PolitickerKY reports
The Libertarian Party of Kentucky will reconsider its endorsement of Senate candidate Sonny Landham Wednesday evening, just days after initially disassociating their party from his bid. This news comes after the office of Kentucky’s secretary of state announced yesterday that Landham would need 5,000 new petition signatures to secure ballot access to run as an independent.
“We’re really stuck,” said Libertarian Party chair Ken Moellman. “We don’t necessarily want to kick him off the ballot.”
The requisite signatures for Landham’s ballot access were already reportedly obtained by Libertarian canvassers, but – without the Libertarian endorsement – Landham would need original signatures for an independent candidacy.
With an August 12 deadline for petition submissions, Moellman has said obtaining 5,000 new signatures in that window would be “impossible.”
Landham was initially stripped of the Libertarian Party’s endorsement in a unanimous 9-0 vote of their executive committee on Monday night. That vote came after Landham made a series of anti-Arab comments that culminated in his advocacy for a potential Arab genocide.
“When you are in a war, you kill every thing that moves,” responded Landham, when asked if he supported such a dramatic position.
Libertarian Party leaders initially sought to distance themselves from Landham’s comments, with Moellman noting they were not in line with the Party’s philosophy.
With his candidacy in the balance now, Moellman says Kentucky’s difficult ballot access process has the Party reevaluating its decision.
“Now, he will have one of two options,” said Moellman. “A – he runs as a Libertarian or, B he doesn’t run.”
“Our goal was not to kick him out,” added Moellman. “We are in a tough spot.”
Moellman said the ten-person state Libertarian Party Executive Committee will use an “online” voting system tonight to determine whether to reinstate Landham’s endorsement.
“We’re trying to work it out,” added Moellman.
Moellman said their dilemma would not exist if Kentucky’s ballot access procedures did not require 5,000 signatures for “third-party” candidates.
“I wish ballot access was a heck of a lot easier,” said Moellman, who said the number of signatures required for Democratic and Republican candidates was two – a far easier number for Landham to obtain as an independent candidate.
At
Delaware Libertarian, Steve Newton explains why this is of national significance:
A Secondhand Conjecture is not a Libertarian blog, although it certainly displays some pretty consistent libertarian leanings.
As I read this post analyzing the Sonny Landham flap and the Libertarian Party of Kentucky, I think Lee hits it right on the money:
Looks like the Libertarian Party of Kentucky has dumped Sonny Landham, previously their clinically insane pick for US Senate. Good for them. Even if given the psychopathic nature of Landham’s views, I feel a little like I’m congratulating them for breathing.
While the Obama campaign might like to think that the LP could pose a serious threat to John McCain in Georgia, the Landham misadventure only reminds me yet again of the extraordinary amateurishness that seems to characterize almost all Libertarian Party political campaigns. There’s simply no excuse for failing to properly vet a candidate you intend to challenge for the seat held by the Senate Minority Leader.
As a former Hollywood actor and convicted criminal, it wouldn’t have been particularly difficult to uncover Landham’s violent imagination or deplorable associations with rightwing hate groups. A simple YouTube and Google search might have sufficed in fact.
I recently quoted a representative of the Libertarian Party of Texas noting that we need fewer paper candidates, and more people out there actually campaigning. True. But we also have to stop feeling so needy that we open our arms to accept people who are not only not Libertarians, but whose calls for bombing other countries over trade issues make us look like total losers.
Reminder: there’s still a
petition for the LPKY to not give its ballot line to Sonny Landham.
Last Free Voice 
[…] “Our goal was not to kick him out,” added Moellman. “We are in a tough spot.” (PolitickerKY via Last Free Voice) […]
What’s being left out is that LPKY would have to drop ballot access for at least 2 good candidates in order to get rid of Landham.
The real problem here is unequal treatment of third parties.
Actually, no.
Posted on the previous thread
Houillion // Jul 30, 2008 at 4:14 pm
To answer questions and avoid further speculation:
Petition for Barr and Landham were gathered in conjunction. Title page for both candidates were required to be shown by petitioners upon request of signature.
Moellman and Combs are state candidates and they would need to turn in their own petitions for ballot access.
Ed Martin is a US House candidate in KY-3. he likewise has turned in his own petition.
Write-in votes for Rand Paul would be worthless. Write-in candidates must likewise go thru a petition process to be a write-in candidate. This would be the only time I would categorize something as a “wasted” vote.
Secretary of State only changed their mind when media started to hound them. Would have accepted the split petition, but informed LPKY that it could be open to challenge. With media attention, SOS decided to avoid all together.
Landham is better known name than Barr in Kentucky, so Landham was most likely stated as subject of petition (speculative as i was not present at any petitioning except my own)
Hope that helps out some.
From my experience petitioning all over the country, I highly doubt Mr. Landham was mentioned as the subject of the petition very often if at all, regardless of him being somewhat known in Kentucky.
From the pingback
Landham Returns
Lee on Jul 30 2008 at 4:26 pm | Filed under: Election 2008, Lee’s Page, Libertarianism, Uncategorized
Taking fecklessness to new levels of embarrassment, the Libertarian Party of Kentucky is now considering rescinding its unanimous de-endorsement of genocidal fantasist Sonny Landham, and formally renominating him as its candidate for US Senate.
“We’re really stuck,” said Libertarian Party chair Ken Moellman. “We don’t necessarily want to kick him off the ballot.”
[…]
“Our goal was not to kick him out,” added Moellman. “We are in a tough spot.”
(PolitickerKY via Last Free Voice)
Unbelievable. The wide ranging praise the party received for its rejection of a raving lunatic, must have alerted them that they weren’t demonstrating levels of incompetence and irresponsibility commensurate with the Libertarian Party’s long established traditions.
As I noted on the related thread, the test for LP of KY was ethics versus expedience. Doing the right thing was costly in this case, given how they would have to actually work to qualify their other candidates for the ballot.
It looks like expedience is winning this round.
Sonny Landham, putting the KY into the KY LP.
So, wait a tick. The only loss to kicking Landham off the ballot is needing to re-qualify Barr for the ballot?
A. That should be easy, since the Barr campaign has money. And there is some time.
B. That’s much less onerous than losing other candidates from the ballot.
It looks pretty feeble.
Actually no Jim, Barr’s on with either option the LPKY has. It seems like the new issue is whether they’d be willing to toss Landham off the ballot after however many voters signed their name to put him on (as opposed to leaving him on but dissociated with the party). If these guys consider ballot access a matter of principle, suddenly the ethics/expediency thing flips over. I still say dropping the bigot would be the right thing to do and within the party’s rights, but they might be setting themselves up for a weaker case next time someone tries to kick a Libertarian off the ballot – at least, a weaker principled one.
I agree.
KYLP Chair Ken Molleman will take your calls (347-205-9993) tonight on the Weekly Filibuster during the 10:00 hour.
http://www.weeklyfilibuster.com
Listening to the show now. Moellman is making all sorts of excuses for Landham. Disgraceful.
I called in and made a short comment that the idea that knocking Landham off the ballot would knock Barr off the ballot would be false, they could just turn the signatures in between the two deadlines. And that I certainly hope they would do so as Landham is a major embarrassment to Libertarians all over the country.
However, later Moellman was still saying it would somehow knock Barr off the ballot, etc., etc.
None of it added up to legitimate excuses. The show’s hosts and callers were all skewering Moellman and still are at this time.
They will be back on on Wednesday but it sounds like they are leaning to putting Landham on the ballot.
Moellman and Landham will be back on the air again – I think Wednesday, after it is official.
I hope between now and then they hear from a lot of Libertarians who are outraged by this.
Comments from IPR
#
Gene Trosper // Jul 31, 2008 at 12:58 am
The LPKY has already heard from me. All Libertarians should likewise make their voices heard.
#
12 Lance Brown // Jul 31, 2008 at 2:17 am
Landham in 2006:
Who is attacking America?
“The camel dung shovelers,” Landham
explained to the Intelligence Report.
“Abdul, Fuzzy Wuzzy, and rest of
the camel jockeys are our enemies,”
he said. “The answer is air power. We
should bomb every man, woman and
child in the Muslim countries. They’re
hiding weapons and breeding terrorists.
We need to commence genocide in
the region. Islam is not a religion.”
from: http://www.zaitchik.com/Landham.pdf
I cannot believe this is still an ongoing question.
#
13 mscrib // Jul 31, 2008 at 2:34 am
I will give the KYLP $250 the second they bump Landham from the ballot…
#
14 Mike Gillis // Jul 31, 2008 at 2:52 am
mscrib,
If enough people contact the LP of KY and say that exact same thing, maybe they’ll budge.
I really can’t believe that these people are wussing out like this.
#
15 paulie cannoli // Jul 31, 2008 at 9:25 am
From Zaitchik:
But Sonny Landham is a political
animal, always has been. As a student
in the 1960s, he supported the far-right
presidential tickets of Barry Goldwater
and George Wallace. A religious na-
tive of Georgia, Landham says he had
“mixed feelings” about the “commu-
nist-funded” civil rights movement. In
2003, he ran as an anti-establishment
candidate in Kentucky’s GOP primary
for governor. He soon pulled out of the
race, citing personal reasons.
As Landham mulls another run for
the governor’s mansion, he remains a
staunch advocate of “states’ rights for-
ever.” Estranged from the “communist”
government of George W. Bush, he has
found a political home as an honorary
board member at the Council of Con-
servative Citizens, a hate group that
grew out of the segregationist White
Citizens Councils.
Landham recently
lent his star power to the new CCC-
produced film “America Under Attack.”
Who is attacking America?
“The camel dung shovelers,” Land-
ham explained to the Intelligence Report.
“Abdul, Fuzzy Wuzzy, and rest of
the camel jockeys are our enemies,”
he said. “The answer is air power. We
should bomb every man, woman and
child in the Muslim countries. They’re
hiding weapons and breeding terror-
ists. We need to commence genocide in
the region. Islam is not a religion.”
When asked how this policy pre-
scription fits with his professed evan-
gelical Christianity, Landham scoffed.
“Un-Christian?” he asked. “Nobody
said that after Dresden! They’re the
enemy. Bomb every house. Then send
in the troops to see if anything is left.
Who are we kidding? The camel dung
shovelers can’t even spell ‘democracy.’”
Landham offers a slightly more
progressive domestic agenda. It includes
affordable health care, random drug
testing for doctors, reindustrializ-
ing America (“we need to be a steel
economy”), bringing back the draft,
overturning Roe v. Wade, and purg-
ing Arab and communist influence
from Hollywood, which Land-
ham says is pushing a “pedophilic
agenda” to rot America from within.
“Hollywood has gone berserk,”
said Landham. “There is a lot of
pedophilia in that town. It has a
long history. Judy Garland was
servicing Columbia’s Harry Cohen
as a young girl.”
Landham also is alarmed by the
oil conspiracy. “Big Oil is backing
Greenpeace to keep the Alaska
Natural Wildlife Reserve closed
and drive up prices,” he explained.
“When I think about running for
governor, I wonder, ‘Can I afford the
gas to campaign across the state?’”
Space does not allow for a full
mapping of Landham’s America-de-
stroying coalition of communists, civil
rights activists, pedophiles, oil execs,
environmentalists, and camel dung
shovelers. To get the whole story, con-
tact the Sonny Landham Foundation
about speaking engagement rates and
availability. For $1,000, Landham will
explain the world and regale guests
at your private or corporate function
with stories from the sets of TV shows
like “Hardcastle and McCormick” and
films like “Predator,” which may yet
produce another governor.
Let’s just hope it’s Carl Weathers.
Landham’s domestic agenda: “It includes
affordable health care, random drug
testing for doctors, reindustrializ-
ing America (“we need to be a steel
economy”), bringing back the draft,
overturning Roe v. Wade, and purg-
ing Arab and communist influence
from Hollywood, which Land-
ham says is pushing a “pedophilic
agenda” to rot America from within.”
0% Libertarian.
Steve Newton explains at Delaware Libertarian:
Libertarians in Kentucky forget how to breathe?
As Lee at A Secondhand Conjecture said in a post I quoted earlier, the Libertarian Party of Kentucky’s 9-0 Executive Committee decision to dump genocidal, race-baiting Sonny Landham as their Senatorial candidate was good, but hardly outstanding:
Obviously, a few breathing lessons are in order, as Paulie Cannoli reports for Last Free Voice:
Granted, ballot access rules for third parties in Kentucky are grossly unfair–so what? They are everywhere.Here’s the situation made real simple for the 12 members of the LP Executive Committee in the Bluegrass State:You screwed up by letting a real nutball on the ticket in the first place. The man is Lyndon Larouche mixed with David Duke.The damage that one Sonny Landham can do will undo all the advances made by serious, thoughtful LP candidates in North Carolina, Georgia, Indiana, Texas, Michigan…. The list goes on.It’s time to take one for the team.
So, Moellman apparently doesn’t understand that Barr wouldn’t be effected by this? Wow.
I got an email on Monday asking if I “Share the same views as the guy in Kentucky”
Having to convince people that I’m not a racist is not a productive way for me to spend my time campaigning.
What the LPKY needs to realize is, this is making things tough on the rest of us.
Yep, for anyone who listened to last night’s show (archives available) that was what one of my two comments was.
Thanks for proving that I was right, and I’m sorry you are going through that. As I said on the air, Landham is an embarrassment to Libertarians in EVERY state.
From http://freestudents.blogspot.com
Fred, what are you smoking? I want some, I really do.
How is providing ballot access to a Klansman who apparently deceived the KY LP into thinking he was a libertarian any sort of principled thing to do?
Random drug tests for doctors? How does that match the LP platform?
Racist bigots can go to the flames of perdition. If they need help getting on the ballot, they can find it in Hell.
Fred, what are you smoking? I want some, I really do.
You couldn’t afford it.
How is providing ballot access to a Klansman who apparently deceived the KY LP into thinking he was a libertarian any sort of principled thing to do?
It’s not. However, next time someone wants to knock a libertarian off the ballot and argues they’re “not serious” or “too extreme” or some other petty shit, this episode is going to make that case all the stronger. The matter of principle I brought up is whether every candidate should be on the ballot regardless of their views.
Also, two nits to pick with your statement. Landham apparently isn’t being “provided” ballot access, his campaign apparently gathered some of the signatures in question (but beyond that, we don’t know how much he contributed to the effort or to what extent his name and Arab Predator gimmick pushed the thing forward). Second, we don’t know that he decieved the KY LP into thinking he was a libertarian – from the looks of it, they probably never asked, or he would have been disqualified loooong before he brought up genocide, for stuff like this:
Random drug tests for doctors? How does that match the LP platform?
I guess I’m just bemused that not a month ago everyone was arguing about the rights of voters that sign a petition over the fact that the gatherer and Haugh have issues, but we’re so eager to forget all that now that we’re dealing with a guy we all hate instead of someone that’s generally well liked. Of course the situations aren’t the same, but my point is a lot of those sweeping assertions seem a whole lot weaker now that they’re not convenient for us anymore.
And I’ll reiterate since I’m arguing the thing from a side angle: I want Landham gone, and I’m not defending his spot as an LP candidate, trying to argue he’s a libertarian, or defending the LPKY. Quite the contrary, because of the failures of the vetting process (if there was one) this is now a lose-lose situation. Even if getting rid of him’s an easy call, it’s because the other options are worse, and taking this road is likely to have plenty of unavoidable downsides of its own. I think that should be understood.
‘However, next time someone wants to knock a libertarian off the ballot and argues they’re “not serious” or “too extreme” or some other petty shit, this episode is going to make that case all the stronger.’
That makes no sense. No one intends to force Landham off the ballot. If withdrawing the LPKY endorsement happens to have that effect, that’s a different matter. It sets no precedent for a case in which someone ‘wants to knock a libertarian off the ballot’.
It’s not. However, next time someone wants to knock a libertarian off the ballot and argues they’re “not serious” or “too extreme” or some other petty shit, this episode is going to make that case all the stronger. The matter of principle I brought up is whether every candidate should be on the ballot regardless of their views.
Every candidate should be able to get on the ballot, but that does not mean the LP should have to help them in doing so, much less under the LP banner.
Also, two nits to pick with your statement. Landham apparently isn’t being “provided” ballot access, his campaign apparently gathered some of the signatures in question (but beyond that, we don’t know how much he contributed to the effort or to what extent his name and Arab Predator gimmick pushed the thing forward).
How many signatures did the Landham campaign contribute?
I would bet other than that, his name had very little to do with it.
I can say that without LP/Barr, I have no idea whether Landham could have gotten on the ballot. Probably not, or he would have run as an independent given that his views on just about every subject imaginable are anti-libertarian, as far as I can tell.
I can also say with absolute certainty that without Landham, LP/Barr would have collected enough signatures.
Second, we don’t know that he decieved the KY LP into thinking he was a libertarian – from the looks of it, they probably never asked, or he would have been disqualified loooong before he brought up genocide, for stuff like this:
Random drug tests for doctors? How does that match the LP platform?
How hard is it to do a google search? You can figure out Landham is not close to being a libertarian in well under five minutes. Also, CLS reports that initially LPKY chair Moellman said that this just showed not all Libertarians agree on every issue. And Landham says they knew all about his views but asked him not to speak out too much about certain issues. I wonder what issues they wanted to have him talk about, then, since I’m not finding any where he agrees with libertarian positions.
I guess I’m just bemused that not a month ago everyone was arguing about the rights of voters that sign a petition over the fact that the gatherer and Haugh have issues, but we’re so eager to forget all that now that we’re dealing with a guy we all hate instead of someone that’s generally well liked.
Where’s the parallel? The voters signed a petition to put the Libertarians on the ballot, and/or Barr. Chances are the vast majority of them did not even know Landham was on the petition, or who he was and what his views are if they did.
Of course the situations aren’t the same, but my point is a lot of those sweeping assertions seem a whole lot weaker now that they’re not convenient for us anymore.
Which assertions?
And I’ll reiterate since I’m arguing the thing from a side angle: I want Landham gone, and I’m not defending his spot as an LP candidate, trying to argue he’s a libertarian, or defending the LPKY. Quite the contrary, because of the failures of the vetting process (if there was one) this is now a lose-lose situation. Even if getting rid of him’s an easy call, it’s because the other options are worse, and taking this road is likely to have plenty of unavoidable downsides of its own. I think that should be understood.
I really don’t see the downside. Just get rid of him.
No one intends to force Landham off the ballot. If withdrawing the LPKY endorsement happens to have that effect, that’s a different matter.
When you know something’s going to do something and you do it, that’s intention. No one’s living in a vacuum here, they know that their actions have consequences.
As for whether it’ll set a precedent, I wasn’t trying to argue it would in a legal sense. But if we have to choose between being the party that runs warmongering bigots for Senate or being the party that whines about ballot access all the time while simultaneously denying someone access that they apparently contributed to under an agreement – well, lose-lose. I pick the latter, but I’m not going to pretend we’re going back to carte blanche after it’s all said and done.
Every candidate should be able to get on the ballot, but that does not mean the LP should have to help them in doing so, much less under the LP banner.
Agreed. And yet, the LPKY did. They agreed to work with the goon to put him on the ballot. Now they’ve changed their minds, and a candidate’s f’d because we don’t agree with his views.
How many signatures did the Landham campaign contribute?
Dunno.
I would bet other than that, his name had very little to do with it.
I can say that without LP/Barr, I have no idea whether Landham could have gotten on the ballot. Probably not, or he would have run as an independent given that his views on just about every subject imaginable are anti-libertarian, as far as I can tell.
I can also say with absolute certainty that without Landham, LP/Barr would have collected enough signatures.
Unfortunately, despite your experience with these matters, what’s any opinion really worth here? The people that signed put Landham on the ballot. Even if they cared more about Barr, they either failed to read the fine print or knew what they were getting into – maybe even knew the whole picture and went right along with it. Short of calling every name on the petition sheets, we can’t be certain.
Also, CLS reports that initially LPKY chair Moellman said that this just showed not all Libertarians agree on every issue. And Landham says they knew all about his views but asked him not to speak out too much about certain issues. I wonder what issues they wanted to have him talk about, then, since I’m not finding any where he agrees with libertarian positions.
I don’t think you were arguing against my point here, since you reinforced it. This is the first I’ve heard that they did in fact know about all of this going in, I assumed they were just lax and starstruck. Either way, doesn’t seem like Landham ever bothered to present himself as a libertarian. Also pisses me off a bit more.
Where’s the parallel? The voters signed a petition to put the Libertarians on the ballot, and/or Barr. Chances are the vast majority of them did not even know Landham was on the petition, or who he was and what his views are if they did.
I would hate to have you as my secretary of state paulie. Sure they signed a petition with his name on it, but they couldn’t have really meant this guy.
In answer to this and your question about sweeping assertions: the assertion made here and on IPR that the intent of the voters in signing a petition creates a responsibility on the group gathering it to honor their signatures. I don’t think it was you personally that made this point.
I really don’t see the downside. Just get rid of him.
And again I’ll say I agree that’s what they should do. But the right thing to do passed weeks ago when they decided this was fine, as long as Landham didn’t stress his desire to extort millions of people with the threat of disintegration. Now it’s just a mess.
Fred, where did I argue for or against Sean Haugh?
Everyone? You haven’t met everyone. You haven’t been everywhere. Talk about things you can’t afford.
There is clearly a difference between ordering that petition papers be burned and refusing to list a bigot as an LP candidate.
There is no principled position on ballot access, it is all expedience. It is all a matter of choosing to conform to the state’s requirements, or not have ballot access. Nobody has a right to run for office any more than any one has a right to hire a hit man to murder a friend.
Doing the right thing in this case means keeping Landham off the ballot and not associating him with the LP. That the LP of KY chooses not to do so speaks volumes about where they stand on matters of ethics. They would rather have the help of Landham’s racist supporters in the next ballot access drive than do the right thing.
Nothing about having Landham on the ballot as an LP candidate is going to do a thing to make any state have equal access to the ballot for all candidates. The state, and more specifically, the counties, are the voting process. Failure to control the offices which control the elections is failing to have the reins of the state. But seizing the reins is not ethical, it is expedient.
And it would be a good guess to suppose that supporting Landham isn’t going to help in that hunt for power, either.
Fred, where did I argue for or against Sean Haugh?
Everyone? You haven’t met everyone. You haven’t been everywhere. Talk about things you can’t afford.
I shouldn’t have been so inexact. I was reffering to the tone of the reactions to that situation to the one here.
There is clearly a difference between ordering that petition papers be burned and refusing to list a bigot as an LP candidate.
A very real one, and I acknowledged the situations were different. Perhaps I failed at my efforts, but I was trying to point out that the whole bit about what the signer intended is absent here, except dismissively. The connection is that in either case, someone signed a petition as part of the process hoisted on us, and we’re talking about denying that signer’s expectation to be counted.
There is no principled position on ballot access, it is all expedience. It is all a matter of choosing to conform to the state’s requirements, or not have ballot access. Nobody has a right to run for office any more than any one has a right to hire a hit man to murder a friend.
From the looks of it, the LPKY chose to conform to the state’s requirements. Landham and the LPKY agreed that he’d be on their petition forms. Petitioners collected signatures with his name and the national ticket’s. Voters signed those petitions expecting that their signatures would go towards that effort. If we’re going to libertarianylize the matter, then how many contracts have we broken here? Are they all invalid because the state is involved?
They would rather have the help of Landham’s racist supporters in the next ballot access drive than do the right thing.
If what paulie said Landham said they knew is accurate, you’re probably right.
Nothing about having Landham on the ballot as an LP candidate is going to do a thing to make any state have equal access to the ballot for all candidates.”
By suggesting that there’s going to be problems either way, I was not trying to suggest the situation would improve by keeping him on. I’m not sure how that even follows.
And it would be a good guess to suppose that supporting Landham isn’t going to help in that hunt for power, either.
Which is what I was trying to get at when I said that this choice was based on expediency.
I was inexact again, I meant general tone.
Fred, I think we do agree. The ballot access process is a bad trip for everyone involved, and it is all a bunch of bad choices now that Landham proves to be a war enthusiast seeking to exterminate millions.
Best regards.
denying someone access that they apparently contributed to under an agreement
Again, how much? Turn in THAT many signatures before Aug 12. Landham will not be on the ballot. Then turn in the rest after Aug 12. Barr will be.
Unfortunately, despite your experience with these matters, what’s any opinion really worth here? The people that signed put Landham on the ballot. Even if they cared more about Barr, they either failed to read the fine print or knew what they were getting into – maybe even knew the whole picture and went right along with it. Short of calling every name on the petition sheets, we can’t be certain
I’ll go with my experience on this. Barr would have gotten on the ballot with or without Landham. Landham may have gotten on the ballot without Barr, but it’s not likely. The way I see it, if he could have he would have. So he didn’t lose anything by jumping on the back of the Libertarian petition, and won’t lose anything he had before he got picked up by being evicted from it.
I would hate to have you as my secretary of state paulie. Sure they signed a petition with his name on it, but they couldn’t have really meant this guy.
I didn’t say they wouldn’t have signed a petition for Landham. Many of them probably would have. But most people do not read the petitions and most petitioners do net mention the Senate candidate if he happens to be on the same sheet as the presidential candidate. For example, when I circulated in Massachusetts, US Senate candidate Bob Underwood was on the petition along with Phillies and Bennett.
Maybe one person in several hundred signed *because* Bob Underwood was on the petition. But very few people knew who he was or cared. For that matter, very few people knew who George Phillies was either, or even Bob Barr for that matter, although his name came up a little more often. A lot of people did in fact know who the Libertarians are, and didn’t mind the LP being on the ballot. Some people still had never heard of the LP but agreed that they wouldn’t mind having the LP on the ballot.
This is typical of many other petitions I have worked on in states which list multiple candidates on the petition.
If Landham was somehow different from this pattern I have observed in many states, my mistake. But I’ve never seen that be the case.
Barr would have gotten on with or without Landham, not because he is so popular, but because LP national has money to pay petitioners. If Landham had money to pay petitioners, he would have been on the ballot, probably as an independent. Since he didn’t, he hitchhiked his way on the LP petition. He is a passenger virus – pure and simple.
Turn in THAT many signatures before Aug 12.
That’s still what I hope they do. Jim basically summed up what I was trying to get across. I feel the warm fuzzies of closure now.
In answer to this and your question about sweeping assertions: the assertion made here and on IPR that the intent of the voters in signing a petition creates a responsibility on the group gathering it to honor their signatures. I don’t think it was you personally that made this point.
I agree with that point. I think the intent of the vast majority of voters who signed that petition will be honored if the LP gets on the ballot – with or without Landham.
The next radio show should be interesting
I feel the warm fuzzies of closure now.
That would be great, except that the LPKy appears to feel differently. From their yahoo group:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/libertyky/message/8763
Don’t count your chickens before they all break in one basket…?
This is no longer correct. Landham has promised the LPKY not to continue his inflammatory language. The party is currently looking to dialog with Landham regarding the premises behind some of his opinions and statements and will take another week to certify him as a Libertarian candidate, with the understanding that the state party
doesn’t share all of his positions, and certainly not some the
apparent premises behind them. The LPKY executive committee has always held the cards in this round of the game, and is satisfied to offer a choice, opening a broader rational dialog, and without employing a total ‘shut up or get out’ policy.
What do you know. There is a political party willing to actually operate under a big tent policy.
I’m personally glad we are not bowing to the pressure of foreign state libertarians who have been intent on running our business for us, (not to mention treating us as though we were retarded). The LPKy has never insisted on platform purism for its candidates. And we will continue to distance ourselves from positions that are not fact based or contradictory to our basic philosophy.
Mark Gailey -[Liberty Felix]-
(libertyfelix @ windstream.net)
http://www.libertyfelix.net
My response to Gailey
Really surprised to hear you say this. Landham is a major
embarrassment to libertarians all over the country, and he should certainly be an embarrassment to you all especially.
Not only is he an openly genocidal racist, he also supports far right views in the “culture war” social issues, economic nationalization, protectionism, the war on drugs, federally mandated drug tests for doctors, nationalized health care, a military draft, McCarthyite “purging” of communists and Arabs, and the list goes on.
In fact, just what issues is he libertarian on? I can’t seem to find any. And I mean that literally. He is for more government on every set of issues – foreign policy, economics and social/cultural issues.
Nor are his positions in any way new. He was a George Wallace supporter in the 1960s and has not changed one bit. He is an honorary board member of the CCC, the white collar KKK. He also was an organizer of one of their conferences – not just a producer of a video for them.
Please turn in the petitions after Aug. 12.
Paulie
Lastfreevoice.wordpress.com
IndependentPoliticalReport.com
The next radio show should be interesting
You mean the one from last night?
Shit…I thought that was tonight.
“I’m personally glad we are not bowing to the pressure of foreign state libertarians who have been intent on running our business for us, (not to mention treating us as though we were retarded).”
Wow.
Shit…I thought that was tonight.
You can catch the recording. Moellman got totally skewered.
That would be great, except that the LPKy appears to feel differently.
I was actually just referring to this thread, but the spirit inspired me to come check it again. That’s just… retarded.
Delaware Libertarian Steve Newton writes, “I recently quoted a representative of the Libertarian Party of Texas noting that we need fewer paper candidates, and more people out there actually campaigning. True. But we also have to stop feeling so needy that we open our arms to accept people who are not only not Libertarians, but whose calls for bombing other countries over trade issues make us look like total losers.”
Yes to feeling less needy! That’s a critical point for people seeking *real* reform of the LP to understand. But part of that understanding also involves losing the fear of being seen as “losers.”
Oh, and I sure hope the leaders of the Kentucky LP continue to show the principle that they showed when they voted to rescind Landham’s endorsement the first time. It’s not just whether he continues his inflammatory language — it’s whether he understands that the things he said were wrong, apologizes for them, and has sincerely reached a more enlightened perspective. And I would expect that process to take a certain amount of time — a major shift in thinking during the heat of a campaign is suspect. Libertarians oppose restrictive ballot access laws, but that does not mean that we have an obligation to grant any particular candidate ballot access so that he is able to get on the ballot without running afoul of those laws. The party has an obligation to its members, and to the cause of liberty, not to endorse candidates with strongly anti-liberty beliefs. What if Landham were to actually win, as a Libertarian, without having really changed his beliefs? It would be a disaster of monumental proportions. Not that there is much chance of him winning now if there ever was. But the media will be very likely to ask him about his views. Even if he vows not to use any more inflammatory language, reporters are likely to ask him to distance himself from his previous comments, and if he fails to do so, they are likely to report *that*. He should absolutely *not* be a Libertarian candidate.
Landham has promised the LPKY not to continue his inflammatory language.
Oh, well that’s a relief.
I sure hope the leaders of the Kentucky LP continue to show the principle that they showed when they voted to rescind Landham’s endorsement the first time
Yeah, too bad Ron Paul and his merry band didn’t show “principle” in inviting the Stormfronters found all over their campaign to take a walk too, huh?
See, this is the problem when “libertarians” flush principle down the toilet for their guy. Once the principle-book has been laid aside for Republicans like Ron Paul, other Republicans like Sonny Landham walk in.
At that way-too-late point, then lots of libertarians find the “principles” that they conveniently ignored or rationalized away for their boy or girl.
No, Brian, that argument is nonsense. Ron Paul is not a candidate for any Libertarian Party position. So, he is not responsible to you, nor to any other LP member for his views on where he gets contributions, and whether to return them and tell the donors to go away.
You can hold Sonny Landham to a higher standard of action and expression because he’s pretending to be a libertarian. Ron Paul is not making that claim.
Sonny Landham and Ron Paul are appropriate candidates for a conservative party, such as the Republican Party, or the Constitution Party perhaps. They are not appropriate candidates for the Libertarian Party, for the reasons Starchild outlines.
Which does not mean that Ron Paul wouldn’t make a better president than John McCain or Barack Obama. I believe he would. It also doesn’t mean that Ron Paul doesn’t make a fine Congresscritter from Texas – compared to other conservative Republicans. It is even possible that Ron Paul would be identifiably for a smaller government on all issues – no one from Texas seems to have contacted him about a Boston Tea Party endorsement, but that would be fun. That would be a fun discussion to have, if he were interested.
There is clearly a fundamental and important difference between Ron Paul saying something and some Stormfront supporter of Ron Paul saying something. If you want to play guilt by association games, you don’t belong in the LP, either. A person is individually responsible for what he says and what he does. He cannot be held responsible for what someone else says, unless he’s hired that person directly. If you believe in collective guilt, go find a collectivist party to join.
Carl Weathers would make at least as good of a governor as Schwarzenegger did. But the predator himself would be the best governor. He could swing around on trees and occasionally assassinate government workers with laserbolts –the best kind of politician there is!
Outstanding story there. What occurred after? Good luck!