Steve G.

New Hampshire formally places Phillies on the ballot; state does not allow replacement of Presidential candidate

In Libertarian on June 20, 2008 at 1:07 pm

George Phillies for President 2008

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Phillies Files Declaration of Intent

Concord, New Hampshire, June 19: Libertarian Party of New Hampshire Presidential candidate George Phillies has filed his candidacy papers with New Hampshire Secretary of State William Gardner. “Being nominated for President is the highest honor a political party can bestow on one of its members,” Phillies said, “and I will do my utmost to show that New Hampshire’s trust is not misplaced.”

Speaking of the National Libertarian Party, which separately nominated a different Presidential candidate, Phillies said: “The New Hampshire Party has been collecting signatures for me since Spring 2007. Unfortunately, the people of New Hampshire in their wisdom do not permit political parties to replace their Presidential candidate. I was chosen as the candidate, and so I must remain.”

Phillies says his campaign will emphasize an immediate end to the Iraq War, termination of warrantless wiretaps of most telephones with criminal prosecution of the wiretappers, and massive cuts in Federal spending of all sorts. “The people of New Hampshire pay far more in Federal taxes than they get back. The only way to fix the system is to leave your hard-earned money where it belongs, in your wallet,” Phillies said.

The New Hampshire Party has already completed petitioning for Phillies and other candidates, including U.S. Senate Candidate Ken Blevens of Bow, New Hampshire, Congressional candidates Robert Kingsbury of Laconia and Chester LaPointe of Swanzey, as well as candidate for Governor Susan Newell of Winchester.

To support the George Phillies campaign, please visit http://ChooseGeorge.org/donation today.

To arrange an interview or obtain a short quote from the candidate, contact:

Carolyn Marbry, Press Director pressdirector@phillies2008.org
(510) 276-3216
George Phillies for President 2008 http://ChooseGeorge.org
  1. So how many signatures are needed to get Barr on the ballot as an independent?

  2. Question #2

    No disrespect meant, but why should anyone support George’s campaign financially? He’s running in New Hampshire only. I would personally suggest those in New Hampshire who wish to contribute, contribute to one of the other Libertarian candidates in that state who actually have a chance at winning office.

  3. “So how many signatures are needed to get Barr on the ballot as an independent?”

    I believe that it is 3,000 valid signatures, and they have to be divided up evenly between the Congressional districts.

    This doesn’t sound that difficult, but the LP of NH screwed it up in 2004 and then with their candidate for governor in 2006.

  4. Is Chris Bennett the VP Candidate in New Hampshire? I mean if that is the case, then I’ll send congrats, cause I do like Chris a lot.

    I still want to see Barr get on the ballot in NH though.

  5. “Jason Gatties Says:

    June 20, 2008 at 1:26 pm
    Question #2

    No disrespect meant, but why should anyone support George’s campaign financially? He’s running in New Hampshire only. I would personally suggest those in New Hampshire who wish to contribute, contribute to one of the other Libertarian candidates in that state who actually have a chance at winning office.”

    Agreed. This is a waste.

    Question #3

    Who is the least Libertarian between Phillies and Barr?

    This one is tough to anwser.

  6. Not sure, but Barr is the LP Nominee and if I lived in New Hampshire, I would write in Barr if I had to. I would have voted for Phillies had he won the nomination in Denver. He lost.

    Glad I live in Michigan.

  7. Why bother to put Barr on the ballot in NH? Let Phillies run (he will certainly make more appearances and get more media than Barr can in NH). At the end of the day, we add up all the Libertarian votes in the nation, whether gathered by Barr, Phillies, or anyone else.

  8. Maybe “we” do, but no one else does.

  9. Thank heavens at least once state one be subjected to the fascist message of Bob Barr.

  10. Yeah, ok there Jim. Start any more parties this week?

  11. Nope, just the one.

  12. Bob Barr believes in a regulated market, with tariffs and taxes. He supports a government that grants corporate charters, and thusly government controlled business.

    I dunno, seems fascist to me.

  13. I can’t wait until November 5th. The anti-Barr people can finally shut up and perhaps we can focus our attentions to 2010 and actually win a battle rather than not do anything about it and bitch after the fact.

  14. Until you live in Zimbabwe or South Africa, then you can speak on “fascism”. Trust me, some people in my wife’s family would love to live under a Bob Barr presidency. Instead, they fear daily for their lives and can’t afford to leave.

  15. I, thank G-d, have never had to live under a dictatorship. But the United States has a fascist economy. State-controlled corporatism mixed with a strong standing military = fascism, according to it’s founder, Mussolini. Barr supports continuing these things. He might be good on quite a few issues, but he is no libertarian simply because he is a member of the Libertarian Party.

    Again, I have never had to live under a dictatorship. But I am the great-grandson of two holocaust victims and grandson of a holocaust survivor. I used to hear stories. And my husband’s family had survivors of the Armenian genocide. I’m glad we aren’t like Nazi Germany or Fascist Italy, or Turkey. But we are the Fascist United States – not as bad as fascist Italy, though getting there.

    I just wish we’d see that we’re never going to win the presidency until we win some seats in Congress. And until then, we should be running people who can give the pure libertarian answer to a question.

    I have had enough of having to defend Barr’s nomination to my fellow friends in the gay community. They just *don’t* buy his “conversion.” And why? Because we’re used to jerks who try to placate to us and can see right through it.

  16. I would like to see the percentage of people who joined the Libertarian Party as their very first political party as opposed to those who joined as former Republicans, Democrats, Greens, Etc.

    I’m a former Democrat. GE Smith is a former Green. I have LP friends who are former Republicans and one who is a former Socialist. Point is, people can change their views as they mature politically.

    I will give anyone the benefit of the doubt and will offer a second chance to anyone. Again, if you are “perfect”, then feel free to pass judgment. Otherwise, I suggest giving everyone a second chance. If I wasn’t given a second chance in life, who knows if I would even be here today.

  17. Oh, I am far from perfect, let me be the very first to admit. And I am all for second chances. But politicians are politicians. In the gay community, we’ve had to deal with politicians trying to placate us for so many years that we can see right through the facade. In public, when faced with in, Barr said many times he wanted to repeal DOMA. But to conservatives he has said simply that he wants to repeal *part* of DOMA. How libertarian is that?

    I guess I’m just cynical. I wish the LP was not so quick to offer second chances to politicians with a record like his until he had proven himself as an effective libertarian sympathizer. But he hasn’t. He is still running a PAC to give money to Republicans when Libertarians are in the race.

    Either way, I’ve given up on the LP. I don’t see it ever come back to libertarianism from the paleo-conservatism it’s adopted.

  18. Well it will never “come back” when people leave, rather than staying and trying to fight to re-take the party.

  19. More evidence of cracks in the conservatives splitting of the LP. It ain’t over either!

    Hey Wartman, is this “mindless posting” as well?

  20. I just told Jim privately that I’m “done with blogs” but I’ve posted twice now..haha. The beer is talking.

    Does snipping with Wartman help the cause of returning the Libertarian Party to its roots? What anti-Barr people fail to realize is that you are not only hurting Barr’s campaign (which is the goal I believe), but you’re also hurting other LP candidates, all the way down to the local level.

    Instead of wasting so much energy dissing Bob Barr, why not put that energy into getting some of your libertarian friends running real libertarian campaigns, elected to office?

  21. Bob Barr is the only one hurting Libertarian campaigns all the way down to the local level by supporting Republicans in races where Libertarians are running and going on radio shows to brag about how his campaign will help conservative Republicans “down the line.”

    I’m an elected Libertarian in Massachusetts. No thanks to Bob Barr.

  22. Well for better of for worse, I’ve received emails and calls about people who want to support my campaign and that is do in large part to Bob Barr. When I talk with them, they see how much I’m different than Barr and they think its cool that the Libertarian Party can be so open minded. They still plan to volunteer for my campaign despite my differences with Barr.

    “Converting” folks begins exactly this way. So, Thank You Bob Barr.

  23. I do wish you luck in your campaign, Jason. Let’s just hope Barr’s PAC doesn’t endorse your Republican opponent, if you have one.

  24. Jason Gatties Says:
    June 20, 2008 at 3:55 pm

    Does snipping with Wartman help the cause of returning the Libertarian Party to its roots? What anti-Barr people fail to realize is that you are not only hurting Barr’s campaign (which is the goal I believe), but you’re also hurting other LP candidates, all the way down to the local level.

    Jason Gatties Says:
    June 20, 2008 at 4:06 pm

    they see how much I’m different than Barr and they think its cool that the Libertarian Party can be so open minded.

    First , how do you know that I’m NOT working to get local Libertarians elected (I am).

    Second, I’m all for open mindedness, but shouldn’t such openness stop at torturing the concept and promotion of liberty?

  25. I’m all for open mindedness, but shouldn’t such openness stop at torturing the concept and promotion of liberty?

    I agree! That’s the best argument against the Ron Paul campaign I’ve yet read.

  26. Miller, I have long said that Ron Paul falls short of a “purist” libertarian campaign. Barr’s is?

    However, where he is SO much better than Barr, is his ability to always discuss the short term needs and goals, but also the long term LIBERTARIAN goals, by citing the principle behind it. One example . . . Paul cites the libertarian opposition to the income tax, bercause the premise of it is that the government own you (your time of being productive). Has Barr, or even W.A.R. for that matter EVER done this? Hardly, if ever, and only by chance if ever. Why? Neither is a libertarian and doesn’t know what the libertarian principle behind any particular stance is!

    Even on immigration, Paul has stated that his opposition to open borders is premised on the welfare state, and would be a non-issue of there wasn’t one, and would be much less of a problem if the country was, economically on a better footing.

    I disagree with Paul’s position on abortion as well, as many libertarians do (I also disagree with Barr) but abortion I believe falls outside of libertarian theory, as only science (some would say theology addresses it) can determine if “life begins at conception or birth or somewhere in between”.

    Again, Paul is not perfect, but the MOST important platform stances of the Paul campaign (IMHO), war, economy (and the related taxes, regulation and control of money), and civil liberties were the cornerstone of his campaign. Barr’s campaign cornerstone . . . “federalism”, which isn’t libertarianism at all, but simply ONE strategy to move the dominant coercive element in society, government closer to the governed.

    So Miller, I disagree that this an argument AGAINST Ron Paul’s campaign, but very appropriate AGAINST Barr/W.A.R.

  27. his ability to always discuss the short term needs and goals, but also the long term LIBERTARIAN goals, by citing the principle behind it

    Well, except in that whole pesky privacy law and “individual rights are paramount” and “the 10th amendment also applies to individuals” bit.

    the MOST important platform stances of the Paul campaign (IMHO), war, economy (and the related taxes, regulation and control of money), and civil liberties were the cornerstone of his campaign

    Those were the “MOST important platform stances” to you, perhaps. However, the Republicans chose differently. So did the Libertarians.

    The minute the Ron Paul supporters in the LP were willing to sell the rights of LGBT Americans, women, and immigrants down the river to focus on the issues they thought were “the MOST important,” they lost the right to lecture the rest of the party on “principle.”

    Now that the LP delegates have chosen to emphasize areas that are different from those you deemed important, you’re upset. Why not just stick with that line?

    The reality is, the minute you endorsed Ron Paul, your whole “principle” argument went out the window. You became a pragmatist, willing to sacrifice the rights of other people to see the agenda you most valued become law under Ron Paul. You cannot complain when the LP delegates have taken your example, but chose a different candidate to do so. Sorry.

  28. The anti-Barr people can finally shut up and perhaps we can focus our attentions to 2010 and actually win a battle rather than not do anything about it and bitch after the fact.

    Pot. Kettle. Black.

  29. Hmm, wonder which way the Porcupine vote will fall? This could get interesting.

    Makes me almost wish I could handle New England weather, but unfortunately my life dictates I live in the Sunbelt. (let’s leave it at the physics of low temperatures upon non-removable metal)

  30. Oh, yeah, George. As a cautionary tale, I refer you to the rather sad saga of one Margaret Alia Denny when she ran for Arapahoe County. CO Clerk and Recorder in 2002. I believe there is plenty of material out there on how she got slandered by the talking heads of Denver. As it certainly holds reference to an aspect of your campaign it is worth a check. Write me if you need more detail.

  31. I was talking about anti-Barr people in general. Never said “Steve doesn’t support Libertarians”. I was asking you STEVE if snipping with Wartman accomplishes anything. See the difference. Jesus

    And to Jim, I don’t have a “republican” or “democrat” opponent. Its non-partisan.

  32. Well, this raises an interesting situation.

    Let’s get hypothetical for a moment.

    We have two LP Presidential candidates now.

    Let’s say the unthinkable happens and Barr wins a plurality but not a majority of electoral votes but Phillies also wins NH (let’s leave MA out of this for the moment to keep it simple). Let’s also say that the NH electoral vote total would put Barr over the top, but without it it goes to the House of Representatives.

    Then, what happens? Can the Phillies electors vote Barr?

    Mind you, the odds of this happening are slim to none, but it does make for an interesting intellectual exercise on the electoral college and that process. The thing that makes this interesting is the “two canidates in the same party” part: does that differ over a single candidate in a party getting only a plurality?

    I readily admit I don’t have a clue how that could work, which is why I ask.

    And I bet NH didn’t think this through very well, either.

  33. Great question Michael. I’m going to bring this up in my email news group to gauge reaction. I frankly don’t have the answer.

  34. Jason Gatties Says:
    June 20, 2008 at 5:39 pm

    I was asking you STEVE if snipping with Wartman accomplishes anything. See the difference. Jesus

    Maybe you should ask Wartman why he initiates “snipping”.

    BTW, what does “Jesus” have to do with this?

  35. cause I didn’t feel like saying “FUCK”

  36. Seebeck writes “…Let’s say the unthinkable happens…”

    The unthinkable appears to be what happens when you get a list of all the hallucinogens we think should not be illegal, and try all of them at the same time. Naturally, I do not recommend this procedure.

    The NH people were of the opinion that the important issue was to get 4% of the vote for Senator or Governor, and having a Presidential candidate on the ballot was the piece of the puzzle. They followed the steps needed to put a candidate on the ballot. Nothing is keeping Barr from running as a Libertarian at the same time, and the LPNH steps have almost no effect on his ballot access chances. When you have people doing serious politics, they worry about the serious outcomes, not the silly ones.

  37. George, I am cackling out here. Is your recommendation purely from your knowledge of chemistry? *evil smirk* While we’re at it, let’s throw in salvia, ayahuasca, mugwort, or yeah and mimosa terriblis. Since the gov’t hasn’t gotten to them yet. (I’d like to try and see them illegalize mugwort. That would be hilarious)

  38. oh yeah, henbane, belladonna, datura, etc…. so many weeds, so many “evil” weeds…. lol

  39. bmillerlib Says:
    June 20, 2008 at 5:06 pm

    Well, except in that whole pesky privacy law and “individual rights are paramount” and “the 10th amendment also applies to individuals” bit.

    the MOST important platform stances of the Paul campaign (IMHO), war, economy (and the related taxes, regulation and control of money), and civil liberties were the cornerstone of his campaign

    Those were the “MOST important platform stances” to you, perhaps. However, the Republicans chose differently. So did the Libertarians.

    So, you are a “one-issue” libertarian?

    Here is the answer . . . “The minute the Ron Paul supporters in the LP were willing to sell the rights of LGBT Americans, women, and immigrants down the river to focus on the issues they thought were “the MOST important,” they lost the right to lecture the rest of the party on “principle.”” (BTW, how did Paul “sell women’s rights down the river?” )

    I thought that only individuals possessed rights. And since the control of the economy is the engine by which all individual rights are oppressed, the MOST important issue should be for each of us, individually and cooperatively to take away the power of government to use our own productivity to oppress us!

    And Barr, based upon your analysis retains that right? Oh, right, Barr isn’t even a libertarian, so how could he retain such a right . . he never had it!

    And this is enough to support Barr?

  40. Gatties, how about “sheesh” like the last time?

  41. I prefer “Jesus” or “Fuck”

    Thanks though.

  42. “I thought that only individuals possessed rights. And since the control of the economy is the engine by which all individual rights are oppressed, the MOST important issue should be for each of us, individually and cooperatively to take away the power of government to use our own productivity to oppress us!”

    Thank you, Steve, for pointing out the ridiculousness of Mr. Miller’s criticism of Paul for not adopting collectivist “rights”.

  43. No, George, the unthinkable is that Barr gets anywhere near a plurality. I said the situation was hypothetical, after all. It makes for a good mental exercise on the failings of the Electoral College, the biggest of which is that it never accounted for political parties, or advances in communication and transportation.

  44. OTOH, as I think of it, a refersher on the Electoral Vote of 1860 might answer that question as well..

  45. since the control of the economy is the engine by which all individual rights are oppressed

    Huh?

    I cannot reply to that except to wonder if you are partaking of the substances that George referred to earlier.

  46. Control of the economy methods used by government. . . in no particular order, 1-Regulation, 2-Taxation, 3-Money(creation, destruction, regulation of value), along with other less extensive means.

    Let’s face it, without being able to tax and/or inflate the money supply for government’s purposes, all the laws that any government passes mean nothing if there isn’t money to pay for an enforcement mechanism.

    I wasn’t referring to anything “George referred to earlier”.

    So, if YOUR “issues” are “rights of LGBT Americans, women, and immigrants”, without the money to enforce laws which infringe on the rights of these folks, the government is powerless to oppress these folks individual rights, as well as anybody else’s. I think it is pretty clear. If you don’t then you are IMO hopelessly lost in the specifics of your pet “issues”.

  47. George is far more centrist than I’d like, but I’d be willing to vote for him and I’d cast an electoral vote for him. I could not do either for Barr.

    Paul wasn’t great on some issues, but IMHO he overall scores far more libertarian than Barr, to the point where if he had made it to the general I would have seriously considered voting for him, despite the R after his name…

    Of course at this point, it’s rather moot, other than needing to decide who I will cast my electoral vote for in the unlikely event that the LP carries Mass… (maybe I could bring back the Smith/Suprynowicz ticket, if I really wanted to vote Libertarian…)

    ART

  48. This thread is about the right of political parties to put federal candidates on the ballot as a unified slate, in multiple States. The fact that every single person on here is not totally outraged with Phillies’ actions is unconscienable.

    Apparently involvement with the Libertarian Party is all just a game to you people.

    In countries where the mainstream political establishment knows that they can use obtuse rules to divide their political opposition and render it de facto ineffective, or impossible to vote for, there is no disincentive for the incumbent political party to do all the worst things governments are known to do, such as murder political opponents, or those opponents’ supporters. That means: everyone on this blog. All of your IP addresses are recorded, and it would be child’s play for a newly-created American secret police to hunt you all down and literally murder you.

    Every last one of you.

    Keep in mind that when Phillies congratulates NH for choosing him to be the LP presidential candidate, or when other people make light of this “bureaucratic rule” or “silly little mix-up” that what they are joking about is the right of the people to solidify their electoral power in opposition to the highest tyrant in the land.

    If this power disappears, because anonymous statists secretly wish to interfere with the Libertarian Party’s access to the ballot, then the chance for winning electoral freedom (or even holding a power-limiting election) is gone all the same.

    RJ Rummel illustrates the importance of this much better than I can, here:
    http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/WF.CHAP3.HTM

    Have you ever taken a look at the lists of “the disappeared” from Pinochet’s Chile?

    Had there been clean elections, and had the people been allowed their choice, those mass-murderings might never have happened.

    Clean elections literally save lives.

    Nobody chose Phillies or Bennet as so much as dog-catcher. They were placeholders only.

    If you have resentments, or sour grapes after getting your asses owned at your own convention (because you can’t figure out how to play a zero-sum game), then buy a book on game theory, or basic strategy, and figure it out.

    Until then, show unity with the army that you’ve run out onto the battlefield with. This is an apt analogy.

    The enemy might literally kill you if you let your guard down, and don’t fight for your life (Your ONE single, presidential candidate’s access to the ballot). And your fellow soldiers might literally kill you if they wind up next to you in the prison camps, years later, after Bob Barr shot to the top of the polls, because the public finally saw evidence of the depth of McCain and Obama’s crimes, and then lost by one state’s electoral votes, because he wasn’t on the ballot in NH.

    Moreover, not being on the ballot properly in the supposed “Free State Project State” for two election cycles after NH was chosen almost seems like active malfeasance on behalf of people who actually give a shit.

    …So I guess that rules out malfeasance on behalf of the “Libertarians” here.

    “I would have seriously considered voting for him, despite the R after his name…” –This just shows what a total and complete joke most “libertarians” are. You’d have “considered” voting for Paul in November, if he was on the ballot?!

    I don’t think there would have had to have been much “considering” done by anyone who knows their ass from a hole in the ground. Let me get this straight: If Paul, despite his shaky and stumbling performances on TV, somehow overcame the Republican war machine, and battled his way to the general election ballot, (reawakening and animating the now virtually braindead “Republican” masses, in the informed direction of individual freedom), you’d “consider” voting for him?

    …With friends like these!

    And I love the totally delusional favoring of bringing back the LP’s worst instance of aiming automatic weapons at both feet and pulling the triggers! Classic! Smith and Suprynowicz? Yeah! Arizona! The state that made us all look like the earth’s biggest horses’ asses!

    I know, we’ll rebel against our own Party! That’ll result in victory! That’ll result in more freedom!

    Smart thinkin’, ART!

    I was opposed to Barr at first, and still have some serious misgivings about him. I am a die-hard libertarian.

    But if it takes Barr to kick the LP membership’s sorry “fairweather libertarian” asses, and FORCE THEM TO TAKE STRATEGY SERIOUSLY, then I’m all for it.

    Wake up assholes. We’re all one step from the literal Gulag, and I don’t want to die in a mass grave because Phillies takes it lightly that the NH secretary of state is “letting him run for president”. Nobody chose you to run for President, George. You’re literally using the Government of the State of New Hampshire to make a mockery of the Libertarian Party if you allow yourself to be listed on the ballot in NH, and if you don’t fight tooth and nail to oppose all efforts to be listed as such in any State where you were the “place holder”.

    George, the NH Sec of State ISN’T LIBERTARIAN, AND DOESN’T WANT LIBERTY, and could obviously give a shit if the LP was rendered ineffective by his dickheaded decisions. I’m sure he thinks that any law that keeps individualists off the ballot is simply a legitimate “Law for the Protection of the People and the State” (The law is in quotes because it’s the same name as the law that Hindenburg gave Hitler to allow him to outlaw socialists and marxists having access to the German ballot.)

    It isn’t up to you or anyone else to decide what to do about being listed as the Presidential candidate in NH. Everyone who has any honor at all will fight to have Barr/Root listed as the candidates in NH.

    NH ballot access is an easy task. If the National LP’s ballot access effort were not urinating on its past petitioners for no apparent reason, it would already be done. I have no clue why the issue with Fincher has not been resolved.

    That said, I can thank Phillies for taking the lead in dealing with Fincher fairly. But anything less than total dedication to getting Barr on the ballot is unforgivable. That’s the attitude a “placeholder” has to take in order to have any credibility, integrity, or honor at all, given the current situation.

    When Barr refused to debate the other Libertarian candidates prior to the Denver Nomination, he clearly showed us that he need not respect our political power, our organization, nor our weak and useless strategy. Luckily, he doesn’t appear to be laughing at us. He simply took us to school on how to organize politically. I thank him for that.

    He could be doing a lot worse things right now, and all the whining and crying and pissing and moaning wouldn’t change a thing, except to make us look even smaller and less threatening than we already look. Wake up and look at the rest of the world. They are looking in at us with only the crudest of minds. They don’t have the philosophy or the intelligence to think half the thoughts we are thinking, or they’d have sought them out already.

    Searching for the truth on the internet is easy. It requires simple logical ability.

    Barr might not have much depth to his libertarian philosophy. He’s still apparently a beginner to the concepts of Peikoff, Von Mises, Hayek, Spooner, Rand, Heinlein, John Ross, and yes, Suprynowicz (who should stick to writing, and stay far away from running for federal office in opposition to already-on-the-ballot stellar Libertarian Party candidates).

    …But Barr has a lot to teach us about “building a political apparatus, and getting things done”.

    For instance: Hire loyal and competent people, and treat them right, and let everyone know what kind of numbers you need to make something happen. If you have them, proceed. …Never tip your hand. ETC… (Winning Elections 101)

    Sadly, many will not learn even when they are physically dragged into the classroom, and schooled.

    But don’t pretend that being the loser of a fair and open nominating process makes you the winner. Our presidential candidate should not be different in one single state, nor should he or she EVER be kept off the ballot in one single state.

    To do so makes us non-competitive with the other parties for the one single election that most Americans pay some attention to.

    “On July 14th 1933, a law was passed making it illegal to form a new political party. It also made the Nazi Party the only legal political party in Germany.”

    Do you think our legislative branch will be so bold, or will they just leave it up to our “Secretaries of State” to eliminate (even limited) choice from the ballot?

    Stop dicking around and support Barr. You get no prize for figuring out that I was right after November 4, 2008. If Barr gets a high vote total, it means that the 2012 nominee doesn’t have to start so far behind, and it makes everyone currently in the LP seem smart (while making everyone who resigned in disgust after the nomination seem stupid).

    Life goes on. Unless we’re dead. …Let’s try not to make any more near fatal and easily avoidable errors.

  49. My error: It would have been more proper to put a comma before the word “assholes” above. I don’t want you assholes to go out and wake up even more assholes. There are enough of them in the Party already. It should have read, “Wake up, assholes!”

    I’m sure there are other errors as well. I was feeling like an asshole when I wrote it. I was feeling like I felt before I realized that most government youth propaganda camp graduates still have no idea whether the word “libertarian” is closer in meaning to “individualist” or “socialist”.

    If any of you ever feel like that yourselves, I strongly urge you to petition for Libertarian Party ballot access, and keep brutally accurate numbers of how many people you talk to every day, and how many fell into the various categories of “not helpful to our side”. If you do this, the scale of the problem is likely to come into focus pretty quickly.

    You might decide that what you’re doing is impossible, and simply fuck off. If so, thank you very much for coming to the same conclusion I’ve come to, now we can use this board as a place to organize ourselves.

    Once you realize that what we’re doing is important, it behooves you not to sit around infighting all day, but to
    1) call radio shows, and put forth a calm, polite, reasonable sounding defense of our most popular candidate in your area
    2) stop criticizing the LP candidate that is on the ballot. The time to do that is before he makes it to the ballot, AT THE CONVENTION.
    3) not choose to try to destroy the Libertarian Party out of spite because your side failed to do what was necessary to place their candidate on the ballot. (this may require you to understand that after 2008, there will be ANOTHER presidential election)
    4) learn how elections are won, and try to help libertarians win them.
    5) To do parts of campaigns that require real work, not just easy advice. We all know that someone who has shaggy dreadlocks, has facial piercings, dresses in full pirate regalia, and is openly rude is less electable than someone who is cleancut and polite. That’s not what we need to know (people with major deficiencies should not even make it that far, and our lack of support for them should reveal that we are not also delusional). We will listen to advice when you put in major effort out-organizing the Demopublicans. THAT IS THE VALUE IN A POLITICAL PARTY: You don’t need to shoot people to get them to leave you alone, you can merely trick a bunch of stupid people using generalities to voluntarily put someone in office who will choose to leave you alone.

    That is the choice. It’s not a good choice. But it’s THE CHOICE THAT EXISTS IN REALITY.

    Those of you who don’t like that choice should buy a lot of guns, and learn how to use them, or learn to accept Barack McCain Obama as your chief mulcter and overlord.

  50. Except that Phillies was not a placeholder in NH. Everyone in the NHLP and Phillies all knew that the state did not allow substitution when they nominated him early, when he accepted the nomination, and when they petitioned and got him on the ballot.

    The best you can hope for is that Barr will also be on the ballot there as well. In fact, Phillies reports that he personally got some signatures to put Barr on the ballot in NH on July 4, even though he would be “running against him.” If Barr is not on the ballot in NH, don’t blame Phillies.

    The situation in MA is different – the state originally said substitution would be allowed, as it always had in the past, and only reversed itself after the LP convention. Phillies alerted national to that fact, and presented them with the alternatives 1) Keep getting signatures and sue for substitution 2) Stop and start over with Barr/Root and a new slate of electors 3) Allow Phillies to go on the ballot. National LP (Sean Haugh, I believe, although I don’t know if LNC input was received) chose to go with #1. Phillies helped with finding legal representation. If Barr is not on the ballot in MA, don’t blame Phillies.

  51. Sorry, Exit – but I value my principles… I am not for sale to the highest bidder, and I don’t act as a shill for anyone. I’m also not afraid to tell people who I REALLY am…

    When I signed up to be an elector, I pledged to support a LIBERTARIAN candidate. That the subtly rigged convention chose to nominate a ticket that was not composed of Libertarians, I do not feel imposes any obligation on me.

    Incedentally, I’ve also been around for a while, I voted for Paul the first time he ran for Pres… The HPS in the Grove that I’m a member of (Yes, one of those Pagan groups that Barr tried to deny religious freedom to…) was an organizer for HOSPERS…. (Her response on hearing that Barr got the nomination was “so much for the LP”)

    I’ve met Barr, and he gave me the waffle line on DOMA, and refused to show any sign of regret about his attempted anti-Pagan pogrom. Further, every topic I look at where I can find a stance he has taken, he fails to take a Libertarian position. I have problems with some of Paul’s record, but Barr pretty much agrees with Paul in those problem areas and fails in the rest as well… Overall score Paul wins…

    I don’t particularly care what vote total Barr gets, in many ways a high Barr vote is a BAD thing as it makes the LP an even bigger takeover target for third rate failed Demoblicans like Barr and Gravel that couldn’t hack it in their original party. I see no assurance that anyone voting for Barr would be more likely to vote for any future REAL Libertarian candidate, since they didn’t vote for one when they voted for Barr.

    In terms of doing politics? I am a multi-term ELECTED officeholder – granted at the bottom of the political food chain, but I’ve been through 2 elections, will be going for my third next spring. In addition I’m now Vice Chair of my Town’s Rules Committee, and hold several other appointed offices. I’ve collected sigs for many candidates in the past, including past presidential candidates. I’ve collected sigs for over a dozen different freedom related referendum petitions….

    Besides being a shill, what have you done?

    ART

  52. […] in New Hampshire. Apparently, no one told the pollsters, the pollees, or Bradley that Barr likely won’t even be on the ballot in the Granite State, in which the LP will be represented by George Phillies — a fact that […]

  53. Sorry, Exit, but when you regularly blog through TWO different anonymizer pages, IPs become meaningless.

    Methinks you are being a little off the reservation.

  54. I think it quite hilarious that the LP is having trouble putting its non-libertarian candidate on the ballot.

    With regard to Boston Tea Party, we are eager to organise an affiliate in New Hampshire to put us on the ballot there, if possible in the next few weeks. Meanwhile, we have excellent prospects of having Charles Jay on the ballot in about ten other states, notably Florida and Colorado, probably Louisiana.

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: