers. I am happy to live in one of the two states that allow gay as well as straight people to marry.

4. You voted for the Medicare Part D prescription drug boondoggle while in congress. Do you stand by this vote, or repudiate it?

Vote for a program that raises two trillion dollars in income to cover ten trillion dollars in expenditures? You’d have to be an idiot to do that. Unsurprisingly, the Republican wastrel spendthrift party did just that.

1. You talk about reducing U.S. military bases overseas, but not necessarily closing them. How many foreign countries do you think the U.S. needs to have military personnel in?

I would close the overwhelming bulk of our vast array of military bases in Europe and the Middle East. The Cold War is over. We should collect on the peace dividend.

Having said that, there are a few peculiar special cases not related to shutting down the warfare state. For example, we have active antipiracy ship patrols that actually get to shoot at real pirates. The air defenses of our 50 states include radar units in foreign countries. Our coastal naval defenses have similar issues. Our embassy guards have always been Marines.

2. Would you support an immediate end to the Afghanistan occupation? How long, as President, would you tolerate U.S. troops continuing to occupy Iraq and Afghanistan?

I would direct that the occupation of Iraq come to a prompt end. Moving a vast tonnage of equipment and supplies out of Iraq into friendly Kuwait will require a few months, not a few days. The actual troop movement at the end is far faster. Getting everything through Kuwait port and shipped home is the bottleneck. However, unlike several of my Libertarian opponents, I reject moving out more quickly by leaving large amounts of equipment or supplies behind.

We should inform the Afghan government that we will be leaving in a few months, that we will promptly be ceasing combat operations against other Afghani political factions, and that they will now be responsible for their own affairs.

There may be a small number of Afghani and Iraqi political leaders who will want to take political asylum abroad, and we should facilitate their travels.

3. You have made some welcome movement toward the idea of legalizing medical marijuana in a few cases, and have pointed to the Drug War as an issue where there should be greater state control. Aside from the federalism issue, do you support prohibition of marijuana (for any use) at the state level? Would you stand with Libertarian state-level candidates as a champion of ending prohibition?

The war on drugs has been a spectacular and expensive failure. It’s turned millions of Americans into felons. The racist war on drugs selectively disenfranchises huge numbers of African-American men–and that’s a major reason why Republicans support the War on Drugs. Even if the war on drugs were working, which it is not, we can’t afford it. Ask high school students: Which is it easier to get in school: Beer or pot? As my parents said when I was a little boy, prohibition was a total failure, and no one will ever be stupid enough to try it again. We should follow their sound advice.

4. You have indicated that you support the idea of federal government resources being routed to South America to support governments that are allies of the U.S. government’s Drug War. Why would you support this sort of interventionism in the name of prohibition abroad? How does this tie in with your idea of federalism?

I oppose American intervention in South America. Period. Full stop.

5. You have indicated that you support the idea of economic sanctions against Iran as a sort of diplomacy. Sanctions strengthen dictatorships and punish citizens of both nations. Why would you support this sort of interventionism abroad and at home?

I support having normal relations with Iran. Yes, five decades ago we did overthrow their democratically-elected government. Yes, three decades ago their students did capture our embassy. The people responsible for those acts are mostly dead of old age. They answer to a higher judge. It’s time to move beyond the past and have open trade and diplomatic relations with the Iranians.

6. Why do you support instituting an entirely new FEDERAL tax on Americans (national sales tax)? Is this the type of ‘federalism’ (or devolution of government power to the states) we can expect from you (i.e. a federalism of convenience)?

I am going to Washington to shrink government, not to give bureaucrats new ideas for more ways to empty your wallets. I will veto a major new tax on the American people.

7. You wrote ” Until all governments are willing to take a unified front to confront this problem, it is the duty of the federal government to secure our borders from criminals, terrorists and those seeking to take advantage of the American taxpayer.” Most terrorists, criminals, and freeloaders do not declare themselves as such at the border. How do you propose to separate the vast majority of people who want to come to the U.S. to labor honestly from these undesirables? Do you favor open immigration for all people who wish to come to the U.S. and who are not terrorists, criminals, or freeloaders?

I believe we should continue to welcome people who want to move to America. I have listed bad features of our immigration system that should be fixed. Unlike several ‘libertarian’ Republicans, I particularly welcome students from ‘terrorist’ countries, because there are few better ways to spread our subversive American message of Liberty than to infect their students with it.

I would remove the foreign terrorist threat by striking at its roots. We should stop invading foreign countries, stop propping up their tyrants, and stop giving foreign aid. When we do, the supposed terrorist threat will fade away.

I view border security as an indicator of our success. When the Libertarian message has triumphed, so that people around the world are as free and prosperous as they are in the United States, no one will care about border security, and these questions will vanish, just as they have vanished between Belgium and the Netherlands.

Update on “LFV denied convention press credentials”

Today, only one day after LFV was denied press credentials for the Libertarian Convention, I discovered that Last Free Voice is the “Featured Blog” on WordPress for the Libertarian Convention and that it appears multiple times in the Google Top Ten search results for the Libertarian Convention.

In fact, we are the only blog on all of WordPress being featured for covering the Libertarian Convention, and we are featured repeatedly.  We are also the WordPress Featured Blog, as well as being featured repeatedly, for covering the Libertarian Party.

Furthermore, we appear not once, but twice, in the Top Ten Google search results for “libertarian convention”.  The WordPress “Featured Blog” page is also in the top ten for the same search term, effectively placing us in the top ten Google search results not once, not twice, but three times, out of a total of 316,000 search results.  With regard to the search term “last free voice”, which is not at all an uncommon phrase, we are the number one search result out of a total of 16,200,000 hits.

Clearly, we are far more influential than Andrew Davis and the LP would like to believe.  When people google “Libertarian Convention”, they are going to find Last Free Voice immediately and repeatedly; and not the blogs which the LP, in its infinite wisdom, deemed important enough to actually get those credentials.  Our potential audience for what we write about the convention is therefore untold millions, since Google users won’t even know the other blogs exist unless they decide to go through multiple pages of search results (which, as we all know, most people will not do).

At this point it is becoming more and more clear that Andrew Davis just made up his excuse for denying our credentials, since a simple Google search would have revealed all of the above.

Candidate Endorsement: Susan Hogarth for LNC

Susan Hogarth, a longtime liberarian activist and founding member of the revived LP Radical Caucus, is seeking an At-Large position on the Libertarian National Committee. I hereby endorse her candidacy for the following reasons.

Susan’s libertarian (and Libertarian) bona fides are beyond question. She has worked on ballot access, outreach, and forming issue coalitions. She is currently the Outreach Director for the Libertarian Party of North Carolina, and the Chair of the Wake County LP. She has run for public office twice; once for state legislature, and once for county commission. She plans to run for Congress as a Libertarian as well.

Her goals, from her website, are as follows:

Offer voters a chance to vote for their hopes rather than their fears

Shift the political discussion in the direction of freedom and non-aggression

Help form coalitions among various freedom-oriented individuals and groups

Constantly reduce the size and scope of government when elected

Grow the Libertarian party and the freedom movement by stirring an interest in the message of freedom and limited government

Better develop myself as a critical thinker and clear speaker

While Susan and I have not always seen eye to eye, and in fact got off on the wrong foot altogether, she is nothing if not passionate about libertarianism, and the Libertarian Party. Despite our disagreement on some issues, we do agree that “there is never a time when the rights of one person, properly understood, conflict with the rights of another person”. We also agree that the Libertarian Party can best establish itself by maintaining its basic ideology, and by remaining separate and distinct from either of the two major parties.

She and I see eye to eye on many important “insider” issues as well, despite the fact that we come from different sides of the libertarian coin. For that reason, I believe that Susan is capable of bringing together the libertarian factions, through the important common ground issues.

Susan’s immediate goals as a freshman LNC member are as follows (from her website):

Changes to region formation and representation: Regional composition and representation must be stabilized so that regions and their representation aren’t something scrambled together in the heat of a busy convention. Regions should not be constantly shifting, and representatives should be chosen well in advance of the national convention.

Streamlining LNC meetings and strengthening Party management: The LNC should be required to meet more frequently using conferencing, and less frequently using travel. The current travel requirements take large expenses of staff time and Party funds, and discourage the participation of younger, older, and less established activists. Having a rough meeting schedule as part of the bylaws will allow those interested in serving on the LNC to evaluate the requirements of the commitment realistically before campaigning. The LNC should explicitly have – and should use – the power to make resolutions concerning events of the day, rather than allowing the LP’s public policy face to be created by default by staff-prepared press releases.

Advertising and Publications Review Committee: The APRC should be made a standing committee of the LNC, and I would like to see it actively involved in the creation, review, and dissemination of literature and other materials, including the LP News and a detailed legislative agenda to complement the platform. Development and expression of the Party’s message is of paramount importance, and has been handled in a haphazard fashion resulting in outdated and often conflicting materials and releases.

Life Membership – not for sale: The current purchasable ‘life membership’ category should be done away with. I believe that membership in a political party should be an ongoing commitment to activism, not a one-time purchase to be used for party newcomers for campaigning purposes. We should acknowledge committed supporters who have shown sustained and significant support via activism and/or financial contributions for the Party in ways that distinguish them from folks who simply have some extra cash to spread around.

While some may view Susan as somewhat brash, and occasionally I share that viewpoint, the truth is that she has proven her value to the Libertarian Party, she can get things done, and she refuses to set aside her principles regardless of the personal consequences. For those reasons, above all else I respect her even when I disagree with her.

For the above reasons, I hereby respectfully offer my endorsement of Susan Hogarth for LNC At-Large.

Susan Hogarth: An Open Letter To Bob Barr

The following is reprinted with permission from the author.

An Open Letter to Bob Barr: Some Questions

By Susan Hogarth

Mr. Barr,

Thank you for joining the Libertarian Party in our efforts to bring greater freedom to Americans. In light of the very short time between your campaign announcement and the national convention, your antilibertarian congressional record and disinclination to fully repudiate it, and your refusal to answer a single email from me while you were serving as my regional representative on the Libertarian National Committee over the past year, I thought that I would circulate my questions to you publicly, in the hopes that someone, somewhere, will get some straightforward answers from you. To others reading this open letter — I hope that you will take whatever opportunity is afforded you to ask at least one or two of these questions of Mr. Barr. No candidate should garner our nomination without having satisfied the majority of delegates that he will steadfastly champion both the Libertarian Party and the libertarian message.

I’ve separated my questions into categories.

Support for the Libertarian Party and the libertarian message:

1. Why has the leadership PAC bearing your name continued to raise and distribute funds to support Republican congressional candidates in districts where a Libertarian either is or could be running even after you joined the LP’s governing board? Do you not consider recruiting and supporting Libertarian candidates to be an essential part of the LP leadership’s mission? Will your leadership PAC continue to support Republicans if you are selected as the LP’s presidential nominee?
2. In a radio interview in Charlotte, NC this week, you indicated that Republicans should support you because your candidacy will bring out voters who are dejected by McCain, and will now vote for Republican candidates down-ballot. What will you do to promote Libertarian Party candidates down-ballot?
3. You have said that there are parts of the LP’s platform that you disagree with. Can you be specific? What parts of the LP’s platform do you agree with?
4. Why have you consistently sold yourself in interviews as ‘conservative’ rather than ‘libertarian’? Do you think that ‘libertarian’ and ‘conservative’ are the same thing?

Questions about some of your antilibertarian votes in congress:

1. PATRIOT Act – you voted ‘for’ the Act. Would you vote the same way again? Do you think it was a mistake to trust the sunset provisions?
2. Do you still support an anti-flag-desecration amendment to the constitution? How does this tie in with your ideas of federalism? How does it support individual liberty?
3. DOMA – you have indicated that DOMA was an exercise in federalism (devolving power to the states), but this does not explain the part of DOMA that defines marriage federally as man-woman only. Do you stand by this definition? In your state, would you support a government definition of marriage as man-woman only?
4. You voted for the Medicare Part D prescription drug boondoggle while in congress. Do you stand by this vote, or repudiate it?

Explanation for some of your current seemingly antilibertarian positions:

1. You talk about reducing U.S. military bases overseas, but not necessarily closing them. How many foreign countries do you think the U.S. needs to have military personnel in?
2. Would you support an immediate end to the Afghanistan occupation? How long, as President, would you tolerate U.S. troops continuing to occupy Iraq and Afghanistan?
3. You have made some welcome movement toward the idea of legalizing medical marijuana in a few cases, and have pointed to the Drug War as an issue where there should be greater state control. Aside from the federalism issue, do you support prohibition of marijuana (for any use) at the state level? Would you stand with Libertarian state-level candidates as a champion of ending prohibition?
4. You have indicated that you support the idea of federal government resources being routed to South America to support governments that are allies of the U.S. government’s Drug War. Why would you support this sort of interventionism in the name of prohibition abroad? How does this tie in with your idea of federalism?
5. You have indicated that you support the idea of economic sanctions against Iran as a sort of diplomacy. Sanctions strengthen dictatorships and punish citizens of both nations. Why would you support this sort of interventionism abroad and at home?
6. Why do you support instituting an entirely new FEDERAL tax on Americans (national sales tax)? Is this the type of ‘federalism’ (or devolution of government power to the states) we can expect from you (i.e. a federalism of convenience)?
7. You wrote ” Until all governments are willing to take a unified front to confront this problem, it is the duty of the federal government to secure our borders from criminals, terrorists and those seeking to take advantage of the American taxpayer.” Most terrorists, criminals, and freeloaders do not declare themselves as such at the border. How do you propose to separate the vast majority of people who want to come to the U.S. to labor honestly from these undesirables? Do you favor open immigration for all people who wish to come to the U.S. and who are not terrorists, criminals, or freeloaders?

___________________________

Susan Hogarth is a longtime libertarian activist, and a current candidate for the Libertarian National Committee. Her blog is at http://colliething.com

Bob Barr proves he’s a Republican. Again.

On the Keith Larson Show on WBT in Charlotte, NC (Tuesday, May 13, 2008), Bob Barr explained why Republicans should vote for him.

… so in a sense, the Republicans ought to embrace my effort, because we’re going to be pulling people out to vote who otherwise wouldn’t be voting and some of them might vote for Republican candidates on the down-ballot.

The entire interview can be found on iTunes in Keith Larson’s collection. It is in the 10 am segment, and the interview (about ten minutes long) is right after the 10 am news break.

Here is the audio link, for those who wish to hear the statement for themselves.

Barr does not mention supporting Libertarian candidates, and of course that is because he actively supports pro-war, pro-torture, pro-wiretapping Republican candidates, even while sitting on the Libertarian National Committee.

Barr clearly has no interest in promoting the Libertarian Party; it is just a vehicle for him. His true interest lies solely in repairing his own damaged reputation as a “conservative values” Republican, after he was thoroughly humiliated when seamy details of his personal life were revealed following the Clinton impeachment.

You can read more about Bob Barr’s strange Libertarian candidacy at the following LFV links.

Barr still “exploring”, with convention just 18 days away. Why?

Bob Barr’s “emotional distress”

Jim Casarjian-Perry: Bob Barr hits home

Bob Barr: An Enemy of Libertarians

How will Bob Barr spend your money?

What positions does Bob Barr support?

________________________________

Source: Susan Hogarth blog

LP refuses LFV press credentials for convention

Yesterday, I contacted the Libertarian Party in order to get press credentials for one of our contributors. That contributor will be attending the convention, at no cost to the LP, and reporting on it for Last Free Voice. Today, when I had not yet received a response, I called the LP. I explained why I was calling, and was told that they would look for the email and respond.

I received an email response from Andrew Davis, asking me for the contributor’s name, email address, and telephone number, which I immediately provided. Shortly thereafter, I received a second response from Andrew, which stated

I’m very sorry, but after review, we cannot approve your request.

How very strange that one minute all he needs is the contributor’s information, and the next minute, credentials are being denied.

I responded by email, asking Andrew why the request had been denied and pointing out that at least one other blog had already received press credentials. He (not surprisingly) did not respond.

Eventually I called the LP again, at which time I was told by Andrew that, in his opinion, LFV does not get sufficient traffic to be granted press credentials. However, he admitted that they have granted credentials to other blogs (which is something I already knew). In fact, he was kind of rude about it, which only confirmed in my mind that there is far more to that decision than he would have me believe.

Coincidentally, LFV happens to be one of the very few blogs which regularly does real journalism on libertarian issues. Of course, part of that real journalism included exposing Bob Barr’s support of many pro-war, pro-torture Republican candidates while sitting on the LNC; as well as the fact that his PAC spends almost all its money on “expenses”, with only a very small percentage being donated to candidates.

Did the LP deny credentials because we don’t get enough traffic, as Andrew claimed; or did they deny credentials in an attempt to control and/or punish us after we exposed Bob Barr?

I know what I believe. You can come to your own conclusions.

UPDATE:  I have done my own research, and in only minutes discovered that Last Free Voice is hands-down the most popular site on the internet for covering the Libertarian Convention, appearing multiple times in the top ten Google search results for “Libertarian Convention”, as well as being featured repeatedly on WordPress for covering both the Libertarian Convention, as well as the Libertarian Party.  That being the case, our potential audience is in the millions on any given day.

You’ll have to come up with a better excuse, Andrew, since the one you gave does not even begin to hold water.

California Supreme Court overrules gay marriage ban

A breaking news excerpt from Yahoo! News:

By LISA LEFF, Associated Press Writer 12 minutes ago

SAN FRANCISCO – In a monumental victory for the gay rights movement, the California Supreme Court overturned a voter-approved ban on gay marriage Thursday in a ruling that would allow same-sex couples in the nation’s biggest state to tie the knot.

Domestic partnerships are not a good enough substitute for marriage, the justices ruled 4-3 in .

Outside the courthouse, gay marriage supporters cried and cheered as news spread of the decision.

The city of San Francisco, two dozen gay and lesbian couples and gay rights groups sued in March 2004 after the court halted the monthlong wedding march that took place when Mayor Gavin Newsom opened the doors of City Hall to same-sex marriages.

“Today the California Supreme Court took a giant leap to ensure that everybody — not just in the state of California, but throughout the country — will have equal treatment under the law,” said City Attorney Dennis Herrera, who argued the case for San Francisco.

Read the rest here.

Jim Casarjian-Perry: Restore ‘04!

The following is posted with the permission of the author, Jim Casarjian-Perry. The original article can be viewed here.

In 2004, the Libertarian Party platform was principled, thorough, and explained our position on any topic one could ask us about. It defined the issue at hand, applied the Libertarian Principle to said issue, and then offered a solution and transitional action. Our platform defined our position on each issue with the logical Libertarian answer. (2004 Platform can be viewed here.)

2006 came along and several right-wing members of the party decided it was time to scrap principle so we could play politics. They removed all but 15 planks of the platform and rewrote them, in my opinion, to be more suitable to reaching out to conservatives on the right. We’re not a right-wing party, nor are-left wing! We’re ABOVE left vs. right politics! (2006 Platform can be viewed here.)

Some say the idea was to modernize the platform to apply to current issues facing the government. I agree, the platform should reflect our views on current issues! But to scrap the whole thing was just plain mean spirited and was done in such a way as to purposely alienate those of us who believe the party should stick to our principles.

For now, we MUST restore the 2004 platform. Once this is done, I say we should begin looking at how to modernize the platform by changing the Transitional Action on each plank to address current issues. This is a simple solution to this platform problem and I hope others will consider this idea.

Until then, please sign the petition to restore the platform of principle for the party of principle. The petition can be found here. Please sign it TODAY as they will be closing the petition tomorrow so they may have copies of it available to National Delegates in Denver later this month.

____________________________

Jim Casarjian-Perry is a Town Meeting Representative serving Precinct 9 of Billerica, Massachusetts. He is a Libertarian Party member and a delegate to the Libertarian National Convention for Massachusetts. He enjoys cooking, reading, bicycling, backpacking, and good conversation. He and his partner live in Billerica, Massachusetts.

Many thanks to Jim for allowing us to reproduce his original work on Last Free Voice.  I am very pleased to announce that Jim is joining LFV as a Contributor – welcome, Jim! 

George Phillies: “Time To End the Wars”

George Phillies for President 2008

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Phillies: Time to End the Wars

Worcester, Mass., May 14: “We are at ‘war’ with everything, it seems,” said Libertarian Presidential hopeful George Phillies in a statement earlier today. “We have the War on Iraq. The War on the Constitution. The War on (some, but not other) drugs. The War on Guns. The War on Science. It’s time to end these wars.”

Phillies outlined the cost of all the various “wars” the United States is fighting, pointing out that a baby born today can expect to be responsible for at least $200,000 of government debt. “We must change, or we will go broke,” he emphasized.

He not only spoke about the war on Iraq, which he said should be ended “already,” but about the failures of prohibition and the parallels in the war on drugs. “The War on Drugs leaves two million Americans in prison, and insures that millions of others will forever have felony records for smoking the wrong dried leaf. That’s millions of Americans whose lifetime participation in our thriving economy will be pointlessly hindered. The War on Drugs, and specifically on marijuana, is racist to the core, with selective enforcement and a racial double standard on jail time. The war on drugs means that pot smugglers, like the booze smugglers of the prohibition era, settle marketing disputes with guns. Ending booze prohibition meant no more Saint Valentine’s Day massacres. Ending drug prohibition will end battles that accidentally kill innocent children.”

He went on to discuss the battle over gun control. “The war on guns endangers the lives and safety of millions of Americans. In America, home invasion–breaking into an occupied home to rob and assault the occupants–is very rare. In England, it’s common. That’s because Americans own guns, so home invasion is potentially a suicidal act. That’s why European tyrants try to disarm their subjects; victim disarmament means your secret police can live to enjoy their pensions. Ending efforts to disarm Americans will make America safer and less crime-ridden, while protecting the civil liberties for which George Washington’s volunteer army gave their lives.

“No real Libertarians disagree,” he added. “Even Senators Obama and McCain voted for the Vitter Amendment banning firearms confiscation.

“Not only is it time to end all these wars,” said Dr. Phillies, “but it’s time to stop thinking in terms of ‘war’ every time we have a problem to solve. Except for Iraq, these are not wars, and we cheapen the sacrifice of those who fight on our behalf in real wars by calling them such. War is a tool of statecraft reserved for the most desperate circumstances, not a word to be lightly applied to every problem.”

61 trillion dollars in spending not covered by taxes. — General Accounting Office Report http://www.gao.gov/htext/d08371cg.html A call for Stewardship (61 trillion dollars over 300 million people is quoted here.)

A sea of lies see http://www.carnegieendowment.org/files/Iraq3GuideFind_SummRec.pdf especially pp. 1-4

The Vitter Amendment text and vote http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00202

Racial Disparities Found to Persist as Drug Arrests Rise http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/06/us/05cnd-disparities.html

Outright Libertarians statement on Barr candidacy

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Outright Libertarians Executive Committee Comments on Bob Barr’s Declaration of Candidacy for the Libertarian Nomination

Wednesday, May 14, 2008

SAN FRANCISCO, SEATTLE, KNOXVILLE, PHILADELPHIA and ATLANTA — This Monday, former Congressman (and recent LNC committee member) Bob Barr announced his candidacy for the Libertarian Nomination for President of the United States.

Many of you are wondering where Outright Libertarians stands on this recent development, and the short answer is this: our position has not changed.

We continue to strongly support Dr. George Phillies as our endorsed candidate. Dr. Phillies has shown the courage, character and commitment that Outright’s membership seeks in a presidential nominee. A longtime Libertarian activist and longtime supporter of equality under the law for all people (including LGBT Americans), Dr. Phillies has established an enviable record of achievement in the fight for liberty.

His platform includes uncompromising support for the rights of LGBT Americans in military service, marriage, immigration, adoption, and tax treatment. He has been an implacable foe of the Defense of Marriage Act and the military’s anti-gay recruitment policy since their inception. Most importantly, he has led important initiatives to fight for us everyday, while bringing the message of the Libertarian Party to LGBT people. We can think of no finer candidate, and are proud to reinforce our support for Dr. Phillies’ candidacy.

Regarding Mr. Barr, we find that though he has shown some welcome evolution on the issues, he has a record that remains notably different from the other Libertarians in the race. Mr. Barr has not completed Outright’s Candidate Survey, but is “on the record” regarding two issues key within the LGBT Libertarian community and the broader LGBT electoral base.

First, while we applaud the former Congressman’s repudiation of the anti-gay military policy that he drafted for the Wall Street Journal, and the evolution that this represents for Mr. Barr, his opinion on this issue simply moved into the Libertarian mainstream — rather than pushing the debate forward. Every Libertarian candidate who has answered our survey — plus Dr. Mary Ruwart (who has not yet answered our survey but is “on the record” on this issue) — shares that view.

On the Defense of Marriage Act — an odious law that Bob Barr co-sponsored as a Congressman — his evolution has been far slower. We have discussed the law with him a number of times, and recently he has telegraphed support for repealing the half of the law that creates a federal definition of marriage. However, he has not consistently campaigned on this point, and seems reluctant to speak of it. (An example of this reluctance may be heard at approximately 16:30 in this linked Atlanta radio interview with Mr. Barr:  http://media.podcastingmanager.com/81570-71406/Media/CFL-20080420-S3-S4.mp3 )

In contrast, Democratic nomination candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton has adopted a similar position, yet appears more willing to campaign upon it. Barack Obama has declared that he would repeal the law altogether.

Every Libertarian candidate who has completed our survey, as well as Dr. Ruwart, goes a major step further by calling for repeal of the law.

We believe that the difference between the Democratic and the Libertarian commitments on this issue is that while the two Democrats talk about doing something (despite a multi-year do-nothing record as Senators), Libertarians will fight from day one for us. We are not yet convinced that Mr. Barr would fight vigorously to promote his reluctantly-expressed position, a problem given that his position is the most statist of the serious Libertarian candidates in this race.

We welcome Bob Barr’s engagement with the Libertarian Party, and are always delighted to welcome new Libertarians into the movement. We look forward to continuing to work with him as an LNC member or in any other role he takes within our Party. However, we must hold our presidential candidates to the highest possible standards, for the benefit of both our Party and LGBT Americans. In this regard, we believe that Bob Barr has quite a bit of work to do in order to enter the mainstream on LGBT issues in comparison to the other declared Libertarian candidates in this race. Just as many of us did when we first joined the LP, he needs to “steep in the brine of Liberty” for a while longer before running for nomination as our Party’s standard-bearer.

Further, we note that regardless of who is nominated, the Libertarian Party will perform an invaluable service to the queer community in this election cycle — even if the delegates ignore Outright’s endorsement of George Phillies and instead choose Bob Barr as the Libertarian Party’s nominee, the silver lining for the LGBT community will be that a Barr candidacy will almost certainly spoil any possible victory by John McCain.

In summary, recent news has only reinforced our commitment to Dr. George Phillies, and we encourage Outright members and supporters — as well as all Libertarian Party convention delegates — to support his candidacy in Denver with their votes, their ideas, and every other resource at their disposal.

About Outright: Outright Libertarians is the largest association of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Libertarian Party supporters. With hundreds of members across the United States, it is the intellectual and policy hub of the LGBT libertarian movement, serving as the voice for LGBT Americans within the Libertarian Party as well as a voice for Libertarian candidates in the LGBT community. Its web site is http://www.outrightusa.org.

What positions does Bob Barr support?

In politics, you can tell a lot about a candidate based upon the positions they champion. This is true whether they support the positions directly, or indirectly.

Bob Barr’s PAC raises money under his signature, and he supported a number of Republican Congressmen and Senators during the current election cycle. Supporting the campaign is the same as supporting the positions the Congressman or Senator takes, obviously.

The fact of the matter is that nine of ten Congressman Bob Barr supported oppose leaving Iraq, and support military kangaroo courts. Eight out of ten Congressmen he supported want Uncle Sam in your hospital bed, a’la Ms. Schiavo. Eight of ten Congressman he supported are in support of warrantless wiretaps, and want to ban flag burning. A majority support torture.

Here is a listing of ten Congressmen Barr has supported during the current election cycle, after Barr joined the LP. The numbers beside their names indicate their extremely unlibertarian votes in Congress; specifics are below.

CONGRESSMEN
Gingrey Georgia 1 2 3 4 5 6
Ros-Lehtinen Florida 1 2 3 5 6
Jeff Flake Arizona 1 2 3 4
Robin Hayes North Carolina 2 3 4 5 6
Jeb Hensarling Texas 1 2 3 4 5 6
Jack Kingston Georgia 1 2 3 4 5 6
Pryce for Congress Ohio 1 2 3 5 6
Rehberg for Congress Montana 1 2 3 4 5 6
Walter Jones North Carolina 5 6
Christopher Shays for Congress Connecticut 1 2 3

(1) Vote 836: S 1927: The bill gives U.S. spy agencies expanded power to eavesdrop on foreign suspects without a court order. Civil liberties and privacy advocates argue the bill jeopardizes the Fourth Amendment privacy rights and allows for the warrantless monitoring of virtually any form of communication originating in the United States.

(2) 7/12/07 Vote 624: H R 2956: This bill would require the president to begin reducing the number of U.S. troops serving in Iraq 120 days after its enactment and would require most troops to be withdrawn by April 1, 2008.

(3) 9/29/06 Vote 508: S 3930: Military Commissions Act

(4) 12/14/05 Vote 630: H R 2863: Supported a ban on cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of detainees held by U.S. forces

(5) 6/22/05 Vote 296: H J RES 10: This vote approved the proposal of a Constitutional amendment to ban the desecration of the American flag.

(6) 3/21/05 Vote 90: S 686: Gave federal courts jurisdiction in the Terri Schiavo dispute.

Since 2007, Barr’s PAC supported nine U.S. Senators. Every one of the Senators he supported has voted to allow warrantless wiretapping and monitoring of virtually every form of communication in America; and every one of them voted to reauthorize the Patriot Act when it expired. Eight of nine voted for war funding. Seven of nine voted against an antiwar withdrawal motion. Every one of them voted for a Constitutional Amendment to ban flag burning. Six of nine voted to advance a constitutional amendment against gay marriage.

Again, supporting the Senator is showing agreement with the positions the Senator takes. How can Bob Barr claim to be a libertarian, when he supports so many Senators who vote for such incredibly un-libertarian stances?

SENATORS
Saxby Chambliss Georgia 1 2 3 4 5 6
Arlen Specter 1 2 3 4 6
Norm Coleman Minnesota 1 3 4 5 6
Larry Craig Idaho 1 2 3 4 5 6
Lindsey Graham South Carolina 1 2 3 4 5 6
Hagel for Senate 1 2 4 6
Jeff Sessions Alabama 1 2 3 4 5 6
Gordon Smith for US Senate Committee 1 2 4 5 6
Team Sununu New Hampshire 1 2 3 4 6

(1) Vote 309: S 1927: This amendment to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 passed 60-28 on August 3. Civil liberties and privacy advocates argue the bill jeopardizes the Fourth Amendment privacy rights and allows for the warrantless monitoring of virtually any form of communication originating in the United States.

(2) 5/24/07 Vote 181: On the Motion: Fund the war. This $120 billion dollar package was passed in the Senate by an 80-14 vote on May 24.

(3) 3/29/07 Vote 126: H R 1591: This $122 billion war spending bill calls for combat troops to begin withdrawing from Iraq this summer.

(4) 6/27/06 Vote 189: S J RES 12: This vote would have given Senate approval to a proposed constitutional amendment that would give Congress the authority to ban “desecration of the American flag”.

(5) 6/7/06 Vote 163: On the Cloture Motion: A Senate cloture vote on the gay marriage amendment failed, effectively killing the amendment.

(6) 3/2/06 Vote 29: H R 3199: Reauthorized a slightly modified version of the 2001 USA Patriot Act.

With the above in mind it is completely reasonable – based upon Barr’s own record in Congress and his continuing support of Congressmen and Senators who take those positions – to assume Bob Barr would vote in the same manner if he were still in Congress, despite his claim to have converted to libertarianism. After all, he has been supporting people making extremely un-libertarian decisions, even as he sat on the LNC and pondered seeking the LP’s presidential nomination. To believe otherwise would be to close one’s eyes to the painfully obvious truth, which is that we can put a hat on this Republican pig and call him Tillie, but that still won’t make him a Libertarian.

Money Decides: After the Barr Announcement

Latest Entries in TPW LP Photoshop Dissathon – Both by anonymous. No editorial comment here, just passing ‘em along.

None are intended as a serious attack on any of the candidates.

Phillies responds to revelation about Barr contributions

A polite difference with a fellow candidate

We’re Libertarians. There is no issue we all agree upon, except perhaps how we spell our party’s name.

It’s not surprising, then, that sometimes some members of our party will support an isolated Democrat. Or a lone Republican.

If you are an LNC member, your burden is more severe. You made a commitment to your fellow Libertarians. You ran for our office so you could leverage your time and energy to build a stronger Libertarian Party. If you instead spent your time building an opposing party, you are not doing what you implicitly promised.

I’m state chair of LPMass, the Libertarian Party of Massachusetts. I’ve worked vigorously to revive my state’s Libertarian Party. Our State Committee is now meeting monthly. Our State newsletter is now appearing monthly. We’ve revived fundraising. I’ve committed thousands of dollars of my own money for our Presidential ballot access campaign.

You may rest assured, I haven’t given a Democrat or a Republican a dime or a minute.

And I’m a Presidential candidate. When I identify my political beliefs, I say I’m a *Libertarian*.

Here we come to one of my differences with LNC member Bob Barr, who I view as a friend.

While on the LNC, Bob Barr has also been the champion of the Bob Barr Leadership PAC. Since the start of 2007, his PAC has raised more than a million dollars. That’s very impressive. Now, raising that money was expensive. Much of it went to general expenses.

But when Bob Barr PAC money went since the start of 2007 to individual political candidates, it largely went to Republicans. And that means?

If I’m your nominee this Summer, that means I hope to be in Georgia to campaign with Libertarian Senate Candidate Allen Buckley. His opponent Saxby Chambliss received $3,500 from Bob Barr’s PAC.

I hope to be in New Hampshire to campaign with Libertarian Senate Candidate Ken Blevens. His opponent John Sununu received $3,000 from Bob Barr’s PAC.

I hope to be in Virginia to campaign with Libertarian Senate Candidate Bill Redpath. The Gilmore for Senate campaign received $1,000 from Bob Barr’s PAC.

I hope to be in North Carolina to campaign with Libertarian Congressional Candidate Thomas Hill. His opponent Robin Hayes received $1,000 from Bob Barr’s PAC.

I hope to be in Texas to campaign with Libertarian Congressional Candidate Ken Ashby. His opponent Jeb Hensarling received $3,500 from Bob Barr’s PAC.

I hope to be in Idaho to campaign with Libertarian Senate Candidate Kent Marmon. His erstwhile opponent, Larry Craig, dropped out, but not before he received $1,000 from Bob Barr’s PAC.

That’s Republicans who have a Libertarian opponent.