Steve G.

Kubby in the News

In Celebrities, Drug War, Politics on January 3, 2007 at 4:16 am

Eric Dondero asks over at Third Party Watch Any press for Kubby or Phillies?

Bush vs. Beyonce Video Includes Kubby

Steve Kubby appears briefly in this music video parody of Beyonce’s #1 single “Irreplaceable,” and it examines the political overtones in her lyrics. With George W. Bush’s approval ratings at an all-time low and Beyonce’s song at the top of the Billboard charts, the video has become a smash hit on YouTube, scoring over 7,500 hits in its first 3 days on the Internet.
Of course it’s been out a lot longer now.

http://pauliecannoli.wordpress.com/2006/12/24/video-test-bush-vs-beyonce/

Kubby.com Leads in
Presidential Website Rankings

Libertarian Steve Kubby is the early leader in the presidential website rankings, according to traffic ranking data from Alexa.com

Next Prez Blog

RANKED 1ST AMONG THIRD PARTY AND INDEPENDENTS

For the second week in a row, the popular blog The Next Prez has rated Steve Kubby the #1 candidate from any third party or independent candidate. (that was a few weeks ago, don’t know about since then).

LP National Chair Comments
on Kubby running for President

William Redpath, the National Chairman of the Libertarian Party appeared on CSPAN’s Washington Journal and immediately thought of Steve Kubby when asked about Libertarians running for President.
http://kubby.com/lp-stevekubby.wmv

KUBBY SPEAKS OUT ON MEDICAL RIGHTS

Recently, Steve Kubby was invited to speak at the 34th Annual Cancer Control Society Convention. Since 1973, the Cancer Control Society has brought life-saving information to thousands of patients and their families. Over 50 speakers, 6 movies and 80 exhibits were presented at the Sheraton Universal Hotel in Hollywood, California during the Labor Day Weekend.

KUBBY ANNOUNCES BID FOR PRESIDENT

SEATTLE — Steve Kubby announced his candidacy for the Libertarian Party nomination for President to more than 50,000 cheering fans on Sunday, August 20, at the 15th annual Seattle Hempfest in Seattle, Washington. More than 150,000 attended the event held in Myrtle Edwards Park on the shores of Puget Sound.

Kubby in the News (left column) at
http://kubby.com/00-kubbynews.html

See the archive of past (pre-presidential campaign) coverage
Over 400 Articles and Editorials about Steve Kubby:

2005 http://kubby.com/archives.2005.html

2004 http://kubby.com/archives.2004.html

2003 http://kubby.com/archives.2003.html

2002 http://kubby.com/archives.2002.html

2001 http://kubby.com/archives.2001.html

2000 http://kubby.com/archives.2000jan-aug.html

1999 http://kubby.com/archives.1999jan-dec.html

Also posted at:


http://pauliecannoli.wordpress.com/2007/01/03/kubby-in-the-news/

Advertisements
  1. I applaud Kubby’s activism, but unfortunately his marijuana connections make him a pariah candidate.

  2. See also Tom Knapps comments in that same TPW thread.

  3. I initially had my skepticism about Kubby but I don’t know. He’s looking likelier and likelier. Certainly he’s in the same position that Ralph Nader was before he began running for President-an advocate for certain policies that’s had some successes and has some name recognition with the public. He might nab the Libs some success if he’s chosen.

    I’m still unsure though. Loretta Nall would have been a shoo-in for Kubby’s team, but she went with Phillies instead. Why was that? Is she seeing something we’re not?

    Certainly both gentlemen will make this next convention very interesting. And they’ll both add to the party rather than detract, I’m certain, whatever happens.

  4. I’m still unsure though. Loretta Nall would have been a shoo-in for Kubby’s team, but she went with Phillies instead. Why was that? Is she seeing something we’re not?

    Interesting question. I’ve asked her, a bunch of times, on her yahoo group, LPA activists, 3rd party watch, my old LPA blog, Hammer of Truth before it went down, etc.

    A few other people asked too.

    She has not answered, just as George Phillies has not answered questions about his Eurocentric immigration position.

    http://pauliecannoli.wordpress.com/2006/12/30/lpa-repost-ii-loretta-and-phillies/

    I have to think by now she’s seen the question, but who knows? Maybe not, or maybe she’s been too busy to answer.

    Until I hear from her, this is all just speculation.

    I’ve heard two possible explanations:

    One is simply that she was asked by Phillies first. Or, perhaps by people on the Phillies team who she knows.

    The other is that she may have a personal beef or difference in style with Kubby; since they are both active in the marijuana legalization movement, you know how differences which appear small from an outside perspective can seem big from up close. Maybe she just wants to be the LP Queen of Pot, and there’s no room on the throne for both a Queen and a King?

    Honestly, I don’t know, but I like Kubby on the national level for the same reasons I like Loretta here in Alabama.

    Loretta, if you’re reading, I really would like to know, and I’m not the only one.

    Certainly both gentlemen will make this next convention very interesting. And they’ll both add to the party rather than detract, I’m certain, whatever happens.

    I agree. I expect there will be others jumping into the race who’ll be a lot worse for the LP.

  5. Note that Ralph Nader failed. The vast majority of Americans didn’t respect him as a candidate, and they didn’t even consider voting for him. If Kubby is in the same position as him, we’ve got a problem. Phillies is much more respectable to the average American.

    Also, I’m working on the immigration issue. That’s about all I’ll say about it right now.

  6. Stuart,

    I wouldn’t put Kubby in the same class as Nader for name recognition by any means, but there is, indeed, some similarity.:

    Both started out working on issues that weren’t strictly political (Nader wanted “safer cars” and then other consumer products; Kubby started out wanting the medicine he needed for himself and for others), and then transitioned into politics as such.

    One important difference is that Nader kept his own agenda up front and expected the Green Party to support him in advancing it, while Kubby is in fact an ideological libertarian who’s selling the party’s ideas, not just trying to use the party to sell his ideas.

    I’ve also asked Loretta what’s up with her choice of Phillies v. Kubby, and have also not received a real answer.

    Nigel, I like George, but he’s not “more respectable to the average American” than Kubby, because the “average American” wouldn’t know either one of them if they walked up him on the street and kicked him in the nuts.

    In order to make “respectable” manifest, it has to be turned into “respected.” And “respected” has, as a prerequisite, “known.” While neither George nor Steve are famous, Steve is better-known than George, and has more potential to boost his name recognition such that “the average American” will be inclined to form an opinion about him at all.

    Furthermore, “the average American” simply isn’t our market right now. “The average American” votes D or R, and is going to do so until given a reason to do otherwise.

    George is marketing to a statistically non-existent demographic — the voter who will just up and abandon the “respectable” candidates of one of the parties he and his ancestors have been supporting for 150 years for a “respectable” candidate who won’t be elected … for no other reason than that he’s “respectable.”

    Clue: The voter who will abandon the Ds and Rs for a candidate who is not going to be elected right now is worried about things other than “respectability.” He or she is worried about issues. And while George is on the right side of some issues, he’s moving in exactly the wrong direction. You don’t appeal to the voter who is moving away from the gray center by moving toward what that voter is moving away from. Cargo Cult Libertarianism* hasn’t succeeded in the last 36 years, and it isn’t going to magically start succeeding, regardless of whom we stuff in the a suit and trot out as “respectable” next time.

    The only voters who are going to abandon the “respectable” Ds and Rs for a candidate who can’t win the election are the voters who are pissed off and want real, bold change. Being “respectable” as well as offering that change isn’t necessarily a liability, but it’s an option or extra — offering that change is not an option, it’s a requirement. We don’t expand our niche toward making it a majority by abandoning our niche, any more than “mainstream” politicians win elections by abandoning their base.

    If you want to debate whether or not George is “moving to the center,” I think I can sustain such a debate without much effort at all — in some cases, he’s moving there on issues, and in some, simply on presentation, but that’s where he’s moving. And in doing so, he is breaking the first vital rule of radical politics. See Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals on how you build a movement that can take the mainstream instead of just being taken by it. Or, to quote L. Neil Smith, “great men don’t move to the center, they move the center.”

    Regards,
    Tom Knapp

    * Cargo Cult Libertarianism (from an article a couple of years back, most of which isn’t worth reproducing):

    The cargo cults are religions (or something resembling religions) which took root in South Pacific Islands after WWII. Observing that Westerners had such amenities as refrigerators, air conditioners, etc., and that Westerners were brought shiny new things by airplanes, the cargo cultists hypothesized a connection. They built elaborate replicas of technological devices — refrigerators of wood and bamboo which looked exactly like the Kenmore[TM] in your kitchen, in the hopes that, if they looked and acted enough like Westerners, the airplanes would arrive with shiny new stuff for them. Yes, this is an over-simplification, but it’ll do for the point I’m trying to make.

    Cargo Cult Libertarians observe that successful Republican and Democrat politicans wear suits and power ties, that successful Republican and Democrat politicians exude confidence, that successful Republican and Democrat politicians shy from the radical, and that successful Republican and Democrat politicians take a smooth, milquetoast, middle of the road, “well, Bob” approach in media interviews.

    From this, they hypothesize that if they, as Libertarians, wear suits and power ties, exude confidence, shy from the radical, and take a smooth, milquetoast, middle of the road, “well, Bob” approach in media interviews and public appearances, that they will magically become successful Libertarian politicians.

    Needless to say, it doesn’t work that way. Voters who want cuddly, well-dressed, moderate, confidence-exuding, “well Bob” politicians already have them. We call them Republicans and Democrats. The LP’s future, if it has one, lies precisely with those Americans who sense a need for a radical, in your face, “well, Bob, fuck the conventional wisdom” alternative.

  7. If Tom was seriously concerned about our marketing strategy I doubt that he would tell us that we were doing something wrong.

    Speaking of issues, George Phillies has developed issues on education reform, and ending the national debt. A few issues the Democrats and Republicans are not focusing on. Phillies is against the Patriot Act, against prohibition, and against federal involvement in the marriage issue. These are on his issues page and I would not qualify these issues as being centrist issues.

    A Loyal, Patriotic Civil Service – Loyal Americans honor our Constitution and obey the Law of the land. They do not make warrantless searches of your home. They do not wiretap your phone calls without court orders. They do not throw Americans into jail and detain them without trial or access to attorneys. We need a Federal government composed of loyal Americans who love our country. Federal employees who made warrantless searches, performed warrantless wiretaps, and detained citizens without trial should be replaced with patriotic Americans. And then the facts of their actions should be presented to grand juries.

    I can’t say I have heard any of the Democratic or Republican candidates for President take such a strong stand.

  8. If Tom was seriously concerned about our marketing strategy I doubt that he would tell us that we were doing something wrong.

    Why do you say that? We want you all to improve your marketing strategy.

    I’m hoping both campaigns help improve each other through friendly competition.

    The goal is that whoever wins will be better off and stronger for having gone through the competition and more prepared for the main event.

  9. My high school business teacher was a very smart man. He told me that if you were going to sell a product you must look the part. I fail to see how elections are any different. Mr. Grimes also believed that George Phillies was a presentable candidate that he could vote for. However, he did not find Chief Wana Dubie to be a presentable candidate that he could vote for.

  10. I’m hoping both campaigns help improve each other through friendly competition.

    The goal is that whoever wins will be better off and stronger for having gone through the competition and more prepared for the main event.

    Competition is great and it will make both candidates and campaigns better. Competition works in economics, and it should also work in politics.

  11. Please also realize that I like Chief Wana Dubie, and also realize that I am not comparing him to Steve Kubby. I am only discussing the following comment:

    and it isn’t going to magically start succeeding, regardless of whom we stuff in the a suit and trot out as “respectable” next time.

  12. Nigel

    Note that Ralph Nader failed.

    He did a lot better than any LP candidate ever did.

    The vast majority of Americans didn’t respect him as a candidate, and they didn’t even consider voting for him. If Kubby is in the same position as him, we’ve got a problem. Phillies is much more respectable to the average American.

    I can’t see that being the case.

    He’ll have all the same problems that LP candidates usually do.

    I think Kubby has him beat in a huge way on the personal charisma factor.

    As Tom explained, I don’t see the average American all of a sudden seriously consider a wonkish LP candidate who is all serious and selects his issues based on what a majority cares about. Well maybe if he was a billionaire and willing to blow several million bucks of his own money on the run, but otherwise, no.

    When we are this small, and at this much of a disadvantage, we have to speak about issues with passion and energy, and select issues which are extremely personally important to significant chunks of people – people for whom that is their most important issue.

    If their position on those issues is being ignored by the bigger parties, or if both wings of the duopoly line up against their position (like on immigration, drug legalization and the war) that creates an opening or opportunity for us to grab a voting bloc and make it ours.

    Not everybody in that voting bloc will vote for us, but a lot more than otherwise would and we’ll gain new members, new activists, new contributors and future candidates.

    Being “serious” is not going to make you a major contender all of a sudden. There are many more institutional barriers.

    You have to break out of them by being creative, doing guerilla marketing, and simultaneously being both passionate and organized.

    There are a lot of brick-and-mortar things that have to be done – and you’re not going from 0.4 to 40 in one election cycle.

  13. Jake,

    Maybe we’d better get this “respectability” nonsense out of the way right now.

    George Phillies is a degreed academic (several degrees, actually, and from some prestigious universities) and university professor.

    Steve Kubby is a degreed academic (not as many, and not from MIT) and former university professor.

    George Phillies has previously served in government (National Guard).

    Steve Kubby has formerly served in government (parole and probation officer).

    George Phillies is a current or former member/leader in several public advocacy organizations (LP, ACLU).

    Steve Kubby is a current or former member/leader in several public advocacy organizations (LP, AMMA).

    George Phillies is a published author (Stand Up For Liberty, Funding Liberty, several non-political non-fiction texts, several science fiction novels). Not a famous/bestselling author, but a published author.

    Steve Kubby is a published author (The Politics of Consciousness, Why Marijuana Should Be Legal, and contributor to some anthologies/collections). Not a famous/bestselling author, but a published author.

    George Phillies has previously run unsuccessfully for public office (US House of Representatives from Massachusetts) on the Libertarian Party ticket.

    Steve Kubby has previously run unsuccessfully for public office (Governor of California) on the Libertarian Party ticket.

    George Phillies has previously unsuccessfully sought internal office or nomination in the national LP (23% for national chair).

    Steve Kubby has previously unsuccessfully sought internal office or nomination in the LP (44% for the vice-presidential nomination).

    Those are similarities of which I’m aware. They are rough similarities, but I don’t see any qualitative differences that would make one who has done them “more respectable” and the other “less respectable.”

    If you’re aware of some field or endeavor in which such a qualitative difference between the two candidates which would bear on “respectability” exists, please enlighten us.

    There may also be differences. For example, I do not know if George Philies has ever built and sold a successful (and still operating) business, served on a corporate or charity board of directors or published a successful newsstand magazine, where I do happen to know that Steve Kubby has done all of those things.

    Perhaps you know of some difference, rather than some relative achievement level in similar endeavors, which would tend to make George “more respectable” and Steve “less respectable?” If so, once again, please enlighten us.

    Oh, I forgot one more similarity, and once more difference:

    Similarity: Both George Phillies and Steve Kubby oppose the war on drugs.

    Difference: Kubby has successfully done something about the war on drugs beyond merely running his yap about it.

    Somehow, I doubt that you’re trying to imply that political success is less “respectable” than empty political rhetoric, though, so I’m going to assume that that’s not the difference you’re trying to hold out as making George “more respectable” and Steve “less respectable.”

    You have the floor, sir.

    Regards,
    Tom Knapp

  14. This blog is going to be the next Hammer of Truth.

    Being “serious” is not going to make you a major contender all of a sudden. There are many more institutional barriers.

    George is discussing issues that are not being represented by the Democrats and Republicans. He also is able to present the issue and not be considered crazy. For example his position on ending the “No Child Left Behind Act.” ending the national debt, or eminent domain. Those are issues not being discussed by the Democrats and Republicans and they are issues that Libertarians can win with.

  15. “When we are this small, and at this much of a disadvantage, we have to speak about issues with passion and energy, and select issues which are extremely personally important to significant chunks of people – people for whom that is their most important issue.”

    Sure worked well for the Socialist Party.

    If, as you claim, people abandoning the Ds and Rs to vote for the LP are almost nonexistent, the results the LPTX got this last time don’t make sense. Texas is a state which is generally hardcore Republican, but the Democrats are hardcore about it too. Thus all the advances made this November (aside from the Badnarik debacle, which further demonstrates what happens when one uses “guerilla marketing” and such). What happened was disgruntled Ds and Rs such as my parents, several teachers of mine, etc voted for Libertarian candidates because they got sick of the silliness of the Ds and Rs.

    What allowed this was that the LPTX put up a slate of respectable candidates. The LP candidate for my US Rep, John Hawley, was called “the best Libertarian we’ve ever seen” by the Dallas Morning News. Unsurprisingly, one of their favorite things about him was that he didn’t spend the whole interview talking about legalizing marijuana. He believes in it, but he knows it isn’t an issue that would get him votes. That’s what the LP needs, and that’s George Phillies.

  16. George Phillies is organized. We have professional radio ads, bumper stickers, a professional website, professional palm cards, many volunteer coordinators, and George has been on a few radio programs within the past week and is scheduled to be on a few more this week. I don’t see that amount of organization from any other third party candidate for President in 2008.

  17. My high school business teacher was a very smart man. He told me that if you were going to sell a product you must look the part. I fail to see how elections are any different. Mr. Grimes also believed that George Phillies was a presentable candidate that he could vote for. However, he did not find Chief Wana Dubie to be a presentable candidate that he could vote for.

    Does that literally mean he would vote for Phillies in a real election when it comes down to it? If so, he’s very atypical. He might tell you he would vote for Phillies now, when he doesn’t actually have to cast his one and only vote in four years now
    and the bigger parties haven’t started campaigning yet.

    And even if he does vote for Phillies, he has had the opportunity to hear all about Phillies from you – a rather atypical experience most people won’t get to have.

    What product are we actually selling?

    It is not a candidate who will win and govern the country.
    We don’t have to play that part because people already know we’re pretenders when we do.

    The product we are selling is protest and rebellion against the system, but in a focused way. The other product we are selling is the idea of liberty itself, and a vehicle to help promote that idea, building itself along the way gear by gear.

    To sell something like that, you need someone somewhere in between Wana Dubie on one extreme and Phillies on the other; someone like Kubby.

    Wana Dubie might be OK for VP, “Kubby-wanna dubie” has a catchiness to it, but on the other hand it probably might be better to bring some balance to the ticket and bring in someone from a different side of the party for VP.

    I think Phillies’ relentless seriousness kinda hurts him.

    I would recommend lightening up his image a little and having some fun with it.

    Think something along the lines of Weird Al “White And Nerdy,” have fun and be creative with it. A lot of times a guy who can laugh at himself and turn a weakness into a strength can be better received.

    If you can get non-libertarians to pay attention to it for the entertainment value, like Loretta’s boobs and (no) panties sagas, or Kubby’s South Park Ad from ’98

    http://www.dougscribner.com/thirdwheel/video/SouthParkAdDSL.wvx

    which won a Pollie award

    http://www.dougscribner.com/thirdwheel/success.htm

    And THEN use it to then segue into serious issues, I think you can reach a lot more people than if you’re just all boring and serious all the time.

  18. George is discussing issues that are not being represented by the Democrats and Republicans. He also is able to present the issue and not be considered crazy. For example his position on ending the “No Child Left Behind Act.” ending the national debt, or eminent domain. Those are issues not being discussed by the Democrats and Republicans and they are issues that Libertarians can win with.

    Being considered crazy is not the biggest problem we have to fight against. Not being considered at all is. Catching people’s attention, holding it, and inspiring passion is key.

  19. Sure worked well for the Socialist Party.

    It sure did. The vast majority of their platform is now law, and now if you are against those issues, we’re the ones who are extreme.

  20. If, as you claim, people abandoning the Ds and Rs to vote for the LP are almost nonexistent, the results the LPTX got this last time don’t make sense.

    Not exactly what I said but the dynamics are a lot different.

    People are much more likely to vote for a smaller part in lower level races, particularly if the bigger parties in that race are not too neck-and-neck or better yet, if one of them is sitting it out as happens a lot in lower level races, but not the Presidential race.

    One thing that was unusual about Texas was the Friedman and Strayhorn factor cutting down on straight-party voting.

    Thus all the advances made this November (aside from the Badnarik debacle, which further demonstrates what happens when one uses “guerilla marketing” and such).

    Actually that demonstrates what happens when one uses “no marketing” and such.

    Unsurprisingly, one of their favorite things about him was that he didn’t spend the whole interview talking about legalizing marijuana. He believes in it, but he knows it isn’t an issue that would get him votes.

    But it IS an issue that gets quite a few votes, which are easy to get because no one else wants them and because they care about their issue.

    Nor would Kubby spend the whole interview speaking about that, either.

  21. “Catching people’s attention, holding it, and inspiring passion is key.”

    Unfortunately, most Americans aren’t going to let their attention be caught by somebody they can easily dismiss as a “crazed druggie” or whatever.

  22. George Phillies is organized. We have professional radio ads, bumper stickers, a professional website, professional palm cards, many volunteer coordinators, and George has been on a few radio programs within the past week and is scheduled to be on a few more this week. I don’t see that amount of organization from any other third party candidate for President in 2008.

    We have all that coming soon, plus TV ads, speaking to huge crowds like the 50,000 Kubby spoke to when he announced, and more. Small function of starting a little later.

  23. Unfortunately, most Americans aren’t going to let their attention be caught by somebody they can easily dismiss as a “crazed druggie” or whatever.

    Much less someone who will put them to sleep.

    Again – the issue is not MOST Americans, it’s the most Americans who want an alternative, and are mad enough at the bigger party lack-of-choices to seek an alternative
    radical party.

  24. Wana Dubie might be OK for VP, “Kubby-wanna dubie” has a catchiness to it, but on the other hand it probably might be better to bring some balance to the ticket and bring in someone from a different side of the party for VP.

    I think Chief Wana Dubie is running for Governor of Missouri in 2008.

  25. I guess I will be the first to point this out: a PhD in Physics from MIT does not make someone “more” qualified to be President of the United States, or even just LP Nominee for President of the United States. I know what it takes to get a PhD in Physics. The skill-set acquired doesn’t necessarily make someone more qualified to manage the corner gas station, much less the federal government. In fact, academics can be HORRIBLE managers and/or leaders. I’m not suggesting Dr. Phillies is or would be a horrible leader. In fact, I’m sure he would be a fine leader for the LP. However, his academic background does not necessarily make him any “more” qualified.

    In terms of leadership qualifications, I’d take Kubby’s proven leadership experience in the form of successful business owner, magazine publisher, and fundraiser over a PhDed university professor. This is coming from a guy who is about to embark on an entire month of interviews for university physics professor jobs.

    Concerning respectability: I’d like an answer to Knapp’s question above — What specifically makes Phillies more respectable? I haven’t yet decided between who to support, though I lean toward Kubby right now. If Phillies is more respectable, then I’d like to know why. To me, both Kubby and Phillies look pretty respectable.

    I’m assuming those who claim Phillies is more respectable base that assumption on the fact that Kubby has decided to NOT DIE, and uses a medication under doctor supervision that is legal in his state.

  26. To me, both Kubby and Phillies look pretty respectable.

    I will agree with that.

  27. I haven’t yet decided between who to support, though I lean toward Kubby right now.

    Will you please explain why?

  28. Jake,

    Maybe we’d better get this “respectability” nonsense out of the way right now.

    I guess I missed reading your comment, perhaps it was awaiting moderation or I would have responded. I think you are talking to Nigel. I like Steve Kubby and believe both are respectable.

  29. I like to look at who will do more to grow the party at the local level. Let’s say Kubby wins the nomination. Yes, he has a strong libertarian background and is a proven leader that the majority of LP members would support and vote for in a general election. Lets be honest, unless Chapman somehow wins the nomination, I’m going to vote for and support whoever gains the nomination. But will the average American see this man as a true presidential candidate or a “pot head”. You are kidding yourself if you think that average americans, sitting on the fence, would see Kubby as anything other than that. That would equal a poor showing on election day and a giant step back for the Libertarian Party, especially at the local level. When I talk bad showing, I’m saying finishing with less votes than Badnarik.

    Now when people look at George Phillies, they will see a man who runs a campaign based on real issues that actually concern the American public. Once they see where he stands on the issues, it will paint the Libertarian Party in a much more positive light. We won’t be a bunch of “pot smoking tax dodgers”, rather the public will understand that this highly educated, very presentable man, will actually speak about issues that concern them. People on the fence will be more likely to latch on to George’s message and would create a domino effect all the way down the the local level. Will George win the nomination? As a member of his campaign, I’m not an idiot, I realize his chances on winning is somewhere between slim and none. But could a positive Libertarian campaign get other Libertarian candidates in office in partisan races on the local level? That is absolutely possible.

    I’m running for office in 2008 and I hope if people base my beliefs on our Presidential candidate, they will see that much like Phillies, I believe in running on issues the public feels strongly about. That gives me hope. What would kill any chance I have at winning at the county level would be to be associated with “that pot head they have running for president”.

    I have all the respect in the world for Kubby, but we must think outside the Libertarian box for a moment and see what effect a Kubby campaign would have on the party as a whole should he get the nomination.

  30. […] thread in question can be seen HERE so take moment and read through the entire thread. I ofcourse gave my two cents. # Jason Gatties […]

  31. “Will you please explain why?”

    Sure. Though it is really early and I’m mostly leaning towards Kubby based off of perception.

    Like Jason Gatties, I’m looking for someone who will grow the party. I am also a big fan of niche marketing. Phillies is running as the “respectable” candidate with a “serious” agenda that speaks to the average person. Well, as pointed out by others, the R’s and D’s pretty much have that “niche” covered, and unless Dr. Phillies pulls about $50 million out of his bank account for the run, then I don’t see him doing any better than Badnarik or Browne (who both did well, considering the circumstances.) Phillies is an LP man. He will be an acceptable candidate to me and most others in the LP. But he really isn’t that exciting.

    From what I’ve seen of Kubby, he has a lot of charisma. He also has an already established market in which he is fairly well known that is outside and considerably larger than the LP. You may think the “average American” will not vote for a “pot head”. Well, the “average American” will not vote for a dorky (I’m dorky, too), out-of-the-mainstream academic with no money and virtually ZERO name ID. Especially since the average American will never even hear the name George Phillies.

    The average American will not vote for ANY LP presidential candidate. I know Kubby understands that and is planning accordingly. I don’t think Phillies gets it, since he’s focusing his entire campaign on the “average American”. Kubby will not win the presidency. But if he gets 600,000 votes then the campaign will be a relatively huge success. Phillies appears to be shooting for the moon — he can’t reach the moon any more than he can reach the average American.

    That is why I lean towards Kubby: as of now, he and his campaign seem more realistic about what an LP Presidential candidate can actually accomplish.

  32. Good luck getting 600,000 LP votes. That won’t happen either. You will always win over people sitting on the fence. If I was in that position, I would see Phillies as an electable candidate who would serve the role as president with alot of respect. I would see Kubby as a weed activist who will have his hippy buddies sleep over in the Lincoln bedroom and toke it up on the weekends.

    Do some poll work. I can promise you if non LP members have heard of Steve Kubby, the first thing that will pop into their mind is “weed”. I know this for a fact because my best friend, who is a independent, was asked if he knew who Steve Kubby was. The answer: Wasn’t he that pot head activist out west? If you do a google search on Kubby, you will probably see “weed” mentioned in the search results.

    Is the Kubby campaign hoping to win a popularity contest or are they actually concerned about growing the party as well? Growing the party means convincing those who have never voted Libertarian in the past to do so this time around.

  33. “Thanks Chris.”

    No problem. I have no problem with Phillies at all. I’ve never met him, but from what I’ve read I like him. Phillies could win me over if Kubby’s campaign fails to produce at the level Phillies has, or if he comes out with some really specific achievable goals and a solid strategy for achieving them. But from perception right now, I lean towards Kubby.

    “I can promise you if non LP members have heard of Steve Kubby, the first thing that will pop into their mind is “weed”.”

    I agree. However, I don’t see that as a problem. I actually see it as a bonus. There are a LOT of pot heads in America. There are WAY more pot heads than there are LP voters. It’s a niche market. Kubby has already been featured in an independently (non-LP member) produced and successful viral video exactly because of the legalization issue.

    If your battling for a few percent (or less) of an already dominated market, then you MUST differentiate both in substance AND style.

  34. As an example, Jones Soda is successful exactly because they make stuff that tastes completely UNLIKE Pepsi and Coke. They also have to market in a completely different manner and aim their marketing to a completely different type of person.

    Right now, it seems like Phillies’ marketing plan is aimed towards the every-man. Although his flavor is certainly different, the people he is marketing to probably won’t like it. Why waste time and resources going after an already well served market with a product they don’t necessarily want?

    But that is just my perception right now. I know Loretta Nall understands this concept, and I’ll wait to see what Phillies campaign has cooking before passing final judgment.

  35. In 2008, we will have a pro-war Republican (likely McCain), a Democrat who called for a larger army (Clinton), perhaps a Unity 08 pro-war New Yorker, and

    gee, why do I think that supporting the political position of most Americans, namely that the war should be ended, before the other major parties do, is going to be advantageous?

    Simiarly, I will oppose illegal Federal wiretapping and mail opening–a position that most Americans support–while the Republicans and Democrat sycophants take a different position. “Talk about issues that Americans care about” is not the same as ‘take the same stands that the Democrats and Republicans do’.

    Ditto on the border issue. You cannot have open borders and a large social welfare system at the same time.

  36. ““Talk about issues that Americans care about” is not the same as ‘take the same stands that the Democrats and Republicans do’.”

    You missed this important point: you must differentiate both in substance and STYLE. Your flavor is definitely different, but it appears your marketing plan is similar to that of Coke and Pepsi. That’s merely my perception from what I’ve seen so far.

    “You cannot have open borders and a large social welfare system at the same time.”

    But you certainly CAN advocate for both open borders AND a reduction of the social welfare system. You choose not to. I can think of two reasons why: (1) you are not actually in favor of open borders, or (2) in your heart you are in favor of open borders but you are hedging for the sake of Know-Nothing votes (a constituency the LP never had and never will) . Both reasons leave a bad taste in my mouth.

    I predict that the immigration policies of both you and Kubby will be THE deciding factor in the nominating contest. I hope you are prepared to vigorously defend your immigration policy, because I and others will be vigorously challenging it and bringing it up at every possible opportunity. As much as you want the contest to come down to who is more “qualified”, “respectable”, and “serious”, I’m guessing that the delegates of this party are going to care a lot more about the differences in positions. On this issue (immigration), you will probably lose.

  37. I like to look at who will do more to grow the party at the local level. Let’s say Kubby wins the nomination. Yes, he has a strong libertarian background and is a proven leader that the majority of LP members would support and vote for in a general election. Lets be honest, unless Chapman somehow wins the nomination, I’m going to vote for and support whoever gains the nomination.

    paul) I don’t have any intention of voting for Bob Milnes or Wayne Allyn Root, or Neal Boortz, to take several examples, in any election – general or otherwise.

    But will the average American see this man as a true presidential candidate or a “pot head”. You are kidding yourself if you think that average americans, sitting on the fence, would see Kubby as anything other than that.

    Paul) You’re still not getting the point, I’m afraid….Some people may end up seeing Kubby as just a pothead no matter what he says, although I think that a large perecntage of Americans will be able to overcome that impression as the campaign gets serious. Of the ones who can’t, I believe that we would have very little chance at their vote anyway, no matter who we run.

    But people are not monolithic. Kubby’s work in drug reform will bring in a lot more people than we would otherwise get to vote for us. If he turns some confused Republitarians away from the party, all the better. If he is able to build on his energy, experience, and connections in the drug reform community I believe he can make significant inroads into the anti-war and immigrant/immigrant-friendly communities, environmentalists, and others.

    Phillies is antiwar too, but is a lot less likely – due to personality and base issues – to make as much headway as Kubby would be capable of making in the antiwar movement, to take just one example. Phillies’ stance on immigration will hurt the coalition-building that will need to take place with the left/libertarian border to make significant inroads for the LP.

    That would equal a poor showing on election day and a giant step back for the Libertarian Party, especially at the local level. When I talk bad showing, I’m saying finishing with less votes than Badnarik.

    Paul) I totally disagree. I believe Kubby could easily have the best LP showing ever – if the LP just has the good sense to nominate him.

    Now when people look at George Phillies, they will see a man who runs a campaign based on real issues that actually concern the American public.

    Paul) Bull. Most people won’t look at Phillies at all. A few will. They’ll see a “white and nerdy” professor. Conservatives won’t like him because he’s antiwar and socially liberal on most issues, and the left/libertarian border will be less receptive because of his immigration stance. He does not have an automatic base outside the LP as Kubby does and he has a less engaging personality. This will severely linit his ability to build a coalition, as Kubby can starting with a solid base in LP and drug reform, and using it to expand through co-members in the immigration freedom, peace and environmentalist communities. But without the first non-LP building block, it is a lot harder to build a structure.

    Once they see where he stands on the issues, it will paint the Libertarian Party in a much more positive light. We won’t be a bunch of “pot smoking tax dodgers”, rather the public will understand that this highly educated, very presentable man, will actually speak about issues that concern them.

    Paul) No, I don’t think it will work like that. What little of the public will hear of Phillies will notice that he is an extremist (let’s be honest, we all are). His non-verbal communication signals will not be doing him any favors. Being highly educated did not do all that much for John Hagelin of the Natural Law Party. In any case, practical politics is a game of building brick by brick: one on top of another. Phillies wins the nomination, he has one brick, the LP. Kubby wins he has the LP plus a solid constituency in the drug policy reform movement, which is bigger than the LP. Having two “bricks” makes it a lot easier to add a third, and so on. I see Phillies most likely stuck at brick one, which is where LP candidates have typically started and finished.

    People on the fence will be more likely to latch on to George’s message and would create a domino effect all the way down the the local level. Will George win the nomination? As a member of his campaign, I’m not an idiot, I realize his chances on winning is somewhere between slim and none. But could a positive Libertarian campaign get other Libertarian candidates in office in partisan races on the local level? That is absolutely possible.

    Paul) I believe that is what would happen with Kubby.

    I’m running for office in 2008 and I hope if people base my beliefs on our Presidential candidate, they will see that much like Phillies, I believe in running on issues the public feels strongly about. That gives me hope. What would kill any chance I have at winning at the county level would be to be associated with “that pot head they have running for president”.

    Paul) I don’t think it will. I believe Kubby is more than capable of overcoming that initial response.

    I have all the respect in the world for Kubby, but we must think outside the Libertarian box for a moment and see what effect a Kubby campaign would have on the party as a whole should he get the nomination.

    Making it grow significantly in a direction it has neglected, and therefore has a lot more room for growth – particlularly given that the low-hanging fruit on the right has been picked, that conservatives are generally less inclined to embrace change – including change parties – than left-constituencies like youth and immigrants, and that the overall trends in American politics right now have the left moving marginally in a libertarian direction and the right marginally authoritarian as evidenced in articles such as “Liberaltarian” elsewhere on this blog and “Red State Fascism” on LewRockwell.

  38. Is the Kubby campaign hoping to win a popularity contest or are they actually concerned about growing the party as well? Growing the party means convincing those who have never voted Libertarian in the past to do so this time around.

    The best chance we have of doing that is with the Kubby campaign

    1) He has the best lead on a constituency that has for the most part not been voting LP but is not being well-served by anyone else. So is ripe for conquest.

    2) He has a solid fundraising base in the non LP drug policy reform community. That plus LP is a lot more solid base to reaching out to build a larger coalition. Being pro-immigrant helps with the groups we would like to chip away at to bring in to this coalition: immigrants and supporters, of course, but also peace activists, environmentalists and others. At the margin, being pro-immigration will help with all these voting blocs.

  39. Ditto on the border issue. You cannot have open borders and a large social welfare system at the same time.

    Do we say that Social Security should be preserved forever, or made into an even bigger program?

    Do we say that we should round up all the guns – until we legalize drugs, after which we can restore individual gun ownership?

    Do we say that we should start allowing the police (or, if you prefer, Guardian Angels) to execute drug users and dealers on sight, until we get rid of the welfare state?

    Or, perhaps we should increase government welfare to the poor by 10,000% – until we get rid of all the taxes and regulations which make it hard for people to start a business. Then we can privatize charity again.

    But, wait, we need all those taxes to pay for all these programs we have to maintain in the meantime!

    Personally, I don’t put much stock in such arguments.

    Actually, I think they’re way off base.

    And, for exactly the same reasons, I don’t believe we should have increased border enforcement, a wall on the border, more deportations, or more crackdowns on employers of “illegal” workers “until we get rid of welfare.”

    Nor do I think that the current enforcement levels should be maintained.

    I’m fighting for “all our freedoms, all the time.”

    Not “some of our freedoms, but only after we get some of our other freedoms.”

    Let Freedom Grow!

  40. But will the average American see this man as a true presidential candidate or a “pot head”. You are kidding yourself if you think that average americans, sitting on the fence, would see Kubby as anything other than that.

    They said the same thing about Loretta Nall down here in Alabama.

    We got over that though. Read all about it….

    http://nallforgovernor.blogspot.com/2007/01/loretta-nalls-2006-year-in-review.html

    Yes, I know that Loretta is supporting Phillies.

    I’m still wondering why.

    http://pauliecannoli.wordpress.com/2006/12/30/lpa-repost-ii-loretta-and-phillies/

    Here’s what LP National founder David Nolan had to say about Steve Kubby overcoming the “one issue candidate” impression….

    http://www.kubby.com/00-intro.html

    Thus, the question on many delegates’ minds was “is Steve Kubby a real Libertarian who supports individual liberty across-the-board, or is he just a one-issue candidate?” By the end of the convention, there was no doubt in their minds. Both Steve and Michele were consistent defenders of liberty. In addition, they projected a wholesome, all-American image: an attractive, outgoing couple whose appearance and behavior belies the United States government’s ongoing campaign to depict all drug users as goofballs, losers and an all-around menace to society.

    Steve secured the Libertarians’ gubernatorial nomination by a unanimous vote, and proceeded to hit the campaign trail. As with everything he does, Steve campaigned with a “take no prisoners” intensity; there is never any doubt where he stands on any issue.

  41. We really need another candidate.

    By the way, it’s kind of funny how the picture of Kubby making a “toke” gesture on his website links to an article that’s actually pretty critical of him, basically saying between the lines that he can’t be taken seriously as a presidential candidate. I’m not sold on any of the “press” Kubby is supposedly getting.

    I prefer Phillies’ campaign, if only because he does not sound like a one-note candidate and pretty much has his stuff together. But I agree with Paulie in the regard that people will actually pay attention to Kubby, and probably not Phillies. Stanhope would have gotten more attention, but I’m glad he doesn’t seem to be running.

    We can agree to disagree whether candidates who get more attention are automatically better candidates. It’s true that Kubby could bring a huge number of potheads into the LP who might have traditionally fallen in more leftist circles, and that if people start reading about the LP because they hear about his candidacy, the LP might grow.

    But any overall growth the LP does now will only be turtle-like at best. Every niche we gain, we lose hordes to discontentment with perpetual loss. The party has already established the precedent for losing, and a Kubby candidacy will only perpetuate the easy pigeonholing of the party that we basically grant the media and major parties. Paulie’s also right that niche marketing is the only thing that can possibly grow the party at this point, because there’s no way in hell the average American can take us seriously – which is why we’ll never win. The pigeonholing and tradition of perpetual loss makes me doubt the LP will be a force that brings liberty in our lifetimes. We really need a new moderate libertarian party, not bound by rigid ideology and addressing a wider array of values than just freedom, with a professional image, no history of loss, and strong planning to cover massive amounts of ground, appeal to a broad base and use new technology if we want libertarianism to get anywhere politically.

  42. We really need a new moderate libertarian party, not bound by rigid ideology and addressing a wider array of values than just freedom, with a professional image, no history of loss, and strong planning to cover massive amounts of ground, appeal to a broad base and use new technology if we want libertarianism to get anywhere politically.

    The reason for the vote totals? Not so much ideology as process. Money and media goes to the likely winners and close runners-up, to buy influence and avoid greater plunder.

    The wasted vote fallacy is a big part of the picture. So is government election welfare including the bigger party conventions paid for by the regime, matching funds, incumbents’ franking priveleges, ballot access barriers, and so on.

    Elections are bandwagons, and the perception that winning is out of reach becomes self-fulfilling.

    It’s extremely difficult and perhaps impossible to break through all these barriers, no matter what the paltform says.

    Don’t underestimate the “bricks and mortar” and “institutional barriers” issues when it comes to starting a new party.

    Whatever the problems you perceive in the LP, it has already done some of that bricks and mortar stuff, such as securing a place on a couple of dozen state ballots.

    You can see the barriers you will be up against here.

    http://www.ballot-access.org/2006/120106.html#12

    If you have never petitioned or hired petitioners, let me reassure you that both are a lot harder than you might think.

    Among other things, we constantly get run off by security guards and cops even from places where we have a legal right to petition firmly established by law. Overwhelming public indifference, apathy, and some hostility and the difficulty of getting people to stop turns off many novice petitioners.

    Stupid comments and overall dullness from many members of the public in response to being asked to sign can be quite frustrating.

    Hiring petitioners presents another set of problems. Most people who are not experienced petitioners flake out, partially for the reasons listed above.

    Others, who would do well at it, just don’t like it. Others yet who would do well at it hate politics. Or, they are already good at sales and have a steady sales job or business elsewhere.

    Many people don’t realize that petitioning can generate enough income to make a decent living.

    However, with such a limited number of people who succeed at petitioning, it is often best to hire experienced petitioners – which involves travel expenses – rather than hire locally (much less rely on volunteers, which hardly ever works).

    Of course, most people don’t like to travel full time, and even many of the ones that do either would not be good petitioners or choose not to petition for the reasons explained above.

    Of the remaining people who are decent and willing petitioners, most have a personality which makes them a nightmare to deal with for the manager/coordinator. It is precisely this personality strength/weakness profile which makes them disinclined to take steady jobs with more management and regular hours, willing to travel a big chunk of the year, capable of finding spots to work despite all the hassles, and willing to approach strangers and put up with all the apathy, rejection and hostility.

    Of course, ballot access is just ONE of the many barriers you will face in starting a new party.

    It all comes down to the brick and mortar catch 22:

    Lack of name recognition

    Lack of money

    Lack of winning track record

    Lack of media coverage

    Lack of votes

    These are self-reinforcng barriers. Being more moderate does not overcome these barriers by itself. In fact, it might leave you with a smaller base of dedicated ideologues willing to make up for their lack of numbers by working harder for a cause they believe in fanatically.

    What’s happened to the moderate Reform Party since Perot pulled out his money?

    What success have the Moderate Party or Independence Party achieved?

    ETC.

    Not that I have any objection to you starting a new party. Go for it. If nothing else it will teach you to appreciate just how difficult a task that is, and why the LP’s apparent lack of success has a lot more to it than just our radical views – that in fact it is not mainly about that, and the radical views may even be working in our favor.

  43. Nick, regarding Stanhope:

    Stanhope would have gotten more attention, but I’m glad he doesn’t seem to be running.

    From Stanhope’s wikipedia entry:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doug_Stanhope

    A self-confident drug user, libertarian and agnostic, Stanhope’s humor can convey nihilism despite life-celebrating enthusiasm. He frankly describes ‘deviant’ sexual activity and sometimes gruesome personal stories gleefully, blurring the lines between an “adventurous spirit” and full-blown “sicko”. Stanhope violently opposes the gradual erosion of American civil liberties, particularly in his recent performances such as Deadbeat Hero.

    Often subject to large-scale walk-outs by his American audiences, Stanhope admits “People will leave. I go on stage, it’s like I’m leading you into battle—you’re not all going to be here at the end.”

    Presidential campaign

    Stanhope had announced on July 9, 2006 through his website that he would run for president in 2008 as a Libertarian. However, after consulting political advisors, he has stated on his website, “… officially – I am reconsidering my presidential run while my exploratory team looks into the viability of such an endeavor.” He explained that he made this statement due to campaign finance laws and other reasons. He later said on the same page that he is serious and “The presidential run is getting in order. You keep asking me if I’m serious. You have no idea. Let’s have fun again.”

    Reading the rest of the wikipedia entry makes it abundantly clear that Stanhope is hardly the Girls Gone Wild/Man Show comedian that some of his more mainstream fans mistake him for.

    Now, can he overcome the initial negatives and turn them into positives as well? I don’t know…but, while I can no longer link to the material, I was favorably impressed with his Q& A on Hammer of Truth.

    Among other things I seem to recall that he was in favor of immediate US troops withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan, a real investigation into 9/11, and Bush impeachment. All key issues for me.

    As much as I like reaching out to the left, pissing off some of the anti-porn/anti-fun/pro-censorship feminist types is not exactly out of the question for me; I like free sexual expression, a fun-loving attitude, and not taking things too seriously all the time while remaining commited to promoting freedom. Stanhope seems to embody these qualities.

    He is not a proven campaigner like Kubby, so he is not my number one choice, but I personally would rank him ahead of Phillies if those were the three candidates for the nomination.

    I should note though that all three rank ahead of Gary Nolan and Michael Badnarik in my book.

  44. Jason,

    You write:

    “I’m running for office in 2008 and I hope if people base my beliefs on our Presidential candidate, they will see that much like Phillies, I believe in running on issues the public feels strongly about. That gives me hope. What would kill any chance I have at winning at the county level would be to be associated with ‘that pot head they have running for president.'”

    I have never, ever, ever heard of a local LP candidate claiming to have won, or lost, an election due to the public’s perception of the LP’s presidential candidate.

    However, I’m pretty sure that I can (and will, when it’s most useful to do so) produce an elected public official who gives one particular Libertarian, a guy by the name of Steve Kubby, a lot of credit for his victory this past November.

    Of course, I’m not going to slight George Phillies. While his support/endorsement hasn’t come into play at all, his advice/ideas have certainly played a role in three local election victories I’ve won in the last three years.

    Thing is, neither of these things reliably scale up, down or around or translate to general application. Just because Steve’s endorsement/support puts a local candidate over the top in one place in California, that doesn’t mean that his endorsement/support — or even just his general image — will do so in Tuscaloosa or Trenton or Topeka. Just because George has some good ideas about local organization and how to campaign, that doesn’t mean that he can translate those ideas into a presidential campaign that either attracts significant attention, or that has local “coattails.”

    The major parties do a lot of kvetching about personal numbers — name recognition, positives, negatives, etc. The LP is still in a position where it has to be stuck on that FIRST number — name rec. Until we have candidates that people have heard of, we can’t very well expect people to have an opinion of those candidates.

    Kubby is not a “celebrity,” but he is more well-known than George Phillies now, and if Phillies is the LP’s presidential nominee, Kubby will STILL be better known than he is in 2009. I suspect that his “positives” are in much higher proportion to his “negatives” than George’s supporters like to imply — we’ll find out with polling soon — but the fact is that both numbers are higher for Kubby than for Phillies, because some people outside the LP have heard of Steve, and nobody outside the LP, for practical purposes, has heard of George. I see no likelihood that the essentials of that equation will change.

    Regards,
    Tom

  45. Paulie, what the critics ignored about the Libertarian Reform Caucus, or perhaps what made them uncomfortable, was that we were turning the spotlight back on the party itself, instead of blaming the system for our failure. There’s not much we can do about the system, but there is lot we can do to make libertarianism more accessible to the average person, so every person we DO reach through the elctoral barriers will be more likely to stick with us than write us off as a band of radicals, nutcases and anarchists.

    While I give credence to the external barriers you mention, the LP never had a sellable message in the first place, and thus niche marketing is our only chance of reaching the 1% of public who agree with what we’re advocating. Actually, probably less than that, considering maybe even a majority of votes that our candidates get are merely protest votes. The past 35 years have netted negative overall liberty, and I put 50% of the blame on the Libertarian Party for that, by putting rigid ideology above real world politics. (I refuse to call ideology “principle,” and I do not believe it is “principled” to be content with the party’s status quo. Also, I do not believe there to be one specific definition of what is “principled.” Consistent is a more accurate descriptor of the LP, but this word can also be used to define consistent conservatives, liberals and authoritarians at the most radical ends of their spectrums, or centrists in the dead center, as long as there is no straying from the ideology.) The other 50% goes to the major parties, electoral barriers and the media, which we only have marginal impact over. I’d rather spend my energies on what I can change instead of what I can’t.

    A new party will make it to where we only have to deal with half of the problem, albeit with a larger burden of getting established and organized.

  46. A new candidate may be emerging for the Libertarian Party Presidential Nomination. Sports Betting Oddsmaker and ESPN Commentator Wayne Allyn Root of Las Vegas is considering a candidacy. Root has appeared on Fox News, Fox Sports, CNBC, ESPN, ABC, NBC, HBO, and even on Rosie O’Donnell’s show.

    Most recently Root was featured in the Las Vegas Review-Journal in regards to his potential candidacy, and was also just interviewed on Fox.

    Root is also Author of “Millionaire Republican.” He was even awarded a Star on the Walk of the Vegas Strip.

    For a full Media Tour for Wayne Allyn Root visit http://www.mainstreamlibertarian.com

  47. Wayne Root scams ignorant people. A fitting running mate would be Kevin Trudeau of “Natural Cures” fame.

  48. Have Penn run for President, and have Teller run for Speaker of the House.

  49. Yeah i agree Wayne Root Scams ignorant people.

  50. Yeah, he’s also a Republican who seems to believe that running as a Libertarian might give him among other Republicans. Forget that! My bets are that he doesn’t even get 20% at NatCon, if he’s even serious about it. Libertarians won’t nominate someone who seemingly has little past, present or future allegiance to the party.

  51. I meant “might give him cred”

  52. Nothing seeming about it – the Vain Root of all Evil says very plainly in the Review
    Journal story that he would only consider being nominated by the LP if it will not interfere with his plans to run for Senator and/or Mayor as a Republican or with his shady sports gambling business. BTW, he has admitted that he personally does not bet his own line. Also, he’s a fan of McCain and Lieberman.

    Much more on Root in the New Year’s thread

    http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/01/01/happy-new-year/

    Meanwhile, back to candidates who are actually libertarian (and Libertarian)….

    Kubby 2008 website is out

    http://kubby2008.com/

    The viral vid is at 32,000 plays as of yesterday

    http://kubby2008.com/node/1

  53. BTW, as I mentioned in another thread, as of this morning I am “officially” with the campaign, so maybe I should be a little more careful in identifying some of my personal views separately from now on when discussing this subject – I’ll try to do my best on that.

  54. “Officially”? You should go on and make a post about that.

  55. Not sure it really counts as “the most posts” when you make 15 posts in a row…ahem.

    I never said I don’t respect Kubby. I said that most Americans won’t. And niche marketing works for a profit-maximizing business. It does not work for political parties.

  56. Who made 15 posts in a row? Where?

    Of course most Americans don’t respect Kubby, much less Phillies.

    Most Americans have not heard of either of them, and most Americans are not libertarians.

    But, more people have heard of Kubby, and more are likely to hear of Kubby, plus more of the ones that have like him, since med pot is way more popular than the LP.

    What makes you think niche marketing can’t work for political parties?

  57. If the goal is to win the presidency, then Nigel is right. It won’t happen going after a niche. However, if Phillies’ goal is to win the presidency, then he is delusional.

  58. By the way, in addition to the most comments, this thread has also drawn the most comments that are not from me, as well as more different people commenting, of any on Last Free Voice yet. We’re on page 3 and still going strong!

    By the way, just because I’m that bored, I went back and looked through the comments and the max I had were 6 in a row, not 15 – an exageration factor of 250%.

    Can we say “OCD” together now, kids? LOL.

  59. Saturday, January 27, 2007
    Five by five for Kubby
    posted at
    http://knappster.blogspot.com/

    Disclosure: I work for Steve Kubby’s presidential campaign as a volunteer in the position of communications director. This post is not a paid ad, nor am I receiving financial compensation/restitution for contributions to the campaign which may result from it. To the extent that it may be regarded as an “in-kind” contribution to the campaign on my part, I value it, in line with recent “pay per post” blogging I’ve done, at $10.

    Steve Kubby’s response to the State of the Union address
    http://www.kubby2008.com/node/22
    went up on his campaign web site
    http://www.kubby2008.com/
    before George W. Bush had left the Capitol building, and while US Senator Jim Webb (D-VA) was still delivering the Democratic response.

    The “response to the response” brought our web server down as thousands of Digg readers hit the site at the same time to hear what Steve had to say. We logged more than 5,000 unique visitors in the timeframe immediately around the crash — we don’t know how many got turned away during the outage.

    We’d planned on launching our first “public” fundraiser shortly, but events have pushed it up. Here’s the real thing,
    http://www.kubby2008.com/node/23
    to which I hope you’ll respond, but I’ll cover the high points right here, and stick in the clickables, too.

    Bottom line: Steve Kubby’s proving, every day, that he’s a “serious candidate.” Now we get to find out how serious you are. The people who follow these things estimate that the “major party” candidates will each spend about $500 million or more on the 2008 election. Call it a million dollars a day between now and November, 2008.

    We’re not asking for a million dollars a day for 500 days. We’re asking for for five days. That’s not a drop in the bucket to Republicans or Democrats, but it’s enough to ratchet the Kubby campaign up to the next level of activity.

    I’ve already told you about the tremendous response to the State of the Union piece. We need a better web server, because that’s going to keep happening.

    The campaign’s first two radio commercials have been recorded and are in post-production. Some time in the next few days, we’ll be making them available to Libertarian candidates to use in their own campaigns … and we want to air them ourselves, too.

    Steve announced his candidacy in front of a crowd of 50,000 in Seattle, and campaigned in Washington for LP Senate candidate Bruce Guthrie. He spent several days in Colorado in November, campaigning for Amendment 44. He’s been attending Libertarian Party and non-LP public events all over California. He’s already confirmed that he’ll be attending LP conventions in Nevada, Oregon, New Mexico and California in February, March and April. That’s just the beginning. We have plans to send him all over the country … but plane tickets don’t buy themselves.

    Steve’s made three radio appearances in the past week. More requests are already coming in and we’re proactively seeking more such opportunities. By this time next month, we’d like to have him giving three radio, television or newspaper interviews a day, and then up from there. While these affairs don’t have built-in costs, they do have overhead. Specifically, the travel described above. It’s a lot easier to get Steve on the air in Boise or Baltimore if we can tell the media that he’s going to be in Boise or Baltimore.

    Over the years, I’ve heard lots of Libertarians say (sometimes in the comments of this very blog) that we need a $10 million presidential campaign. I agree. That’s a bare minimum to be really effective.

    So, how do we get to $10 million?

    We get there $10 and $50 and $100 and $2,100 at a time.

    And where do those $10, $50, $100 and $2,100 contributions come from?

    Well, from you, of course. What, did you think there was a campaign fairy?

    This next $5,000 will let us do the things we need to do to raise the $10,000 after that. That $10,000 will let us do the things we need to do to raise the next $50,000. And so on, and so forth. But it starts here, and it starts with you … if it starts at all.

    Here’s the skinny:

    Contributions or gifts to Kubby for President (FEC #C00428698) are not tax deductible. Business, corporate or individual contributions are welcome. Contributions are limited to $2,100 per person, or $4,200 per couple, for the primary election, and again for the general election. A husband and wife may make a contribution from a joint checking account in an amount of up to $4,200 if both spouses sign the check Credit card contributions are permitted up to $2,100 from the credit card holder.

    Contributing Online

    Via PayPal

    stevenkubby@yahoo.com

    or Credit Card

    https://www.campaigncontribution.com/donors_info.asp?id=1849&db=6

    Contributing By Mail

    Make checks out to “Kubby for President.” Per FEC regulations, we ask that you note your employer/occupation on the memo line or let us know about it in a separate note. Here’s the mailing address:

    Kubby for President
    17415 Ocean Drive
    Fort Bragg, CA 95437

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: