Steve G.

LFV Exclusive: LNC filing ballot access suit without informing LNC members or LNC attorney

In Libertarian on August 19, 2008 at 9:55 pm

The Libertarian Party (Libertarian National Committee, Incorporated) is apparently preparing to file suit against the New Hampshire Secretary of State. The lawsuit will demand that the state place Bob Barr on the ballot, and remove George Phillies from the ballot.

This suit is separate and distinct from the ACLU lawsuit in Massachusetts to substitute Bob Barr in place of George Phillies on the Massachusetts ballot.

Strangely, many who should have been informed of this action seem to have not been informed at all. The list of those who were not informed appears to include LNC members Angela Keaton, Lee Wrights, Mary Ruwart, Rachel Hawkridge, and even LNC Vice-Chair Michael Jingozian.

Even more strangely, it appears that the LNC’s retained attorney, Bill Hall, was not apprised that the LNC is taking this action through another attorney.

Professor George Phillies, as well as the LPNH State Chair, received calls late yesterday from the attorney handling the planned lawsuit for the LNC. However, while Dr. Phillies has agreed to cooperate with the lawsuit to place Bob Barr on the ballot in Massachusetts, Phillies will oppose any effort to remove him from the ballot in New Hampshire, due to an ethical obligation to all the New Hampshire voters who signed petitions.

Dr. Phillies is currently the only Libertarian presidential candidate on the New Hampshire ballot.

When nominated, Bob Barr and the LNC faced a choice if they wanted Barr to be on the New Hampshire ballot. They could either do their own petitioning in New Hampshire, or litigate. They petitioned, and have filed over five thousand nominating papers in New Hampshire. News of a separate LNC lawsuit came as a surprise, since they had already filed the nominating papers.

Why is the LNC litigating? It is not clear, but it is possible that they wish to make an example of the outspoken Dr. Phillies, who has openly opposed Barr and the LP on a number of issues, by actually removing him from the ballot. However, since Dr. Phillies met all state criteria for ballot inclusion, and has already been formally qualified by the Secretary of State, it is extremely unlikely that any court would ever remove him without his agreement.

It is unknown at this time exactly when the suit will be filed, or when or if LNC Chair Bill Redpath is planning to tell the LNC members and the LNC’s regular retained counsel about the suit. It is also unknown how the LNC intends to fund the lawsuit, in light of its recent fundraising weakness.

  1. Good.

  2. Um…hmm. The whole thing is very strange.

    I do not understand what the point of having Phillies on the ballot in only one state is. How do you campaign for president when you’re only on one ballot? That seems ridiculous.

    Ridiculous also seems the actions of the LNC, something I don’t really want to know about.

  3. Jeff, care to explain why this is “good”? Is it “good” that Redpath & others did this WITHOUT the knowledge of many LNC members. To the best of my knowledge, nothing of this nature can be done without a discussion.

    I want my party back. I’ve invested many hours of my life to this party and this movement. Explain to me Jeff why this is “good”. I would love to hear your explanation.

  4. All right, somebody has to say it, so I will.

    Redpath, Sullentrop, Starr: RESIGN NOW!

    If they are not communicating with the General Counsel or even the Vice-Chair, let alone a at least a third of the LNC, then they have no idea what they are doing and don’t deserve to be there.

    Especially if they are tilting at this windmill, wasting membership money on a lawsuit that will fail, all to get back at an outspoken critic in a pure political move. This is a variation of a SLAPP suit, but in this case the success is likely nil and is gross financial mismanagement, not to mention a grossly unethical abuse of power.

    Further, expending funds falls under the direction of the LNC per the Bylaws, and doing so without consulting the LNC violates Art 7, Sec 7, and Art 8, Sec 1.

    Barr got his own petitions filed and will most likely be on the ballot, so this suit makes no sense. It is an unnecessary waste of time and resources when the real effort should be the remaining ballot access areas where the LP is not on the ballot, not where it already is!

  5. […] to Last Free Voice: The Libertarian Party (Libertarian National Committee, Incorporated) is apparently preparing to […]

  6. Under the Classified By-Laws, Section 892, Paragraph 331(F), the Double Secret Pragmatism Caucus of the LNC may have a closed meeting of at least two of the most equal members of the LNC and vote to do any damn thing they please.

    Under certain circumstances, the powers of the Double Secret Pragmatism Caucus of the LNC can be delegated to the Executive Director of the LPHQ.

    The naysayer purists just need to shut up and send a donation to the LP. Let the moderate adults “do real politics” and Barr/Root can’t lose.

  7. Tom, sarcasm aside, they broke the rules, and they are wasting the membership’s money for political infighting instead of doing their job. So tell me, if they’re wasting money like that, the why the hell should anybody send them more?

  8. Redpath should resign, and if that fails, he should be removed by force.

    Sic semper tyrannis.

  9. This makes sense if the object is to divert attention from the fact of possibly deliberate short ballot access. So even if Barr/Root is suspended pursuant to party bylaws for cause, whoever is the replacement ticket will have insufficient ballot access to win even with the Progressive Alliance Strategy. Sabotage. Throw down a few tacks & the movement is a lame foot. I said this long ago. The LP’s ballot access is very important.

  10. Phillies made us do it.

  11. Milnes, you are delusional.

  12. Jennifer Schulz asks, “I do not understand what the point of having Phillies on the ballot in only one state is. How do you campaign for president when you’re only on one ballot? That seems ridiculous.”

    Here’s the point: The voters of New Hampshire signed petitions to place George on the ballot. Who are you to call the voters of New Hampshire ridiculous? Professor Phillies gained ballot access by legitimate process. If you don’t like the process, move to New Hampshire and change it.

    You are mistaken. At this point, George is on the ballot in two states, Massachusetts and New Hampshire. So is Chris Bennett. It would be just as ridiculous to suggest that you are racist because you oppose a black vice presidential candidate on the LP ticket in New Hampshire as it is to suggest that George and Chris are ridiculous to run. At least the voters of New Hampshire (and possibly Mass. if the LP loses its suit there) have the opportunity to vote for an actually libertarian candidate.

    Ms. Schulz also notes, “Ridiculous also seems the actions of the LNC, something I don’t really want to know about.”

    How perverse? Would sticking your head in the sand, or some other dank wet place, make your party any better? You should want to know about what is being done in your party. If any of the list of deceived LNC members, such as Hawkridge, Wrights, Ruwart, Jingozian or Keaton represents you, wouldn’t you at least want them to be informed? Or is it better that you go through life ignorant and complacent?

  13. I’m not privy to any extra information, but still I don’t think we know all the facts and I think we’re only seeing one side of the story.

    Did the Executive Committee authorize the lawsuit? Did Redpath as Chair authorize the lawsuit? When were they planning on informing the rest of the LNC (a day, a week, a month… a short delay could be reasonable to prepare EC minutes or get more information to fully brief the LNC)?

    Is it possible that the EC and/or LNC discussed a substitution lawsuit involving George Phillies and there was simply a misunderstanding/miscommunication about whether the lawsuit would go forward without Phillies’ cooperation?

    Perhaps the allegations and the tone of this story will turn out to be correct, but I generally try to give people the benefit of the doubt and not assume the worst until I’ve heard from all involved.

  14. Michael Seebeck, read “The Age of Surveillance” by Donner a commie from inside a federal correctional institution like I did then get back to me. ok?

  15. I can vouch for a good number of the factual details in the above story, including receiving an email from the LPNH state chair saying he had been called.

    The LNC could not have made this decision, because if they did their members would know about it, and a fair number of them do not. I asked.

    There is a bad precedent that someone is proposing to try to set here.

  16. Bad precedent? Is that like being a supporter of Republican tax and spend politicians as many Libertarians have done in the past. Be very careful the company your keep or your credibility can be damaged by association like associating with a no-name like me:)

  17. If this is true, Mr. Redpath should leave his post, not because of the issue at hand, but because of the obvious violation of the procedures of the LNC.

  18. At the moment I have no reason to doubt Angela. However, I must say this is sad if true.

    Has anyone emailed Redpath and asked about this? Let’s try to get it out in the open and get more information. Maybe it can be halted before it gets too far along.

    MHW

  19. I’m not sure what the point of another lawsuit is, especially when the ACLU is already working towards exactly the same goals. It seems like a waste of money.

    I also can’t imagine how such a lawsuit could be persued without at least the knowledge of the LNC. Certainly, someone is way overstepping their bounds.

    As far as Phillies having an “ethical obligation” to those that signed petitions for him … bullshit. He knew he was a stand-in until the convention, and had Ruwart or Kubby won, then I doubt he would find himself with the same sense of obligation.

  20. I re-read the article a little more closely. Now I get it. The ACLU lawsuit is for substitution of Phillies with Barr. That is the one Phillies has helped with, so all of the original petition signers would not be “disenfranchised”.

    However, Barr has apparently completed petitioning (I assume successfully) and will be on the ballot, anyway. This is just a move to kick Phillies off of the ballot, making those petitions gathered by the LPNH worthless.

    The ACLU case seems to be about smashing unnecessary roadblocks for third parties. This new one is just some folks pulling Dem/Rep tricks to boot competition. Am I right?

    My apologies to George if this is the case.

    However, if either case where to succeed wouldn’t the actual outcome be the same? Barr on, Phillies off?

  21. What Mr. Moulton said. And yet another reason why the LP needs to have its presidential nominating convention in the previous year so all petitioning formalities can be worked out, so the candidate has time to visit state parties and set up functioning campaign committees, etc. etc.

  22. Michael Seebeck says:

    “Tom, sarcasm aside, they broke the rules, and they are wasting the membership’s money for political infighting instead of doing their job. So tell me, if they’re wasting money like that, the why the hell should anybody send them more?”

    The fact that anyone could read my post (No. 6) and take any of that seriously shows how far down the crapper the LP has been flushed.

    I was merely mocking the buffoons that have made the LP their home (and welcomed by the LP) and no matter how absurd their rants, are taken seriously. The notion that Barr/Root can’t lose is ridiculous, and yet Mr. Seebeck made no comment about that – perhaps as a result of the mindless boosterism that exists in the LP, as opposed to honesty.

    Of course they broke the rules and of course no person in their right mind would send these people money. After supporting the LP for about 25 years, I called it quits in 2005. The Iraq Exit Strategy was the last straw. Rules don’t seem to apply to folks like Shane Cory.

    There are many good people in the LP and I hate to see them spinning their wheels, but the LP as a politically relevant organization has ceased to exist.

    Sideways baby-steps in the direction of “more freedom” and “less taxes” as a response to giant strides towards a totalitarian welfare/warfare state is not moderate pragmatism – it is consigning your children to economic slavery devoid of liberty.

  23. Chris,

    You write:

    “I’m not sure what the point of another lawsuit is, especially when the ACLU is already working towards exactly the same goals. It seems like a waste of money.”

    The point of the lawsuit, if I’m reading things right, is to press the LNC’s ridiculous claim to ownership of the phrase “Libertarian Party.”

    Back in late 1999, the LNC disaffiliated the Arizona LP and recognized a new affiliate. The state of Arizona, however, continued to recognize the old AZLP organization. Ultimately, not being affiliated with the LNC, and not being represented at or bound by the LNC’s national convention, the AZLP nominated its own presidential slate. That situation sorted itself out in-state later, but …

    … in the meantime, the LNC filed a frivolous and indefensible trademark claim on the phrase “Libertarian Party,” and indicated that its attitude is that it owns that name and that state parties not (or no longer) affiliated with it aren’t entitled to use it.

    The LNC’s continuously held position since the Arizona fiasco seems to be that, contrary to law, history, fact and reality, state parties are owned by the national umbrella organizations they create rather than the other way around. It looks to me like this lawsuit is an attempt to enforce that absurd claim by sitting the LPNH in the corner and taking control of its ballot line from the Watergate.

  24. The issue is that there are two states involved, with two different records and two different sets of laws.

    The ACLU lawsuit is in *Massachusetts*.

    The LNC lawsuit is in *New Hampshire*.

    Chris Moore doesn’t seem to have noticed this geographic issue.

  25. George, you are right. As I am merely a more casual observer, I hope you can understand why I might be confused. It is a confusing situation.

    My apologies, once again.

    However, I was under the impression that you knew your place on the New Hampshire petitions was that of place-holder until the convention. If that is the case, then how does that now square with your “ethical obligation”?

  26. My own observation about George Phillies as the nominee of the LPNH, and appearing on the NH ballot as the LP nominee in that state:

    a-George was never, in his own mind, nor the minds of the LPNH folks a “placeholder”. It was well known amongst all parties involved, that there would be NO substitution of the nominee according to NH law, thus the “placeholder” characterization is unfounded.

    b-The NHLP WANTED George Phillies as their candidate, BEFORE the LP nominating convention in Denver.

    c-George Phillies, wants to honor his nomination, as the choice of the NHLP.

    Whether any of this has any bearing upon lawsuits or any other actions, I do not know, but I will be happy to change my understanding of this situation if I have misstated what is exactly is what!

  27. Steve, if that is the case, then that makes this lawsuit in NH even worse.

    The LP cannot complain about the GOP in Pennsylvania filing suit to bump Barr off the ballot while simultaneously initiating a lawsuit against the ballot status of one of their competitors.

  28. Milnes, I’ll get back to you when your Progressive/Libertarian Alliance gets more than one supporter, meaning it actually gets you a date.

    Blanton, I recognized the sarcasm, as pathetic and third-grade as it was. It’s too bad you can’t seem to read what *I* have said over time. If you did, you would know that I never said I thought Barr/Root couldn’t lose–in fact, it’s just the opposite–they are, as I and many others in Denver predicted but fell on deaf ears, crashing in flames. It’s no secret that I have NEVER been a supporter of either. so forgive me when I say “I TOLD YOU SO!”

    And my own confidential sources on this are far more informed on this. If the LPUS pursues this lawsuit, they will be signing the LP’s death certificate, from sheer incompetence. That’s why, for the good of the LP, the Three Stooges need to resign.

    One last thing: read the Bylaws. As of Denver, the LPUS charters state affiliates, who charters local affiliates. And, yes, LPUS does own the LP trademark legally. Ask Bill Hall, the same way that others did from the floor during the convention in Denver on that very issue.

  29. BTW, it should be pointed out that George is the innocent party in this. He’s doing what LPNH is wanting, to be their nominee. NH is following their own laws, and Barr submitted his own set of petitions for the ballot according to those laws, so neither of them are the bad guys here either, even if Barr is implicated becasue he would benefit from the situation.

  30. Meanwhile, it looks like Ruwart is smeared for questioning the unprofessional practice of board fundraising that takes the board away from watching the money. These are the sorts of things the money goes to. Redpath shows the real objective by not even telling the board.

    Get these conservative crooks out!

  31. I usually agree with Prof. Phillies. However on one issue here I must disagree. He should have declined LPNH nomination. It begs the question, “What happens if I lose the LP nomination, LPNH?” That would leave either the real nominee not on the ballot or a split ballot. It is only coincidence that one could argue that this gives NH voters a choice-a real libertarian or an unreal libertarian. (Dixiecrat conservative being an unreal libertarian) & the real nominee is the unreal libertarian.

  32. The NHLP WANTED George Phillies as their candidate, BEFORE the LP nominating convention in Denver.

    Which goes to show that NH is not any kind of “free” state worth moving to.

  33. The LP cannot complain about the GOP in Pennsylvania filing suit to bump Barr off the ballot while simultaneously initiating a lawsuit against the ballot status of one of their competitors.

    Where have you been? Barr complains about not being allowed in the debates while refusing to debate his third-party peers (just as he refused to debate others seeking the LP nomination).

    Barr and the Redpath criminal junta have no integrity and no shame, and neither does anyone who continues to support them. They’ve proven it time and time again.

  34. What is to become of the LP? Those who hold most of the power seem to have little of the “princple.” Is it time for the “Libertarian wing of the Libertarian Party” to exercise our right to seceed?

    If we could all get together under one umbrella, I’d be all for it. If we are going to splinter into a million pieces we deny the nation any opportunity to have a viable third party. On the other hand, the direction our current leadershp seems to be taking us in, will make us unnecessary as a third party since their “Libertarian lite” approach could fit into the Donkeys and the Pacaderms as comfortably as the Blue Dogs and their Republican counterparts.

    The challenge is for those of us who believe in the pure principles of our party to come together either within the party or form a new party, but only one. The same thirst for purity on a broader scale that might drive us out of the existing party could drive us to continue to subdivide over increasingly narrow differences unless there is a firm commitment for those who want to leave, (if any) to leave together.

  35. John Howell, agreed. The choices seem to me to be either find a remedy for the LP situation in house or mass defection to BTP.

  36. Correction: there is another alternative. Create Milsted’s “upper left” party. My preference is the in house remedy.

  37. Chris,

    Apologies happily accepted. It is a bit confusing.

    In New Hampshire, I was not the placeholder, I was the candidate.

    In Massachusetts, I was a credible candidate for the nomination, who did not happen to win.

    George

  38. I have heard–but this is my first chance today to act on the matter–from my good friend Angela Keaton, who notes that this is not an issue as to the merits of the case but basic corporate responsibility as to how law suits are initiated.

    Assuredly neither the National Committee nor the LNC ExComm — having asked members directly if they had done so — seems to have voted to approve the litigation about which I was seemingly legitimately approached.

  39. Michael,

    You write:

    “One last thing: read the Bylaws. As of Denver, the LPUS charters state affiliates, who charters local affiliates.”

    Nothing to disagree with there — but I think you’re missing the point.

    The LNC does indeed decide what organizations in what states are its affiliates. That does not, however, mean that it owns those affiliates or that those affiliates cease to exist as organizations if they cease to be affiliates of LNC. Political parties are organized at the state level, under the states’ election laws.

    If (for example) the New Hampshire LP ceases to be an affiliate of the LNC, that doesn’t mean that the New Hampshire LP ceases to exist as an organization, or that its name ceases to be Libertarian Party of New Hampshire.

    “And, yes, LPUS does own the LP trademark legally. Ask Bill Hall, the same way that others did from the floor during the convention in Denver on that very issue.”

    The LNC claims to own the LP trademark legally — and Bill Hall, as the LNC’s counsel, can be expected to state that claim as fact when asked. That he states the claim does not make the claim fact. The LNC was not the first entity to use the phrase “Libertarian Party” in commerce, and that phrase was used by various entities for than 30 years without any attempt on the LNC’s part to enjoin said use before the LNC filed its frivolous and meritless trademark aplication. If LNC ever attempts to enforce the alleged trademark in court versus one of the state LPs, it will get its ass handed to it in court.

  40. PTO:

    Word Mark LIBERTARIAN PARTY
    Serial Number 75937476
    Owner (REGISTRANT) Libertarian National Committee, Inc.

    Hate Hate Hate Hate Hate all you all can do is Hate Hate Hate Hate Hate

    Word Mark BOSTON TEA PARTY
    Registration Number 3486183
    Owner (REGISTRANT) IGT CORPORATION NEVADA

    Any one know who this is? They may be filing a complaint against certain members of BTP for mis-use of their name.

    Love Love Love Love I’m joining the BTP and quiting the LP because all you people can do nothing but Hate Hate Hate Hate Hate

  41. Bubbu Blanco,

    I’ve already explained why the LNC’s trademark registration wouldn’t stand up in court.

    IGT’s registration, as applied to a political party, would be an even weaker case. Not only has the term “Boston Tea Party” been in use for much longer than the term “Libertarian Party” prior to the application, but IGT’s application is almost certainly for a product which the Boston Tea Party as a political organization is not in competition with.

    I’m not sure what all this “hate hate hate” stuff is about. I don’t hate the Libertarian Party. As a matter of fact, I am running for Congress as a Libertarian, and just last night was elected chair of the St. Louis County, Missouri Libertarian Central Committee. If I hated the Libertarian Party, I’d be jumping for joy at what the LNC is doing to that party right now.

  42. Tom, I didn’t miss the point. In fact I ignored the disaffilaition argument entirely, because *that* misses the point, which is about the actions of a cabal within the LNC, not the associations of the several state parties. My point was that the chain of affiliation is also a chain of licensure, which includes copyrighted and trademarked material.

    Very few in the LP want to go through the Arizona mess again. We have much bigger fish to fry with the limited resources we have than that. Going through another disaffilaition mess would literally destroy the party, and this situation does not call for that. States rebuking the LNC for acting stupid is certainly an option, but disaffiliation over this is like committing suicide because a mosquito bit your nose–overreaction.

    I also talked to a trademark and copyright lawyer. Such a case is not as frivolous and meritless as you think, since the GOP and DP have similar trademarks on their names. As he explained it to me, trademarks on names are more than just the name itself, but the context it is associated with. for decades the McMahon family, DBA Titan Sports, had a trademark on the “WWF” logo they had used. A few years ago the World Wildlife Fund, a younger organization, sued in federal district court, claiming trademark infringment. The district court dismissed the complaint on context rules. It was reversed by an international court, and that’s why the wrestling organization changed to “WWE” instead (in order to continue to business overseas), but they still own the “WWF” trademark in the wrestling context, and it is still used on their archive footage on cable.

  43. One more thing, Tom, state political parties can organize under state election laws, BUT, as we have seen with the CP/AIP in CA, that doesn’t make them part of the whole.

    Remember, Tashjian was a far-reaching ruling that gave political parties a free hand in determining under the First Amendment their own orgnaization, structure, and voting rules for primaries. In short, where the party bylaws address something, it overrules state election law, but where it is not mentioned, state election law rules.

    If a state LP were to disaffiliate from the LPUS, they could no longer use the LP brand, becasue the license to use that brand comes with the affiliation, per the national Bylaws and normal legal principles that surround legal affiliations. This is why the breakoff faction in Arizona used a different, and incorporated name.

    The clusterf**ks that are the remains of the Reform Party are enough to illustrate just what would happen if state LPs were to secede from the LPUS.

  44. Michael,

    You’re addressing about four different issues here. I’ll be glad to let the trademark issue slide until and unless the LNC makes the very stupid decision to try to enforce its claim on a name it did not invent, did not first use in commerce, did not defend for 30 years, and which was used by at least one state political party before the LNC even informally came into existence. Then I guess we’ll see who was right.

    I consider the CP/AIP issue very relevant. I’m not sure why you bring it up however, since it buttresses my point that state parties have an existence independent of whatever national organization they might affiliate with.

    Tashjian did not address affiliation issues. It addressed state election laws versus state party bylaws. If a state LP were to disaffiliate from the LNC, by definition the LNC’s bylaws would no longer apply to it.

    Just to be clear here, I am not specifically advocating that any state LPs disaffiliate from the LNC. I am simply pointing out that that is always an option, and one that should be unsheathed and displayed as needed to keep the LNC in line.

  45. More information on this is needed.

    It is very troubling, though.

    Hopefully one of a number of explanations is the answer, rather than a brash destruction of boundaries.

  46. Mr. Seebeck, as pathetic as I may be, it is hard to be as pathetic as a group of libertarians wasting their energies year after year – as this thread demonstrates. The constant ego battles, yours included Seebeck, between throngs of assholes does nothing to advance the cause of liberty. Not that most libertarians even have a damn clue what liberty is.

    The LP is broken and has been broken for years. Nothing could be more pathetic than people who pretend to be erudite adults clinging to the belief that the disfunctional LP can make any difference at this point.

    Third parties aren’t allowed to fully participate in the political system in America. The two major parties, their financial backers, and the media have no desire to change the status quo. To pretend otherwise is delusional. To think that the LP can compete in the political environment as it currently exists is completely unrealistic.

    The entire freedom movement is past due for rejuvenation. All I have left for the LP is ridicule.

  47. Blanton, do you have resort to namecalling, which simply undermines what little credibility you have left?

    Go back to the kindergarten-politic major parties and fight over Big Brother or Big Nanny. The rest of us will continue to fight for freedom instead.

    And it’s not about my ego. To claim otherwise is jumping to erroneous conclusions and is a mirror on yourself.

  48. Tom (Knapp),

    I’ll take the legal opinion. Whether a previous entity used it before it was filed as a trademark is beside the point of regarding NOW.

    I too consider the CA CP/AIP situation relevant, because it serves as a textbook example of what NOT to do and why.

    Tashjian did address election laws, but it was more reaching than that. It gave political parties a free hand in their own affairs should they be smart enough to do so. I got a Bylaw passed in CO in 2003 that did exactly that. By definition that addresses affiliation issues as listed in the Bylaws.

    If a state disaffiliates from the LPUS, then state bylaws that indicate the affiliation, such as what CA’s do, would be affected, and that creates a mess of things just on that alone. Then there’s the LNC regional representation, and a mess of other issues.

    My point is that it’s just not a good idea.

    Besides, there is plenty of information on this that indicates that this was caused by a specific cabal within the LNC and not the full LNC, who was left out of the loop along with Bill Hall. If that is the case, and I believe it is, then that cabal is the problem, not the full LNC, so brandishing a disaffiliation sword is the wrong answer.

  49. This might be interesting if it were accurate.

    However, the LNC has been informed on more than one occasion concerning the potential opportunity for a lawsuit in New Hampshire to establish for our party the permanent right for candidate substitution, so that we will not have this problem again in the future.

    No lawsuit has been filed yet.

    On May 22nd, during the LNC pre-convention meeting in Denver, staff presented in its report the possibility of our needing to sue in New Hampshire.

    The report is included in the minutes. Members of the LNC board members who are purported to not know anything about this received copies of these minutes and voted for their approval.

    In addition, in a cursory search of e-mails to the entire LNC, I was able to find a ballot access update dated June 29th that further discussed the legal situation in New Hampshire. There are probably other updates, should I care to look for them.

    In the case of Bill Hall, our legal counsel, the LNC has been updated by him as recently as today as to the status of this potential litigation. Of course, attorney-client privilege issues prevent me from sharing the contents of this communique with anyone else.

    Aaron Starr
    Treasurer
    Libertarian National Committee

  50. Aaron Starr, Your comment might be interesting if it were perceptive. Do you not see that simple informing members of the purpose of this litigation would have gone a long way to calm this situation? Do you not see that the LP/LNC has a lot of unhappy campers? Not only talk of disafiliation but actual formation of an alternative libertarian party(BTP)? & mention of Milsted’s plan to form a new party? & Discussion of how there is a conservative cabal that rammed through the nomination of a Dixiecrat conservative? & lame contributions & ballot access & questions about integrity etc. But on the other hand I am amazed at your balls to comment here.

  51. 47 Michael Seebeck

    (regarding Tom Blanton)

    Go back to the kindergarten-politic major parties and fight over Big Brother or Big Nanny. The rest of us will continue to fight for freedom instead.

    I know for a fact that Tom Blanton is a principled libertarian, and had been associated closely with the LP as far back as 1980, maybe even a little earlier. Mr. Seebeck’s call for Tom to go back to “major parties” is way off base. Tom is one of the many hardcore libertarians who has no interest in fighting over “Big Brother or Big Nanny” . . . that characterization is also way off base.

    While I disagree with Tom about the futility of the LP, I do agree with him that “The LP is broken and has been broken for years.”

    However, in my view, it is way more broken now than it was ten years ago.

    I believe that the LP is fixable . . . Tom apparently does not.
    Mr. Seebeck likely believes it is fixable as well, but one suggestion I have for Mr. Seebeck: open your eyes to the reality that the LP is very dysfunctional and there are many delusional non-liberty lovers in it . . . many in positions of leadership.

    I think I’ll leave it at that.

  52. Robert Milnes,

    I’m used to this.

    I first became involved in the LP in 1980. We have a long history of people feeling disenfranchised.

    Whoever — and it doesn’t matter who — assumes the reins of leadership is ultimately castigated by some segment of the membership after a very brief honeymoon, even if the person was elected to the office by a large margin.

    I’m amazed at how much credence people place in comments posted on the blogosphere. I read it on the Internet so it must be true, right?

    Heck, it wouldn’t surprise me to learn someday from a blogger that I eat young children for breakfast on Sundays.

    Keep the following in perspective the next time you read some critic’s opinion.

    Everyone who serves in a leadership position in this party is a volunteer. We do not get paid and we are rarely thanked.

    There may be differences in management styles, but what we hopefully all share in common is a desire to do our jobs well in order to advance a cause that we all share of dramatically reducing government’s role in our lives.

    Like you, we toil away at our full-time jobs when we are not spending time on our volunteer activities.

    We simply do not have the time to troll the Internet to locate and address every rumor and correct every misstatement of fact that is promoted, sometimes by those who obtain satisfaction in creating controversy and escalating disagreements into a blood sport.

  53. Assuming that Mr. Starr’s answer is factual, then it would appear LNC members who claim not to know about the possibility of a suit in NH are uninformed. Most organizations impower the CEO and other officers to take actions on behalf of the organization, without having to first resort to informing every Board member, every employee, every customer, and anyone else who claims to be a stakeholder. So let the LNC, at its Sept. meeting, decide if Mr. Redpath et al violated the authority given them by the organization’s rules. And if you don’t like the LNC’s decision, you are free to replace its members, beginning immediately with removal of any Regional Reps that you feel are on the wrong side.

  54. Steve, the fact that the LP is dysfunctional is news older than I am. To quote Sammy Hagar, “What is understood, doesn’t need to be discussed.”

    For Blanforth, whether he is a longtime libertarian or not, for now: quack, quack.

    The LP can be fixed but only when this internal garbage is ended. Some of us work towards that goal. Some of us also work towards moving public policy in a libertarian direction in other ways the LP isn’t (and should be!) doing.

    Starr, that BS of yours doesn’t even pass the sniff test. You, as Treasurer, hold the fiduciary responsibility. The buck starts and stops with with you, literally. So the question for you, *directly,* is this: Has the LNC employed outside counsel on this, and when was the vote on that, AS REQUIRED BY THE BYLAWS? Yes, or no, and when?

    And why is the people like you in the Barr faction within the LNC so worried about ballot access in NH, which is obviously doable and has been done (twice!), when states like OK, WV, etc are having trouble getting it done once? How do you expect to have any credibility with the members if you can’t even see that obvious disconnect? If you can’t focus the ballot access fight where it’s needed instead of where it is not, then why should we trust you to lead at all?

    That’s why you should resign: Poor leadership.

    Of course, I saw that from you before the first day I moved to CA, so in a way, that’s not surprising. But that’s a different soap opera.

  55. One other thing.

    If this substitution was an issue back in May, why was a suit not filed then? Why go through the petition process for Barr and then sue, clearly undermining your own case?

    That doesn’t pass the sniff test either.

  56. Bylaws Article 7 – 4 “….The Chair is the chief executive officer of the Party with full authority to direct its business
    and affairs, including hiring and discharging of National Committee volunteers and paid personnel, subject to express National Committee policies and directives issued in the exercise of the National Committee’s plenary control and management of Party affairs, properties and funds.”

    Plenary (definition)
    1 : complete in every respect : absolute, unqualified
    2 : fully attended or constituted by all entitled to be present

    Thus, if certain LNC members are making decisions and spending funds outside the involvment of the entire LNC they are in essence violating the bylaws.

  57. If this substitution was an issue back in May, why was a suit not filed then? Why go through the petition process for Barr and then sue, clearly undermining your own case?

    Possibly they assumed Phillies would be reasonable and step aside for the Party’s nominee, and that petitioning for Barr was the most expedient thing to do.

    Since Phillies seems disinclined to do so, it may be that they are trying to make lemonade by getting a substitution precedent. If you’re looking for controversy, you can call it ‘punishment’ of Phillies, but in fact the whole situation is more punishing for membership of the LP.

    Still, I suspect it would be happier outcome all around if Phillies would simply stand aside and let the substitution question be settled another day. The LP is not exactly awash in funds, and this seems extremely destructive of Party morale (as we see here).

    One thing missing from the vast amount of nearly useless information and noise we have here is any real indication of the LPNH’s stand in all this. I hear conflicting reports. There is a quote by Kelly here suggesting Phillies’ actions are not exactly welcome:

    http://www.politickernh.com/brianlawson/2744/phillies-qualifies-nh-ballot

    “We were collecting signatures [for Phillies] but I think we should go along with the national party,” Brendon Kelly, chairman of the New Hampshire Libertarian Party, told PolitickerNH.com earlier this month.

  58. Starr’s claims about the suit are disingenuous. There are indeed representations in the LNC Minutes and other places about discussing litigation as a possible alternative path in New Hampshire. There is no indication that an attorney had been retained or was going to be retained.

    That’s entirely different from having an attorney, not Bill Hall, telephone interested parties to make statements rather more positive than discussing alternatives.

    As an analogy, as late as 1936 the War Department updated its plans for war with Canada, a fact that Congress could have determined. South Park notwithstanding, telling Congress this minor fact did not constitute asking Congress to approve war with Canada.

    There is no representation in those statements to the LNC about actually spending money to pay the attorney in question, seeking the LNC’s approval to spend money or discuss litigation with interested parties, or having the attorney discuss with affected parties while representing himself as the LNC’s attorney, which he assuredly would not have done if he had not been retained, whether for pay or pro bono.

    I should point out that the sort of phone call that I heard might or might not already have led other interested parties to retain their own counsel.

    As to whether the LNC is paying him for something, well, the most recent LNC FEC filing shows a large sum of money going in his direction, so there is no question that the LNC has already actually spent money, without notifying the LNC itself that that money is actually being spent.

  59. Poll from LP.org

    Where do you get your Libertarian related news:

    Blogs 19%
    Everywhere else 81%

    In other words, all three people who pay attention to this blog don’t count for bird turds!

    250,000 registered libertarians and I would gather less than 1% really give a bird turd what you all say on this list or others like it.

    So HATE HATE HATE HJATE HATE all you want. I’m with the illegally named BTP now.

    Love and be Luved

  60. Susan notwithstanding, New Hampshire does not have substitution, a matter that was known in advance of the New Hampshire nominating convention, and to which I agreed when I asked for their nomination.

    On the date at which I had to file my New Hampshire Declaration of Intent, the LNC had not even sent petitioners to New Hampshire. Nor had anyone so far as I know started circulating papers for Barr-Root-Newell.

    The fellow who took me to meet the NH Secretary of State ( I also met the Governor) was the LPNH US Senate candidate, Ken Blevens, who was entirely supportive, as are many other NH activists that I know.

  61. Plus, as LPNH ExComm member Seth has pointed out on ballot-access.org in the sibling thread that refers to this one, the LPNH specifcally rejected invovlement in such a suit.

  62. Aaron Starr says it isn’t true. Angela Keaton says it is. Aaron Starr is a conservative Republican who supported Barr at the convention. Word on the street has it that Angela spent quite a bit of time screaming at Aaron in the lobby of the hotel in Denver, about his betrayals of decency and liberty. Since being told to shut up by Bill Redpath, Angela has been raising money for the Antiwar effort.

    Thus, in a contest between Aaron Starr and Angela Keaton, I’ll go with Angela every time. Aaron isn’t fit to buckle on her shoes.

  63. Susan, the LNC knew who the nominee was as soon as it was done in Denver. We were both there, and Redpath, with his pet issue being ballot access, as soon as he we was re-elected (why that happened is a mystery), the LNC should have decided as a whole to deal with this situation. They knew the situation before the convention, but chose to sit on it instead. Instead, they’ve waited almost three months. I’m sorry to respectfully disagree with you, but why did they wait?

    It comes back to the fact that they should have filed any suit immediately upon convention close, and been up front about it in the first place. Instead they do stuff like this. It is clear that the focus of this cabal is not where it should be and the leadership is lacking.

    December’s LNC meeting in SoCal is shaping up to be quite interesting.

  64. The IGT trademark of “Boston Tea Party” appears to be in connection to a lottery or other game of chance. There’s no evidence that it is a trademark of a political party. There is no exclusivity on service marks or trade marks in areas of activity not engaged in by the mark holder.

    With regard to the LP trademark of its name, the LNC seems to hold the mark, so its members should expect to be informed when the mark is being defended. LP of NH also has extensive prior use of the mark, with permission, in NH. Given that it was never possible to substitute candidates in NH, it very nice to see Chris and George running there.

    Susan Hogarth seems to think George is obligated to bow out of the race in NH. Why?

  65. John, I have buckled Angela’s shoes on her, but that’s a different, G-rated story. 🙂 I agree completely. Starr was a lousy LPCA chair and is just as bad on the LNC.

  66. For non-repetitive amusement, go instead to FEC.GOV and the disbursement reports of various political committees.

    Actually, guess who the LNC paid in July, too.

  67. George, I’m going to guess Shane Cory.

  68. You misunderstand me, George. I’m not discussing substitution; I’m suggesting that the most reasonable course for you once Barr’s spot on the ballot is secure is to drop your own name from consideration.

  69. No way, George. Stay on the ballot. For whatever insane reason, the LPNH thinks you’re a great candidate, and it will be interesting to see how many votes Libertarians generate versus that neocon usurper.

    Note: In Denver, there was a freaky dude with a shirt saying “This is what an anarcho-capitalist looks like” and wearing Phillies buttons all over.

  70. They knew the situation before the convention, but chose to sit on it instead. Instead, they’ve waited almost three months. I’m sorry to respectfully disagree with you, but why did they wait?

    I don’t know.

    Perhaps they were expecting Phillies to drop his name from the ballot after they had gathered enough sigs for Barr and before the deadline for such a drop passed. Maybe they’re working *with* George to settle a legal point.

    I don’t claim to have anywhere near the number of facts to be able to understand the entire situation. the more I learn, the murkier it becomes. I do not, however, see any evidence that George Phillies is working to support the LP (not the LNC, the *LP*) in this situation, and that is my main concern here.

  71. “Aaron Starr is a conservative Republican who supported Barr at the convention. ”

    I could be wrong, but I’m pretty sure that Mr. Starr supported Wayne Root at the convention (the part of the convention prior to Root’s elimination, anyway).

    I do hope that the LPNH joins in the substitution lawsuit if there’s one actually going forward — for the reasons why, see what Richard Winger has written on the subject.

    However, I hope that as the price of cooperating, LPNH first extracts an apology from the rump faction of the LNC which is apparently behind this latest BS, and from the Barr campaign, for treating the state parties like vassals, and a promise to stop doing that.

  72. Heck, each state LP should have whichever presidential candidate it wants, in the expectation they will campaign more extensively there than could one national candidate. I’m pretty much convinced the LP’s vote totals are for a general party label (unless the candidate is an outright kook) than for the particular candidate, except in cases where the candidate generates all sorts of local media coverage. So having Mr. X campaign up and down NH, week after week, will produce a higher vote total than Mr.Y who hopes his one-time appearance on a Boston radio show will be heard by NH voters. And after the election, we simply add up the LP presidential vote in every state and say “The LP presidential electors received XXXX votes.”

  73. Susan Hogarth seems to think George is obligated to bow out of the race in NH.

    Yes, I do.

    Why?

    Because he is a member of a national political party which chooses it nominee at its national convention. If the LPNH disaffiliates, changes its charter from that of an affiliate of the national LP, changes its name to avoid confusion with the LP, and -then- asks George to be its nominee, that’s one thing. But none of those things have happened.

    I voted for neither Barr nor Phillies in Denver. I would have found Phillies nominally more acceptable than Barr as a candidate. I am disappointed and unhappy with Barr as a candidate. However, if my preferred choice in Denver had found some way to legally be on the ballot as a LIB in NC, I would reject that option as well, and I would fight against it.

  74. Heck, each state LP should have whichever presidential candidate it wants, in the expectation they will campaign more extensively there than could one national candidate.

    That’s an interesting option, but would take a change int he bylaws. I would not support such a change, but I do find the idea interesting.

    But the reality is that is -not- how the LP is presently structured.

  75. Susan, I disagree. I don’t think George is not supporting the LP per se. I do think he is honoring the wishes of those that nominated him in NH. If George doesn’t drop after the NH SoS certifies Barr (TBD), then maybe, but that’s in the future if it happens, so it’s no good to speculate on that until then.

    As for the waiting game, it doesn’t make any sense in a tactical context if the issue was simply ballot access and substitution. In the context of political payback then it does make sense.

    Tom, I don’t think it is from the Barr inner circle itself, but rather the Barr flunkies on the LNC who forget who they work for. I believe that because of the timing issue and the fact that the Barr campaign went ahead with the petitions first and suit second, rather than the other way around. That doesn’t mean Barr and his inner circel are not complicit, just that there is no direct evidence of it.

    The funny thing is that if the LNC cabal were not involved, then the whole issue becomes different, just a candidate squabble, and the LNC could simply step away from it and let Barr, Phillies, and NH work it out.

    That’s why it is always best for the LNC and all party leadership at all levels to stay out of all candidate squabbles…their job is to operate the party, not take sides in the squabbles. That apparently is a lesson not yet learned in some areas.

  76. Roscoe has an interesting idea, but in the distant future when we actually have Presidential candidates getting electoral votes, it causes headaches as long as the Electoral College is in play–unless we were to find a way to make the electors for the top winner in the party amongst the candidates, however that could work.

    OTOH, having candidate proxies campaign in each state is a classic tactic and one we don’t employ and should. For example, having Kubby in CA campaign as a proxy for Barr (I know, but it’s just an example!).

  77. I don’t think George is not supporting the LP per se. I do think he is honoring the wishes of those that nominated him in NH. If George doesn’t drop after the NH SoS certifies Barr (TBD), then maybe, but that’s in the future if it happens, so it’s no good to speculate on that until then.

    George can easily end all speculation about that particular part of the issue by saying that he will – to the fullest extent possible – remove his name from consideration when and if the LP’s national nominee is confirmed on the ballot.

    Why has he not done so? Will he?

    Instead, his handpicked VP candidate indulges in pointless (and ungrammatical) chest-thumping as this post he made on FB: “Chris dares Sullentrup Starr and Redpath to remove George Phillies and I off the ballot.”

  78. Agree with Susan Hogarth here. Either it’s a national party, or it’s not. The presidency is a national office.

    Legalistic cases aside, if we want the LP to be effective in advancing liberty, we should first not appear foolish and childish. We should present our serious ideas seriously.

  79. What is FB?

    Facebook. Sorry.

  80. Robert,

    There’s no such thing as a “national party.”

    In any given state, the election laws will construe who composes the membership/leadership of a party in a different way.

    For example, in California, LP members are those who so identify in their voter registration. In Missouri, LP members are those who pick up a Libertarian primary ballot. Different states, different strokes, but one, so far as I know universal, truth:

    The LP of a state is the LP of a state whether it is affiliated with the LNC or not, and whether the LNC recognizes it or not. The state governments, not the LNC, define whether or not an organization in their state is “the Libertarian Party.” As a matter of fact, at least one state (California) had a Libertarian Party before the LNC even came into existence.

    Until the LNC gets it through its collective head that it is an instrument of the state LPs as represented in convention by their delegates, rather than vice versa, situations like this are going to continue to be troublesome, and could very well blow up into a decision by one or more state LPs to go it alone, or to create/adopt a new mutual affiliation mechanism.

    Don’t think it can happen? It happened to the Democratic Party in 1948 when the Democratic Parties of Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina elected to re-affiliate, choosing to run the national ticket of the States’ Rights Democratic Party (Strom Thurmond) rather than the candidate of the Democratic National Committee (Harry Truman). In some other states, the SRDP’s ticket was not recognized as “the” Democratic Party and ran its candidates as a third party slate instead.

    Since at least 1999, the LNC has attempted in various ways to enforce an authority that does not exist — disaffiliating the Arizona LP and then trying to seize control of its ballot line, filing its frivolous trademark claim on the name “Libertarian Party,” etc. It holds neither the legal nor moral high ground in attempting to do so.

  81. In any given state, the election laws will construe who composes the membership/leadership of a party in a different way.

    Let me make a substitution and float it on by you:

    “In any given state, the slavery laws will construe who can be bought and sold as property in a different way.”

    IOW: Fuck the election laws.

    Want to talk about why the national LP should be considered a child body to the state LPs rather than a parent body? Fine. But please have a little more sense than to start off an argument with Libertarians “According to state election law…”.

    …[the LNC] is an instrument of the state LPs as represented in convention by their delegates, rather than vice versa,…

    Even with this interpretation, you can consider the fact that the state LPs meet in convention and write organizational bylaws which include a governing to mean that they intend for that board to govern. No, not govern the local parties. But in matters where one state’s actions harm others (and running ‘alternate’ presidential candidates certainly qualifies), they have the duty to intervene.

  82. Susan,

    I thought I was clear on this, but just for the record:

    – I hope that LPNH will decide to support the substitution suit.

    – I hope that Phillies will withdraw when (and IF — their record isn’t very good) the Barr petition signatures are certified.

    – If LPNH does not support putting the national nominee, and no other, on the ballot, it should either disaffiliate or be disaffiliated.

    All that said, there’s no “interpretation” involved. The LNC is a creation of the state parties and is their instrument, not vice versa. The state parties, operating through their convention delegates, are the lord. The LNC is the vassal. And from that it follows, even in matters where they have a clear mandate from those state parties via the delegates, etc., that the LNC should ask nice, instead of assuming an arrogant “we’re in charge, and you will comply” posture, when it wants something from one of the state parties.

  83. Tom,
    Thanks for clarifying the legalisms. I guess I see the Big Picture differently. The president is a national office, so for a variety of reasons, I assert that if Libertarians want to challenge for that position, or even want to simply educate on the national stage, it’s obvious to me that that’s best done with ONE candidate.

    It would appear, Tom, that your interest in having 2 (or more?) LPs as evidenced by your activism for BTP is advanced by this NH situation. True? If so, please help us understand how splintering of the LP advances the cause of liberty.

  84. You were clear on all those things, and I agree with your ‘bullets’. And absolutely agree on the ‘ask nice’.

    Disagree on the need for interpretation. But as we come to same conclusion, I see no need to belabor the point. Here’s a related one:

    Consider a disaffiliated state party: Should they retain the name LP or choose another for themselves?

  85. Tom,
    I see you’ve clarified your take. Sure, asking nicely seems more appropriate.

    Susan also asks a great question…the L brand is at stake. I appreciate that BTP didn’t use the word Libertarian in it’s name, for ex.

  86. Bob and Susan,

    Replying as concisely as I can.

    Bob, you write:

    “Thanks for clarifying the legalisms. I guess I see the Big Picture differently. The president is a national office, so for a variety of reasons, I assert that if Libertarians want to challenge for that position, or even want to simply educate on the national stage, it’s obvious to me that that’s best done with ONE candidate.”

    Front end: I don’t necessarily disagree. In general, one public face for the party across the whole nation seems like a good idea.

    Back end:

    – The LP isn’t challenging for the position of president. Anyone who believes that Bob Barr is going to win in November, even if he magically gets on the ballot, as the lone LP candidate, in all fifty states, needs to put down the crack pipe.

    – “Good idea in general” does not automatically equal “the way things have to be.” There could conceivably be interests that outweigh the benefits of a single national candidate. I don’t believe that’s the case in this situation. Barr was legitimately nominated by representatives of state parties which are free to disaffiliate if they can’t tolerate that decision. If David Duke packs the convention in 2012, I hope that every state LP will refuse him its ballot line and that every LNC member will denounce the nomination and refuse to support the candidate.

    “It would appear, Tom, that your interest in having 2 (or more?) LPs as evidenced by your activism for BTP is advanced by this NH situation. True? If so, please help us understand how splintering of the LP advances the cause of liberty.”

    I’m not interested in there being “two LPs.” In point of fact, I moved a resolution at the BTP’s first convention for the BTP to constitute itself as an internal LP caucus rather than a separate party. That resolution failed, but I made it in earnest.

    My interest, at this time, is in presenting as many voters as possible with a libertarian choice on their presidential ballots. Since the LP declined to make such a choice available (in my opinion, of course) this year, the BTP is doing so where it can.

    As a side note, when the question of endorsing George Phillies for president in Massachusetts and New Hampshire (where the BTP slate is not on the ballot) came before the BTP’s national committee, I spoke against doing so (as a member of the BTP — I do not sit on its national committee).

    I do believe that it is the affirmative obligation of the state LPs, per their voluntary participation in the national convention, to support the national nominee, and certainly not to compete against that nominee on a ballot line labeled “Libertarian Party.”

    Susan, you write:

    “Consider a disaffiliated state party: Should they retain the name LP or choose another for themselves?”

    That’s up to them. As I previously noted, political parties as organizations are organized state by state. “National committees” are just umbrella organizations which similar parties use to advance their interest in fielding a single national candidate, etc. If (for example) LPNH leaves the LNC (on its own initiative or by being shown the door), it is under no obligation to change its name.

    Bob, you write:

    “Susan also asks a great question…the L brand is at stake. I appreciate that BTP didn’t use the word Libertarian in it’s name, for ex.”

    If a state LP should, at some point, decide to disaffiliate from the LP and affiliate with the BTP, I don’t foresee the BTP attempting to force that affiliate to change its name. It will likely remain the “Libertarian Party of State X.” The LNC does not own “the L brand,” its claims to the contrary notwithstanding.

    The BTP’s national organization (which, unlike the LNC, pre-exists its state affiliates and operates nationally on “one member, one vote” rather than representative delegates from state parties) certainly exists to promote (and, if we continue to exist as a separate party, do our damnedest to corner the market for in the political arena!) the “l” brand.

    On a national level, however, trying to start a new “L” brand would be silly. We’re not pretending to be the LNC. As a matter of fact, at this particular time, being mistaken for the LNC would be the last thing we’d want.

  87. Tom,

    When I said “challenge,” I wasn’t suggesting “win.” Challenge in this context means to show up in the public square in a credible way, such as Barr has done well so far, IMO. Perfectly? No, is there such a thing?

  88. I’m jumping into this discussion quite late in the game, but I can tell you that I have, in the last two days, spoken with two LNC members.

    Both of them asked me for details about the lawsuit that Mr. Starr is apparently well-informed about.

    Think about that for a minute. Members of the managing committee of the Libertarian National Committee are asking people OUTSIDE of the party structure for details about a lawsuit that the organization they’re supposed to be managing is filing!

    That would suggest either absolute mental retardation on the part of those committee members (and I can vouch for the fact this is NOT the case), or more of Aaron Starr’s dirty dealing.

    Having been close to the receiving end of that dirty dealing most recently at our national convention in May, when Starr attempted to infer that the independent parliamentarian that numerous LPers supported (and donated to hire) was an effort by Ruth Bennett to topple the existing regime, I know what direction I am leaning in.

    It’s also instructive to note that the LNC, if the fundraising meter on its web site is any indication, is basically bankrupt.

    It didn’t have enough resources to get on the ballot in Maine or West Virginia.

    It claimed that it lacked the resources to file another lawsuit to try and get on the ballot in Oklahoma.

    Yet suddenly the insolvent LNC, which is watching its ballot access drop like flies, has the thousands (or tens of thousands) of dollars necessary to sue to remove George from the NH ballot — in a state where Barr already has access?

    Yeah. Sure.

    This is obviously another Aaron Starr special, cooked up by a small clique of usual suspects in the LNC who view themselves as the “daddy knows best” sorts. The other LNC members who were kept in the dark were kept there deliberately, there was no vote with the current LNC on this matter (inexcusable given the inevitable controversy), and Starr as usual is attempting to deflect blame for his political games from himself to those “irresponsible” LNC members who didn’t read his two-sentence memo suggestion that a lawsuit is an option.

    He knows what he did. Anyone with a modicum of honesty and experience knows what he did.

    And, as usual, it stinks.

  89. Susan, I find your position on this issue a bit confusing.

    Not long ago, you were urging me not to campaign against a couple of Republicans in North Carolina because some members of the LP were supporting those GOPers.

    But now you’re citing party loyalty/unity as an objection to George’s decision here.

    Could you enlighten me as to why you thought it was a bad idea to take on Republicans who are stealing Libertarian Party branding (and have quiet support for another party’s candidates), yet at the same time view party unity as tantamount in this particular dispute?

  90. The BTP will play an important role for liberty this year. Mr Barr has publicly stated that he will not be participating in the third party debates…..so who will be there to rep libertarian ideas? Without the BTP, the events where a lot of young activists will be concentrating and debating the issues, would be left absent of a party representing our views. That my friends would be a real shame…..so the BTP and Charles Jay will be there to fill the niche. I do not know how many official third party debates there will be this year, but I do know that there will be one in Nashville. I think that it is going to be held the night before the main Belmont debate and Charles has been invited. This situation IS the free market of ideas at work….the goals are the same, the strategies on how to get there differ….I have friends in both camps.

  91. Meh, I’m of a mind that neither the LP nor the BTP are particularly standing up for true libertarian values. Neither, in their present form, have the ability to reach outside of the fringe of the fringe of their various new constituencies (right-wing Republicans in the LP’s case, anarchists in the BTP’s case).

    A broad-based libertarian movement in this country is certainly possible, but it’s not going to get off the ground if it insists on hooking up with right-wing Republican circle-jerks (Ron Paul/Bob Barr) or eccentric Internet parties (the BTP).

  92. Could you enlighten me…?

    I doubt it.

  93. Thanks, Brian. You back up what I’ve been saying, and you probably retraced the exact steps I took a couple of days ago.

    In any case, it’s nice to hear confirmation from a different person.🙂

  94. I am correct, Tom. “I could be wrong, but I’m pretty sure that Mr. Starr supported Wayne Root at the convention (the part of the convention prior to Root’s elimination, anyway).”

    Mr. Starr supported Bob Barr at the convention. Whether he may have also supported Wayne Root doesn’t interest me in the least. You enhance the reputation of libertarians for hair splitting.

    Let me also say please that I think supporting Root at the convention indicates a lack of morality. Nothing about supporting the WAR candidate is inconsistent with Starr being an evil conservative Republican trying to destroy the LP.

  95. Susan Hogarth believes in extremely servile party loyalty. How she expects to get anywhere being a sycophant for Bob Barr is beyond my ken.

    George Phillies made no agreement to remove himself from the New Hampshire ballot. On the contrary, he agreed to campaign actively in New Hampshire.

    Hogarth’s arguments: “Because he is a member of a national political party which chooses it nominee at its national convention. If the LPNH disaffiliates, changes its charter from that of an affiliate of the national LP, changes its name to avoid confusion with the LP, and -then- asks George to be its nominee, that’s one thing. But none of those things have happened.”

    All nonsense. The LP of NH has no obligation to do any of those things, and Hogarth screaming at them for betraying her belief in what she thinks they ought to do is silly. The LP of NH is a state organisation which chose its nominee at the state level. George agreed to be that nominee, and made no agreement to step aside.

    Hogarth wants to have people agree to things she thinks they ought to agree to, after the fact, and without compensation. Talk about sore loser.

  96. “Why has he not done so? Will he?”

    He has not done so, and he should not do so. George made an agreement with the voters of New Hampshire who signed petitions circulated on his behalf. George also made an agreement to campaign actively in NH when he sought the Boston Tea Party’s endorsement – you can find the discussion on their national committee’s listserv.

    George has a moral obligation to campaign vigorously against Bob Barr for the presidency of the USA.

    I think you should drop your opposition to the Phillies – Bennett ticket in NH. You and the rest of white Southern racism should mind your own business.

  97. The LP of NH is a state organisation which chose its nominee at the state level.

    Then why did they send a delegation to the national LP convention, voting for president?

    Your other assertions are laughable:

    “sycophant for Bob Barr”

    “screaming at [LPNH]”

    “white Southern racism”

    Yes, Susan Hogarth: the screaming racist Barr sycophant. THAT really does wonders for your credibility.
    Not!

  98. Not long ago, you were urging me not to campaign against a couple of Republicans in North Carolina because some members of the LP were supporting those GOPers.

    It’s easy to mischaracterize a discussion when you’re only presenting your memories of your side of it. My earlier somewhat snarky response was in frustration at this tactic. Now I have to waste time rehashing an old private disagreement, or let it stand – which would probably be fine, as no one who knows me could possibly imagine that I have problems ‘campaigning against Republicans’.

    My disagreement with you then was a tactical disagreement about the strategic value of having out-of-staters attacking a NC Republican who is supported by many NC Libs, with the attack based *not on ideology but only on ‘branding’ issues*. As I recall, your issue was the design of his website and the use of iconography *you* thought belonged to the LP ‘brand’. I disagreed. I disagreed about the branding issue (the statue of liberty is hardly an exclusive Libertarian ‘brand’, even if you go in for such nonsense), and I disagreed that it was an intelligent tactical move.

    Want to attack a Republican for being a Republican? Fine. I’m there for you. I’ll mock Lawson any day for his craven brown-people-dissing ways or his other Republican positions. Want to attack him for ‘branding issues’? Not my idea of a winning strategy,and therefore I suggested you instead concentrate your efforts in your own state.

  99. George Phillies should want off the ballot because his running mate is a welfare queen and is now wanting to be a fraud. And Last Free Voice is taking down comments critical of Chris Bennett now too. Free Voice? Free if its in accordance with their best interests I guess. For anyone that cares to hear it from Chris Bennett’s own fingers, Bennett admits he stole money from taxpayers to pay for college from the Yahoo Group LPI_freediscuss.

    “I think every person who works in this country has an important job whether they are a cook like me or a ditchdigger,garbage man or a homebuilder. The reason why I am going to college is to stop working for the man aka the multi-billion dollar corporations who take advantage of workers every day and to get out of a “career ” I’m getting sick of after 16 years. I work, take care of my family and keep a 3.0 average. But I guess I’m leeching of the government…… This is a capitalist country….we shouldn’t be forced to serve in the military just to get an education..Thus I don’t think its right for me to pay for another’s education through force either. Unfortunately, the only way for poor folks like my wife and I to get an education is to apply for Pell Grants and such or I’d be working for “the man” for the rest of my life. I’m too smart for that! I want to improve my life and I’m sorry but the military is not always the way to go for many. I pay taxes just like you. I pay Social Security because I’m forced to. I might as well get my Social Security now by going back to school than not getting my benefits when I retire. As a black man, Jim believe it or not, I will get less than .40 cents of every dollar that I put in…is that fair? If you don’t believe me goto http://www.cato.org they did an analysis a few years back on who gets what in benefits by race and gender. I may not serve for Uncle Sam like you BUT being a father a husband a college student and a cook is hard work. So actually Jim, I am not getting a free ride when it comes to my education.”

    Chris Bennett
    LPI_King Sized Mattress aka “Freeloader”

  100. We’ll see how long until the above post is deleted so Bennett can commit fraud and keep trying to cover his tracks.

  101. Why did Chris Bennett re-join LPI_freediscuss Yahoo Group on August 20, 2008? Was it to edit old posts where he admits he is a welfare queen and grabbed government handouts to pay for college?

  102. Putting aside the issues of whether Dr. Phillies has an obligation to quit the N.H. ballot (he doesn’t) and whether I myself plan to vote for the Libertarian presidential nominee (probably not, and he won’t be on my D.C. ballot anyway), it does seem to me that if the purpose of the LP is to actually elect someone president, the nationally nominated candidate should be on as many ballots as possible.

  103. Who here attended Hillsdale or Grove City College?

    If not, then you all accepted government handouts in one form or another.

    I don’t know too many people who didn’t accept student loans or other financial aid, either.

    This is the moral equivalent of using public schools, roads, the USPS, etc.

  104. Susan Hogarth, the self-confessed screaming racist Barr sycophant, asks, “Then why did they send a delegation to the national LP convention, voting for president?”

    A more useful question would be: why did the LP seat that delegation?

    The LP’s answer to everything that happens at the state level is: do it our way or we’ll file a lawsuit. LP “leaders” of Hogarth’s ilk do not wish to work with state organizations, find out what they need, and send volunteers and money to help – no-no! Cooperating with state affiliates would be too time consuming, tedious, involving a few e-mails and phone calls.

    Better to demand things, instead. Simply pitch a fit from North Carolina until George Phillies betrays his agreement with the voters of New Hampshire to be a libertarian on the ballot in November. Better, indeed, to insist on brown shirt party loyalty to whatever Nazi has been nominated rather than have even one state’s voters given a libertarian choice.

    You failed. In your quest to nominate a libertarian, you failed. Instead of congratulating NH on having a libertarian for president on the ballot, you now demand that they join you in your suicide pact with Hitler.

  105. “My earlier somewhat snarky response was in frustration at this tactic.”

    Mayhap you should stop being such a control freak snarky jerk. Or continue to fail to gain respect from those you seek to lead.

  106. I thought Chris Bennett had a job working for Wal-Mart, and another job as a substitute teacher. Calling him a welfare queen, as Colt Peanut does above, is racist. No doubt Colt would be more comfortable in Kentucky where they have trouble deciding whether to remove a racist like Sonny Landham from the LP ballot line.

  107. Brian,

    I’m not sure what your angle is in continuing to falsely portray the BTP as an “anarchist” party.

    If anything, the BTP’s permanent platform and 2006-2008 platform are more moderate than the LP’s.

    Your portrayal of the BTP as an “eccentric Internet party” is somewhat more justified, but becoming less and less so every day.

    We just finished our first ballot access petition drive, and not a single signature was collected via Internet. When Charles Jay debates other third party presidential candidates at Vanderbilt University, I expect that his ass will be planted in a chair at Vanderbilt University, not in a chair in front of a webcam somewhere else. Our (so far) one elected public official and one appointed public official fulfill the duties of their offices in meatspace, not cyberspace.

  108. Starr is an “evil conservative Republican trying to destroy the LP?” AFAIK, Starr, his wife, and Redpath have been activists in the LP for twenty to thirty years at least. So, you can believe they’ve been moles for that long or that, maybe, they legitimately think the time has come for the LP to be less insular and see what happens. There’s the old saying about the Liberty train is going to make many stops and we need to entice on board those who think they are only going to travel a stop or two. So, if and when Barr brings his crowd of passengers on board – helped by conductor Redpath and trainman Starr – it is up to the libertarian wing of the Libertarian Party to persuade them to travel another few stops. Or we can throw insults and taunts at those who, even if perhaps now mistaken in the direction they want to go, have donated many thousands of hours and resources to the libertarian cause. The Party has survived wrong approaches before, and can again, unless it splinters into a dozen competing factions (like the Socialists have).

  109. Today is Friday, August 22. On August 21, both Mary Ruwart and Rachel Hawkridge told me on the phone that it is not true that they have been kept in the dark about the proposed New Hampshire lawsuit. Furthermore, they both support it. So does Michael Badnarik.

    New Hampshire ballot access is very bad and has been getting worse over the years. This lawsuit, if it wins, will be the first time any ballot access law in NH has ever been declared unconstitutional. We need this victory to persuade the legislature to enact other improvements as well. NH was one of only 4 states in 2006 with a Dem-Rep monopoly on the statewide ballot. NH was one of only 2 states in 2004 which kept Badnarik off the ballot. NH currently is one of only eleven states with no ballot-qualified parties other than the Dem & Rep Parties. We worked very hard in 2007 on a ballot access reform bill in NH, but it went nowhere. All our ballot access improvement bills in the last 15 years have failed to advance. Yet the NH legislature increased the vote test from 3% to 4%, in 1997. It’s time to fight back in court.

  110. This lawsuit, if it wins, will be the first time any ballot access law in NH has ever been declared unconstitutional.

    Richard, will Phillies’ position on replacement likely have any effect on the suit? That is, if he *asks* for replacement, would that be likely to provide more power than if he is opposed to, or neutral about, the idea?

  111. So will the LNC pursue the removal of George Phillies from the ballot even if Bob Barr makes it on the ballot in NH. That’s the real question! I think even if they win the lawsuit for this election cycle they should just leave George and Barr on the ballot. Competition is good right?

  112. Hilarious. Chris Bennett the FRAUD and WELFARE QUEEN is now editing my comments on this board or having someone else do it for him. (Comment #101 is NOT what I typed, it was editted to commit pure and simple fraud and libel and clumsily playing the race card exposing Chris Bennett for an even bigger fraud than he already is)

    Or was that G.E. who is fraudulently editing other people’s comments in a cover up. Last Fraud Voice should be the new name here now. Well, this should be the last of G.E.’s self-righteous more libertarian than thou rants that have any credibility.

    There is nothing racist about pointing out that a Libertarian VP wannabe just 4 months ago was sucking off the government tit and forcing other people to pay for his college.

  113. Colt or whoever you are (perhaps it’s Jim Syler, Eric Dubiel, Jeff Trigg or David Lee), stop with the spamming of this blog or you will be referred to the owner of this blog to decide whether or not we pursue further actions of your continued blogging experiences here. I don’t know what your beef about me is about BUT I got my education and I’m paying it off by working 2 jobs. Quit the bullshit, you’ve made your point. If you want to have a Anti-Chris Bennett blog don’t use LFV for your personal vendettas and create your own blog

  114. OOOOOhhhh. Are you going to start threatening physical violence now also, like you have done in comments elsewhere? Better hurry up and try to remember everywhere you threatened to beat people up. Force, fraud, and welfare and you think you are VP of the USA material.

  115. Last Fraud Voice will now be personal vendetta free. Because they can dish plenty of it out, but are too weak to take it. Playing the race card to try to get sympathy is just pathetic Chris Bennett. You really should stop doing that.

  116. So will the LNC pursue the removal of George Phillies from the ballot even if Bob Barr makes it on the ballot in NH. That’s the real question!

    I think the LNC might be *less* inclined to pursue the suit if Barr’s petitions fail. My understanding is that the point of the suit isn’t (necessarily) to challenge the petition requirement itself, but the idea that the national Party’s nominee, duly petitioned, can be on the ballot along with anyone else who takes the time to petition.

    I try to think of it this way: if some legal trick allowed me to put my preferred candidate from Denver on the ballot here in NC, I would definitely be against the idea, because my Party – NOT the state of NC – determines its presidential candidate in convention, and it has done so. I say this as someone who spent nearly every waking moment in Denver working to get my preferred candidate on the ballot and to keep Barr off, and someone who is disappointed with Barr as a candidate and in serious disagreement with him ideologically.

    Barr will be going away in November, I suspect. If not, I hope he settles down and continues his education and reformation. In either case, I’ll still be here. The LP will be here. I want the LP to remain intact and strong.

    I think even if they win the lawsuit for this election cycle they should just leave George and Barr on the ballot. Competition is good right?

    The competition happened already; in Denver. George lost.

    Imagine the Miss America contest if Miss Arkansas *and* Miss Arkansas-runner-up were both running. Now multiply that by 50. Why bother to participate in a selection process if you’re not intending to honor its decision?

    If the LP of NH decides to support another candidate or two candidates than the Party’s nominee, I feel that that’s a vote for disaffiliation, which I suspect is something that no one is really keen on at this point.

  117. At least people know who I am, unlike you can’t even give us a real name. Where have I threatened physical violence? I see no pleasure in beating up people, except when they strike first. Besides I’m a VP in one fucking state, anyone could have done that you moron. Get a life.

  118. G.E. you obviously have no clue what Pell Grants have become and what else in addition to classes they pay for if you now think they are equivalent to using roads paid for mostly by gas tax fees. You can’t really go around trying to smear people like Redpath and Kohlhaas and Haugh when you are doing the exact same things they are.

  119. John A. and Susan: in “olden days” the Regional Reps were expected to stand up for their state orgs and push LNC to take positive actions that would help build state parties. Worked imperfectly of course because some regions elected zeroes to the post (no one else could afford it, I guess). We, as members, are responsible for the tail wagging the dog or vice versa. The state of many state parties after thirty five years of trying is a sad commentary on the LP’s goal of growth.
    If even 5% of the general population is ideologically libertarian, that should be enough to have functioning LP organizations in every county in the U.S. (well, maybe not in Tom Green County Texas with 67 residents).

  120. Colt Peanut: Slow down, bucko. What comments about Chris Bennett have been removed? It has never even occurred to me, nor would it occur to me, to remove comments about Chris Bennett, or any other person running for office. I have never removed even one comment about Chris Bennett.

    So you need to make sure you have your facts straight before you bandy about those kinds of accusations.

    If you have proof or even concerns that comments have been removed, by all means, send it to me. I’m not at all hard to contact, my email is near the top of the right sidebar at all times.

  121. For starters, my comment #101 above was altered (by a moderator if I know how WPress works and you have those permissions set normally) of this blog in a fraudelent attempt to try to make me look like a racist. I have no “proof” of course because you would control that information I presume. Number two a comment I made here was removed earlier this week, on 8/19 or 8/20 depending on your time stamp and my recollection, as well. I put some of it back up when I discovered it was gone on 8/22.

    https://lastfreevoice.wordpress.com/2008/08/16/bob-barrs-attempted-thuggery-thwarted-by-judge/

    Any proof would be in your raw access logs and/or database logs. We could go back and forth all day on what constitutes truth as to if my comment was deleted because you hold all the evidence in your control – I’d assume you have access to it. Its your blog and you can do whatever you want with people’s comments. I have no need to escalate anything when you have the free will, and presumably all the information needed to prove it to your self if you care to. Erase everything I write for all I care, it will only reflect on your own credibility if other people see it before you can hit ‘delete’.

  122. And to clarify, I don’t mean spoofing regarding comment #101. There was a comment I made there that was altered. If someone tries to spoof me, that’s more of my own fault and I’m fair game in blog world whether I like it or not and no, I don’t do that.

  123. Colt Peanut is lying. No one edited his comment, at least not me. I do not believe it is even possible to edit a comment — I do not have that power, at least (other than my own).

  124. Richard: What I find very interesting is that Rachel and Mary told George they didn’t even know about it, then told you the exact opposite the very next day.

    Clearly, someone is not being truthful.

    George, when you contacted Rachel and Mary (and the other LNC members listed), what exactly did they tell you?

  125. GE says (I paraphrase): “CP is lying. I think.”

    I know we all need exercise, but I suspect it’d be better if we got it in some way other than by jumping to conclusions.

  126. No one edited his fucking posts, Susan. He is lying.

  127. In defense of G.E. I would say I am fair game to jump to conclusions about since I did the same thing to him when I had no proof he was involved in altering comments I made. He just chose to join me in the mud for some reason.

    I have no idea who altered the comments but I doubt the raw access logs and/or database logs will lie. Match IPs with urls that coincide with the urls used by WordPress to edit comments if you still got them and really want to know, so believe me or not. My IP hasn’t changed that I’m aware of and everything I’ve done can be tracked on this site if anyone wanted to.

  128. Comment #101 was just edited again, and not by me, so it is apparently possible. If that was to correct the previous edit, I appreciate the honesty and integrity. Its easier to ban trolls than to believe anything they say, so that says much in favor of your character.

  129. Comment #101 was indeed altered by someone within LFV. I received the original in my email, and it said nothing of the sort, nor would any reasonable person ever think it did. I have changed it back to the original wording.

    Colt Peanut, I sincerely apologize on behalf of LFV. No one should have ever altered your comment or deleted any of your comments, and I can personally assure you that it won’t happen again.

    The LFV editor who altered that comment placed me in jeopardy, and damaged LFV’s credibility. I am extremely unhappy about it, to say the very least.

    I now return you to your regularly scheduled argument.

  130. No apology necessary since I don’t believe you did it, but accepted in any case from you personally on behalf of LFV. I take back my Last Fraud Voice comment since you’ve gone above and beyond to protect your blog’s reputation. Good for you. ElfNinosMom has shown honesty, integrity, and fine character. G.E. doesn’t believe me though and he’s the great judge of others’ credibility, so my words probably aren’t worth much.

    But that still means one of the other contributors here alters people’s comments in an effort to fraudlently make them appear to be racist and the readers will just have to guess which contributor here likes committing fraud. If you know who did it, it would probably be a good idea to share that information.

  131. Okay, I just checked and can say for 100% certainty that I DO NOT have the ability to edit other people’s comments.

    ENM – If someone edited the comment, you should be able to tell who. Not too many people can have that ability. I don’t.

  132. RESOVLED:

    1.Richard Winger’s activism puts him on the side of the angels.

    2.Susan Hogarth’s commitment to libertarianism is above reproach.

    3.Neither Starchild or Michelle Shinghal have any cellulite.

    4.Colt Peanut is a gutless racist.

    5.Sean Haugh is very serious about his job.

    What do these facts have to do with the New Hampshire lawsuit? Not a goddamn thing.

    Now, when you are all done nursing your petty slights, try grappling with the following:

    A.)What is the proper LNC procedure in the initiation of a lawsuit? Does a mention of the possibility of such in a staff report released between LNC meetings constitute proper notice to the board? Do Haugh and Kraus have the authority to initiate a law suit without putting it to a vote of the entire LNC? If Redpath has the sole authority, what is the fiduciary duty with regard to financial priorities during severe shortfalls?

    B.) Is the suit a political payback stemming from a confrontation between Carling/Karlan/Sundwall and Macia and Phillies/McMahon at the LPNY ’07 convention? Did that confrontation result as of Carling overstepping what was agreed upon by members of the LNC? Is it a relevant fact that M Carling proposed to strip George Phillies of his life membership at the July ’07 LNC meeting? Is it a relevant fact that Aaron Starr proposed an affiliate agreement which singled out LPNH for a daunting level of control by the LNC? (Starr lated withdrew after I made the case that it would lead to infighting and bitterness. Who knew?) What does the ExCom of LPNH want?

    C.)What is the responsibility of the Barr/Root campaign for handling ballot access? Is it a mis characterization to state that LPNH has no ballot access when the drop dead date was August 6th and the signature validity is known? A mis characterization that there is no LP ballot access if Phillies/Bennett ticket has made the ballot? Does it matter if both are on the ballot? Does it make any difference who is on the ballot as long as the libertarian label is on it?

    Get back to me via email (angela at angelakeaton com) if any of you have serious answers so I don’t have to wade through this most worthless thread.

    Angela Keaton
    At Large Rep
    Libertarian National Committee

    P.S., Colt Peanut, Psssst….Bill Woolsey is a welfare queen. Pass it on.

  133. Guys,

    There was, at least yesterday, an apparent WordPress problem, in which there were anomalies. I spent a while on the phone with someone ‘I think you didn’t quite mean to say that. MA and NH seem to have scrambled themselves. ‘ Re-editing led to strange outcomes for a bit.

  134. I absolutely agree that neither Starchild nor Michelle have any cellulite. And, I hate them for it. 😉

  135. Okay. ENM says the comments were in fact edited. Do I regret calling Colt Peanut a liar? No. For one can never be 100% sure about anything, and the idea that none of LFV’s writers would be stupid enough to edit a guy’s comments when that guy could easily call him on it and repost whatever had been edited, was beyond a reasonable doubt to me. Now if someone worthy of my respect, say Susan Hogarth, had made the claim, I would not have “jumped to conclusions” (though I do need the exercised — thinly veiled anti-fatism by Susan) and called her a liar. But this Colt Peanut figure is an anonymous coward whose sole purpose seems to be to discredit Chris Bennett for doing something that virtually every one of us have done — me included! — and that is, except government money to attend government-controlled and monopolized schools. Therefore, Mr. Peanut was not worthy of benefit beyond reasonable doubt.

  136. “P.S., Colt Peanut, Psssst….Bill Woolsey is a welfare queen. Pass it on.”

    Apparently, I don’t care if Woolsey is a welfare queen unless he is black. But I haven’t read anything that you have said that was false thus far, so I’ll take your word for it on Woolsey but I’m afraid I can’t pass it along without more evidence. I really am an equal opportunity welfare queen caller though of those wanting to represent the LP on the ballot, contrary to whatever fact you want to claim. The person altering comments injected race, not me.

    And you forgot another fact Angela. An LFV contributor alters comments to try to fraudulently make people look like racists.

    I’ll take the gutless criticism for now. However it certainly seems justified now that an LFV contributor is using fraud against me. If it was Chris Bennett altering comments, and all logic would suggest that is the case, it would not be out of character for him. He’s been mucking around doing the same kind of BS in Illinois for a few years now. Knowing Bennett’s history of problems with the truth, as several regular readers here do, would certainly cause people to think twice about exposing themselves to someone that would go so far as to alter comments and committ fraud as was done today on LFV.

    I’m all for getting rid of idiots with authority in the LP. Chris Bennett is one of them though and he is George Phillies running mate, so that reflects on Phillies and the LP if they are on the ballot under the LP banner. You are only hurting your own efforts to hold the LP accountable and responsible when you ally with people that will use fraud to achieve those ends. Weed out your house of frauds and more people might take your complaints against other frauds more seriously and join in on the fun.

  137. Ooh,
    POUNCE!

    For one can never be 100% sure about anything,…

    How do you know?

  138. G.E. That was a fine display of honesty, integrity and strength of character on your part. (Sarcasm.)

    Only a few people get Pell Grants (they are not loans and are not re-paid) because it is based on income. G.E. are you claiming filling out an application and applying for free Pell Grant handouts is a perfectly libertarian thing to do WHILE you are seeking the Vice Presidency of the US on the LP ticket? Do youself a favor and don’t dig your hole any deeper. Let Bennett go down by himself without dragging you also, if you are smart enough. Protecting Bennett is a lot less important than your goal of purging the LP of idiots just like Bennett.

  139. I accepted loans and “aid” during my first tour of duty in college, as a youngster. I paid in cash for my final three semesters. Some people can’t do that. The government inflates the cost via subsidy, and we pay taxes, so I don’t think it’s inappropriate to try to get that tax money back.

  140. Here ‘ya go Peanut. Here’s a list of Welfare Queens:

    Eric Dondero, Clifford Thies, Andrew Murphy, Stephen Maloney, Ryan Christiano, JB Williams , Adam Brickley, Neal Boyd, James Fryar, Wayne Root, Patrick J. Conlon, John Hawkins, R.S. McCain, Kevin Tracey, Chuck Muth, & Steve Beren.

    http://libertarianrepublican.blogspot.com/2008/08/anti-war-libertarians-losing-support.html

    And Aaron, if you and Wayne are so goddamn rich, you can pay for your own goddamn surge. Stop stealing from Doherty and me to pay for your fucking war.
    http://www.jewishexponent.com/article/16812

    That’s last goddamn time I hope to ever have to write anything on a goddamn blog that isn’t related to my j-o-b.
    I have to go back to work to support Woolsey’s white ass and the rest of the welfare cheats at the Citadel.

    Fuck you. Fuck you all.

  141. “Only a few people get Pell Grants”

    — Colt Peanut

    “More than five million people will receive Pell grants this coming year. … More than $10.8 billion was appropriated for Pell grants last year, and the administration wants to add another $2 billion this year.”

    — Brendan Minter, Wall Street Journal, 07/30/03

    Pell Grants aside, anyone who attends a “public” college or university receives a huge taxpayer subsidy from the git-go. Back in 1993 or 1994 when students in Missouri were complaining about a proposed tuition hike at Southwest Missouri State University, I ran the numbers and discovered that a student who attended SMSU with no scholarships, no loans, no Pell Grants, no GI Bill, no nothing, paid approximately 1/3 of the actual cost of delivering the classes. The other 2/3 was taxpayer money.

    Granted, I’d love to eliminate government-subsidized “higher education.” I rather suspect Chris Bennett would, also. But while it exists, it tends to drive affordable private higher education out of the market, which means for most Americans that it’s accept the subsidy or don’t get a degree. I can’t blame anyone for taking the former, rather than the latter, option.

    Chris Bennett went back to school while working two jobs to support his family? The horror! The shame! At least he wasn’t doing other evil things like walking on water, curing the sick, blind and lame, and feeding the thousands with five loaves and two fishes.

    Disclosure: I attended a “public” university for 1/2 of one semester right after high school, and received government-guaranteed student loans (which have since been paid off) to do so.

  142. What’s lost in all this discussion is the voters of New Hampshire.

    What George Phillies is essentially doing is commiting voter fraud on the voters of New Hampshire who signed his petition. These voters, from Nashua to Concord, from Seabrook to Keene, signed believing that they were signing to get the LIBERTARIAN PARTY PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE on the ballot NOT GEORGE PHILLIES. It was made clear to the signer, by LPNH members, JUST AS IT WAS DONE IN ILLINOIS, CONNECTICUT AND OTHER STATES THAT HAD SUBSTITUION, that the signer was signing for the eventual nominee of the Libertarian Party.

    I know this for a fact. Cause I was on the ground for 1 full month in New Hampshire petitioning for Barr/Root. I had numerous voters say to me that they had already signed for the Libertarian Party Presidential candidate, and were confused as the why they were being asked to sign again.

    I asked them if they knew of George Phillies. Not a single one of them knew his name. But every one of them knew of Bob Barr.

    I will be more than willing to testify in court to this, as I’m sure Ron Cook, David Jackson, and the other Professional Petitioners on the ground would do so as well.

    This needs to be settled in court. Phillies needs to be brought up on charges of defrauding the voters of New Hampshire.

  143. Angela Keaton writes, “2.Susan Hogarth’s commitment to libertarianism is above reproach.”

    Appears to argue from facts not in evidence, at least anywhere on this site. Hogarth appears to be committed to the Libertarian Party, at any cost, and in any circumstances. She appears on this thread to support the use of the force of the state to force George off the ballot in NH against his will, and in betrayal of his own commitment to the voters in NH. She seeks to dishonor the choices taken by the LP of NH using the force of the state as needed.

    These seem to be a commitment to statism, not libertarianism.

  144. Also lost in this discussion above is the damage that George Phillies has inflicted on the Libertarian Party. The LNC if they were smart would sue him for everything he’s got for costing the Libertarian Party at least two states this election cycle, and very nearly three.

    The two states: West Virginia and Maine.

    If the LP had been able to stay on schedule, and not had been diverted to fix the disaster in New Hampshire, then there’s is no doubt in this Professional Petitioners mind, that WV and ME would have been a cinch to finish.

    As it were, we were diverted from Kentucky to New Hampshire, instead of going to West Virginia as planned.

    Petitioning in New Hampshire took way longer than anticipated thanks to Phillies having invalidated the signatures to be collected for Barr/Root (voters can only sign one third party petition.) As a result, we were delayed at least 5 days from getting to Connecticut.

    CT then became utter chaos. The Petition Coordinator local guy Andy Rule was up til 5 am in the morning the last night notarizing all the signatures!!

    This caused us to get to Maine with only 2 1/2 days left. Only a miracle would have allowed us to get the 5000 sigs needed in Maine, and deliver them to the Town Clerks all over the State in time for the Friday 5 pm deadline.

    Phillies and his supporters are completely and totally responsible for the loss of ballot access for the Libertarian Party in West Virginia and Maine.

    If the LNC had any balls they’d sue his ass for everything he’s got. I sincerely hope Redpath, and the LNC leadership will IMMEDIATELY take legal action against him

    Anything less would be a travesty and would lead to great dissapointment amongst supporters of Barr/Root for President.

  145. Notwithstanding the obvious fallacy of George being responsible in any way for the failures of the LP to strategize its ballot access work, including this notion of it being George’s fault that the work to put a libertarian on the ballot by the NH LP was declared a “do over” by the national LP, it would be very amusing to see who was left standing in a lawsuit between the LP and George.

    Sue him for everything he’s got? He’s got a lot more ready money at hand to bring to bear on the issue.

    If that were done, and Heaven forfend the national LP do things that Eric Dondero Rittberg ever suggests, what would it say to other life members of the LP? Do what we demand or we’ll sue you too!

    Which ought to be the basis for a really cool membership drive.

  146. New Hampshire is not the only State this election cycle that had substitute candidates.

    Illinois had the name of Debra Aaron at the top of the ballot for the Libertarian Party. I had no idea who Ms. Aaron was. We were all petitioning for Barr/Root.

    Why is it that Ms. Aaron hasn’t given the National Libertarian Party any troubles? She could have easily done the same thing as Phillies is doing right now. But she had integrity. She knew that to keep her name on the ballot, and not write that letter to the IL SoS asking him to replace her name with the name of Bob Barr would be entirely unethical, and akin to outright voter fraud.

    Why are we letting Phillies off the hook here? He is doing nothing less than commiting voter fraud on the voters of the Great State of New Hampshire.

  147. Phillies and some of his supporters here, make it seem that he has the support of the “LPNH”. He most certainly does not.

    As a matter of fact, IT WAS THE STATE CHAIRMAN OF THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY BRENDAN KELLY OF SEABROOK WHO HEADED THE PETITION DRIVE TO QUALIFY BOB BARR/WAYNE ROOT FOR THE BALLOT.

    Additionally, Rich Tomosso another LPNH Executive Committee member, and Media Director for the LPNH was the on-the-ground Coordinator for the Drive. Both gentleman are staunch supporters of Bob Barr, as are a great many other LPNH leaders and members.

    Only a small but loud faction of the LP supports Phillies. I dare say, if a poll was taken of the LPNH membership, who to have on the ballot, a resounding majority would say shitcan Phillies and put Barr on.

  148. This says it all, from Richard Winger:

    Today is Friday, August 22. On August 21, both Mary Ruwart and Rachel Hawkridge told me on the phone that it is not true that they have been kept in the dark about the proposed New Hampshire lawsuit. Furthermore, they both support it. So does Michael Badnarik.

    Eric:

    Looks like Angela Keaton and those who’ve been claiming that they were “kept in the dark” about this lawsuit, just got blown out of the water.

    Angela, give it up. You lose. You’ve got a wonderful, caring hubby. Yeah, he ain’t the best looking guy in the world. But he is very smart and witty. And you You live in LA for Christ’s sakes. Life doesn’t suck all around.

    You lost one. Winger just busted your bubble. Now move on.

  149. G.E. please stop with this fucking lie that the LPNH supports George Phillies. You say, “No way, George. Stay on the ballot. For whatever insane reason, the LPNH thinks you’re a great candidate”

    Truth is only a tiny faction of the LPNH thinks George Phillies is a great guy. In fact, it’s really only one guy – Seth Cohn.

    G.E. you fucking live in Michigan. What in the bloody hell do you know about New Hampshire? Have you ever even been there?

    I just got done spending 4 to 5 weeks traveling the State from Concord to Hampton Beach, from South Nashua to Keene. I’ve been to every friggin’ dive neighborhood in downtown Manchester. I’ve met and spoken to countless Libertarians.

    I’ve only met one single Libertarian who supports George Phillies. And that’s Seth Cohn.

    Brendan Kelly, the State Chair of the LP doesn’t support him. Neither does MR. LIBERTARIAN PARTY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE HIMSELF IN THE FLESH RICH TOMOSSO.

    Let me tell you something G.E. You don’t get any more hardcore LPNH than Tomosso. The guy eats, breaths, and bleeds Libertarian Party of New Hampshire. He doesn’t even fucking sleep. Every free minute of his life outside of his work is devoted to promoting the Party in NH.

    Bob Barr had an event in Manchester at the famous Murphy’s Tavern in July. Guess how many people showed up?

    120!

    Tell me G.E., do you think Phillies could pull such a crowd?

    I swear to Christ G.E. if I hear you saying one more Goddamned time “the LPNH supports Geoge Phillies,” I’m gonna reach through this mother-fucking computer and rip your fucking head off.

    It ain’t fucking true. So stop spreading lies.

  150. Eric Dondero wrote:

    I swear to Christ G.E. if I hear you saying one more Goddamned time “the LPNH supports Geoge Phillies,” I’m gonna reach through this mother-fucking computer and rip your fucking head off.

    Swear to your chosen deity all you want, Mr. Dondero, but you absolutely will not be allowed to threaten anyone with physical violence in this forum.

    Disagreements are fine. Threats are not fine. This is not complicated.

    At this point you can either behave yourself, or have your posting privileges revoked. The choice is yours, but I will not warn you again.

  151. Eric,

    I realize FSU is not a top school but I assume that at some point you
    a.) learned how to read,
    b.) learned that appeals to “authority” are not answers to arguments,
    c.) law suits do not exist in a vacuum.

    You, Winger, Hogarth, Haugh and whomever else, read #133 and address the fucking issues instead of dancing around about how Phillies doesn’t make your dick hard and how the fate of the free world hangs in the balance as to whether or not some washed up dipshit with and infomercial retard don’t make it on the ballot.

    You can stick a fucking stuffed monkey on the ballot for all the hell anyone cares. It’s the LP. No one will fucking know the difference.

    As far as Doherty and his looks are concerned, you will never suck a dick that relevant, talented or libertarian unless you dig up Rothbard’s corpse.

    Keaton

  152. Well, that’s good. Threats of physical violence should not arise as a result of people stating views. Clearly Donderoni-baloney can’t come through the computer, so it is not a rational threat, but it is evidence that he doesn’t wish to play nice with others. Given that Erica Dondera Rittberg is also eager to send other men and women to fight and bleed and die in other countries, killing the people who live in those countries, it isn’t surprising that he would threaten violence to anyone who states a view with which he disagrees.

    One of the substantive issues which he interprets bizarrely is the LP NH people who have helped circulate petitions for Barr being against George being on the ballot. Many of the same people also circulated petitions for Phillies. So, automatically assuming that they are demanding Phillies off the ballot by circulating petitions to put Barr on the ballot is wrong.

    I could go through the rest of Erica’s rants for fallacies and errors of fact, but dinner is calling. Erica can prove herself wrong, but dinner won’t eat itself.

  153. Oh, heck, dinner can be eaten cold – like revenge.

    Angela asks, “A.)What is the proper LNC procedure in the initiation of a lawsuit?”

    One would think that a matter that could get the individual members of the committee named in a counter-suit or otherwise held liable would be handled with the advice and consent of all the members of the committee. Given it is a substantial use of the resources of the LP, someone stupid enough to pay dues to be a member of the LP would want his or her representative to the LNC to be fully informed and give or withhold consent before the suit is entered.

    “Does a mention of the possibility of such in a staff report released between LNC meetings constitute proper notice to the board?”

    No. Nor is notice sufficient, as per above.

    “Do Haugh and Kraus have the authority to initiate a law suit without putting it to a vote of the entire LNC?”

    If they do, your organization is rather thoroughly fucked, and no amount of metaphorical necrophiliac blow jobs is going to bring it back.

    “If Redpath has the sole authority, what is the fiduciary duty with regard to financial priorities during severe shortfalls?”

    Is Redpath a gun grabber as GE states on IPR? If so, I would question whether he could be a libertarian, let alone suited to chair the LP.

    He has a fiduciary obligation to report financial priorities to the committee. In addition, a fiduciary has the primary obligation of keeping the entity operating as a going concern – receiving income, paying those obligations which can result in confiscation or legal action if not paid (e.g., payroll taxes).

    Then again, one would expect the LNC to be given the opportunity to review advertising on the site’s home page for merchandisers and to set a policy for LP candidates to be added to the party’s site. Or is that only available for a fee?

    “B.) Is the suit a political payback stemming from a confrontation between Carling/Karlan/Sundwall and Macia and Phillies/McMahon at the LPNY ‘07 convention?”

    Yes, it is.

    “Did that confrontation result as of Carling overstepping what was agreed upon by members of the LNC?”

    Yes.

    “Is it a relevant fact that M Carling proposed to strip George Phillies of his life membership at the July ‘07 LNC meeting?”

    Yes. And other life members should take heed. If the tyrant can strip one member over policy disagreements, the tyranny can take anyone’s membership.

    “Is it a relevant fact that Aaron Starr proposed an affiliate agreement which singled out LPNH for a daunting level of control by the LNC?”

    Yes, it is. Aaron Starr is a tyrannical conservative republican, unfit to lead a free people.

    “(Starr later withdrew after I made the case that it would lead to infighting and bitterness. Who knew?)”

    Any child could see it would.

    “What does the ExCom of LPNH want?”

    One could ask them. Certainly a reliance on reports from Erica Dondera doesn’t work.

    One might also ask what do the people who signed petitions to put George on the ballot want, but the answer is obvious. They wanted George to appear on the ballot.

    “C.)What is the responsibility of the Barr/Root campaign for handling ballot access?”

    The financial obligation should be the responsibility of the campaigns involved. Those who benefit from ballot access should bear its costs.

    “Is it a mis characterization to state that LPNH has no ballot access when the drop dead date was August 6th and the signature validity is known?”

    Yes, it is. It is also a mis-characterization because the LPNH already has obtained access for candidates, such as Phillies, e.g.

    “A mis characterization that there is no LP ballot access if Phillies/Bennett ticket has made the ballot?”

    Just so.

    “Does it matter if both are on the ballot?”

    Yes, it is better.

    After all, voters should have the option of voting for a libertarian candidate and Barr cannot provide that choice.

    “Does it make any difference who is on the ballot as long as the libertarian label is on it?”

    Yes, it does, to very many people, or there would not be national and state conventions to nominate candidates.

    A more salient point would ask whether the national convention trumps the state convention in all things.

    At this point, whatever you guys do, some activists in NH are going to be offended. “Splitters! The People’s Judean Liberation Front shall be triumphant!”

  154. Mr. Amendall:

    Thank you for addressing the salient points surrounding this case. If you would, could you craft a letter to the LNC based on your post? The email addresses are on the LP.org website.

    Further, please accept my apology if my attempt to start a fist fight in the lobby of the Sheraton with my former friend Aaron Starr was your first impression of me. Or that references to necrophiliac fellatio was the second.

    ENM, please accept my apology for introducing the notion of necrophiliac fellatio on your blog. If you wish to block me from further comment, I understand.

    Further, the offensive comments which suggested if I turn up missing, please check to see if Shane Cory is wearing my clothes while dancing around his bedroom to Sisters of Mercy have been removed from my Facebook wall.

    In liberty,

    Angela Keaton

  155. Mr Dondero is apparently a Republican.

    Unsurprisingly, given this appearance, he is doing things to disrupt our Libertarian Party.

    With respect to the LPNH, I was chosen as their nominee by vote of their convention a year and a half ago. They had NOTA as a alternative, and rejected, so there is absolutely no question that I was the choice of that party, whether Eric likes it or not.

    The LNC has had a year+, including another LPNH State Convention, to ask the LPNH to retract its action, and did not do so, a matter that I suspect will be reviewed at very considerable length during the highly hypothetical and likely lengthy litigation.

    The LNC has had petitioners that they refused to use, in some cases not for obviously rational reasons, a matter that I suspect will be reviewed at length during the highly hypothetical litigation if petitioning is an issue.

    The challenging state of the Maine and West Virginia parties has been known for many years, and the LNC did not act by any of several routes, a matter that I suspect will be reviewed at great length in any highly hypothetical litigation where this was germane.

    I believe it can be demonstrated that there were available libertarian petitioners who could have gone into NH in late May, and other places at other times, which might have relieved these issues.

  156. I think it is about time that someone brought up the subject of necrophiliac fellatio, especially in regard to Mr. Rittberg.

    It might also be worth exploring the practice in relation to voting as the results are similar in that there is never a happy ending – that is unless you enjoy “pulling the lever” (and by that I mean spanking the monkey) while you are in the voting booth. Heck, you don’t even have to vote to enjoy that when you go to the poll. Also, peeing in the voting booth can be almost as much fun as pissing in the punchbowl.

  157. Angela asks, “If you would, could you craft a letter to the LNC based on your post?”

    I could do so, and would be happy to help you in this small way, but you must be aware that I’m not a member of the Libertarian Party. It is my distinct pleasure to note that I have never been a member. So feel free to let them know what I think if you wish, and I’ll do so if you want, but I doubt it means anything to them.

    “Further, please accept my apology if my attempt to start a fist fight in the lobby of the Sheraton with my former friend Aaron Starr was your first impression of me.”

    I had that on rumor from a friend who was there. I think fist fights are a good thing. Very cathartic. Get the blood flowing. And if you were to spill some of his, what loss?

    “Or that references to necrophiliac fellatio was the second.”

    Hardly the second thing you’ve posted here.

    Truly, no need to apologize for any of it. Be proud. Be free.

  158. Leave it to Mr. Dondero to try to blame the Barr campaign’s incompetent management of the West Virginia drive on George Phillies.

    Some clues as to how Illinois and New Hampshire are different, Mr. Dondero:

    – Illinois law allows substitution. New Hampshire law does not.

    – Therefore, when New Hampshire voters signed petitions to put George Phillies on the ballot, they had no reason to expect that their signatures would put anyone else on the ballot, unless the same people you are now citing as wanting to put Barr on in his place were lying to them.

    Pursuing legal action to get substitution allowed is a great idea. I hope it succeeds. Unless the LPNH executive committee supports that legal action, however, it almost certainly won’t succeed, because the Libertarian Party’s ballot line in New Hampshire belongs to LPNH, not LNC. So, if Redpath et al want to get this done, they need to make nice instead of sending their shills out to whine about George Phillies.

    Of course, the more I look at this, the more I think it may not be a “supremacy dogfight” after all. It’s looking more and more likely to me that what’s actually in play is that the Barr campaign screwed the pooch in New Hampshire just like it did in West Virginia and Maine, failed to collect enough signatures to get itself on the ballot, and now wants to steal someone else’s spot instead of asking for it.

  159. Angela Keaton wrote:

    ENM, please accept my apology for introducing the notion of necrophiliac fellatio on your blog. If you wish to block me from further comment, I understand.

    As long as you aren’t pulling a Dondero, by threatening to come through the computer and rip off the head (pun intended) of the necrophiliac fellatio project, you will never be blocked from further comment.

    I am giving your arguments some front-page space, though, in a little something I like to call “LNC Smackdown!”

  160. Last comment for the person who won’t reveal his real name:

    I ran for VP because no one else was running. You just don’t like me because you have much disdain for me and the LPI. Get over it. You’re just mad we got rid of you and all your chums who for most part wasn’t accomplishing much. We paid off those FEC fines that your chums caused us to incur. Last year I was given an Outstanding Activist Award for trying to get better ballot access here in Illinois. No one else spent as much time as I did trying to convince the criminals in Springfield to pass a better ballot access law but unfortunately Michael Madigan killed it on arrival. Not many people here are going to believe you because my positives outweigh my negatives, especially coming from someone who can’t even reveal their true name..at least Dondero has the balls to reveal his true name and he’s hated by most on here.

    Now if you feel frisky enough to turn LPI around, I’m sure you are still a member and our State Convention is coming up. Board positions are open and why don’t you take a shot a Chair since you think you are better than me.

  161. Since approval has been given for discussion of necrophiliac fellatio (of Rothbard’s corpse, no less!) it seems to me we should take a moment to consider Angela’s other proposal.

    Are libertarians better off by “fucking stuffed monkey” instead of putting Barr on the ballot? Oh, wait, no, putting a stuffed monkey on the ballot, that was it.

    voice = Stewie Griffin
    So, um, hey. Yeah, hey. Looook. That’s my stuffed monkey, yeah? Okay, so stop fucking it and put it on the ballot!

    Triumph is mine!
    /voice

    We might also discuss whether there is a perceptible difference between a fucking stuffed monkey and Barr.

  162. […] by ElfNinosMom Sorry, couldn’t resist that headline after LNC Treasurer Aaron Starr (in LFV comments) made a reference to libertarian […]

  163. “We might also discuss whether there is a perceptible difference between a fucking stuffed monkey and Barr.”

    Well, in Denver the Barr pitch was that the campaign would raise $40 million plus and win the presidential election. I doubt that more than a handful of people believed that would happen, but that was the pitch, and the reasonable standard for success would be that the campaign at least made a credible effort to deliver on it.

    Per Eric Dondero, the standard for success has now been lowered to the LP getting more votes in 2008 with a well-known former US Representative than the LP got in 1980 with a virtually unknown candidate who had never been elected to office before, in an election with only about 2/3 as many voters as are likely to vote this time, against much stronger third party competition (John Anderson polled something like 6%).

    If the former standard prevails, then no, there’s no significant difference between Barr and a fucking stuffed monkey, because neither Barr nor the monkey ever had any chance of raising $40 million plus and winning the election.

    If the latter standard prevails, then there’s probably a difference. The rampaging incompetence of his campaign thus far notwithstanding, there’s some chance, however small (I’m still predicting 750-850k votes) that Bob Barr 2008 might coast on his name recognition to a higher vote total than Ed Clark 1980. The fucking stuffed monkey would probably not manage that, although it might very well outpoll Roger McBride 1976 or maybe even David Bergland 1984.

    All of which is neither here nor there, because this isn’t about Barr or the fucking stuffed monkey or the price of tea in China. It’s about the relationship between the LNC and the state LPs.

  164. Yes, but you’ve already beaten the relationship issues to death. We could see whether driving the nail further into the ground results in it being more thoroughly nailed, I guess.

  165. None of my chums caused any FEC fines as I don’t have any chums in LPIllinois and don’t want any, but you sure do defend your chums that were responsible for them. There were several people that spent a lot more time trying to get ballot access laws changed in Illinois than you did. Perhaps not in your little LPI world where barely lifting a finger is celebrated as doing something compared to doing nothing, but Randall Stufflebeam should be known enough, Christina Tobin, Dorian Brauer, Phil Huckleberry, and others all did a lot more than you did trying to get ballot access laws changed. You jumped in AFTER years of groundwork and lawsuits and AFTER lobbying to get the legislation introduced and now you claim you did more than anyone else. By the time you and LPI finally chimed in it was already over the session. Stop with the fraud Chris Bennett.

    What you did, and still are doing, is to attack people that do the good work and then start claiming credit. You enjoy taking credit and bloating your own image to make up for the fact that you are usually a do-nothing that is all talk and no action. And you are still all talk and will be again after November when the Senate campaign you are managing gets its butt kicked by Chad Koppie and the Green candidate.

    I could care less if people believe me or not. They can look at the results in November, and your level of activity between now and then, managing that US Senate campaign and make up their own minds. Right now, your campaign is completely non-existent so they could use that to make up their minds as well. They will see you are all talk, no action.

    Or is your preferred action to be a fraud altering people’s comments and fraudulently making them out to be a racist, invoking charges of racism to solicit sympathy, and then ignoring that you might have acted just like everyone you so readily and frequently attack? Get over yourself Chris Bennett. Shut up your ciritics with action if you can. I bet you can’t, just like your track record shows. Your negatives already outweigh your positives when you are willing to resort to fraud to achieve whatever it is you want. Here’s a warning for everyone here. If you don’t sufficiently kiss Chris Bennett’s butt he will lie about you and use fraud to try to bolster his fractured ego. He has little interest in ever actually accomplishing anything other than tearing down the people willing to work because they make him look bad when he does nothing.

    Now shut your mouth Chris Bennett and get to work before you lose even more credibility. If you want to continue the flame wars you’ve been starting for years in Illinois, it will prove me (a complete nobody) right again about your character. I don’t need anyone to believe me, when they can just observe you.

    Matthew Lesko champions Pell Grants that are based on income, not merit, which is all a real libertarian should need to know. Less than 10% of students get them so that’s rare enough for me. Subsidies drive DOWN the costs of college by spreading the cost using a gun to people’s head that aren’t using the service. Private colleges are more expensive than government colleges, duh. Now near-monopoly control of higher education drives up costs, but subsidies do not. And on the justification front, some people start working at age 15, excel in areas that warrant private scholoarships, and work throughout college to pay for it, WITHOUT sticking their hands out to grab up to $4000 a year in Pell Grants. Government backed loans are one thing, but grants that are not paid back and are based on income rather than merit or service are comparable to loans. A government handout based on income levels that doesn’t have to be re-paid sure sounds like welfare to me.

    G.E. would all be over Shane Corey or whoever if they supported using such an entitlement program. And if they were altering comments and invoking charges of racism against other people, G.E. would be on top of the world calling them on their BS. That’s a good thing, except when he obviously ignores it when it happens under his nose with people he favors.

  166. Many typos but oh well. NOT comparable to loans was meant.

    And one more thing for Chris Bennett. The sooner you figure out that being better than someone else is usually irrelevant to what is principled, honest or true, the sooner you can stop trying to tear others down in an effort to make yourself look better than them. Your actions and behavior make up the content of your character, not how well you use fraud and lies to try to destroy someone’s else’s character in a vain effort to make yourself look better. Its not so fun when you are the target of the same tactics you use all to often, albeit without the fraud and lies you use. The truth is almost always the best weapon, try that instead of hot air some day.

  167. No, your character informs your actions and behavior. But these things are not your character. Nor are they your principles.

    There is a difference between living a perfectly principled life and living. One is an unobtainable ideal, and the other is a series of unpleasant compromises.

  168. Yes, John, my words were not precise. “informs” is a better choice than “make up”, you are correct.

  169. Susan: How do you know? [that we can never be 100% sure about anything,…]

    Bob: My favorite subject, Susan. Descartes and certain Indian philosophers would say something about consciousness informing us that we by definition know only one thing: I am. Everything else is our best guess, an opinion shaped by perceptions that are, based on results, imperfect. Welcome to the Matrix!

  170. Hey there, Colt. Put them pea-shooters away! You might put somebuddy’s “I” out, or hurt their feelings!

    And speaking of feelings (and thus the completely non-rational)…

    Eric Dondero = comic genius (and agent provacateur!). When I see the words “Eric Dondero”, this is my reaction:

    Noone can possibly take Eric seriously, at this point, can they? The cat’s out of the bag, it’s all an act!

    If Eric “Master Shake” Dondero was 15 years old and didn’t know anything, then I’d be worried that he was serious! …But he’s not serious! Come on, people! Just look at what he says:
    “I’m gonna reach through this mother-fucking computer and rip your fucking head off.”

    “Master Shake” from ATHF conjures Phil Anselmo? …LOL…
    There was an episode of Aqua Teen Hunger Force where Master Shake can’t resist clicking on hovering spam windows that literally come into his home, in physical form. Maybe that’s where “Eric Dondero” (the alter-ego of a terribly underpaid unnamed agent provacateur) got the idea.

    Awesome.

    I find it hilarious that –even if it is an act– “Eric” pretends to get upset with other people lying, or talking about things they have no knowledge of! After all, Eric recently weighed in on WV, slandered me, and got all the facts wrong (distorting them even beyond his inept buddy Shane Cory’s view).

    And Angela Keaton said:

    5.Sean Haugh is very serious about his job.

    …Welcome to Donderoland, Angela! We hope you enjoy your stay!

    (The primary problem with Eric Dondero’s form of “lifelong comedy”, is that it acts as a meme-virus on otherwise smart people! Is that what happened to Angela? I notice that she decided to be “fair and balanced”, she’s even more “fair and balanced” than Fox News.)

    Haugh may be serious about his job, but only in the way that the tooth fairy is serious about his tooth collection, and Santa Claus is serious about checking his list. Ie: Not in any kind of: ACTUAL _SERIOUS_ REALITY.

    If Haugh is serious about his job, then the word “serious” just got plutoed.

    I’m going to have to encourage my 8 year old nephew to apply for “Political Director” of the LP. He could –with minimal effort– run a tighter ship than Haugh.

    I guess Haugh must be serious about his jobbie, right Angela? I mean, the very first thing I would do if I got the job is… (hold on, must put myself into the character of Sean Haugh)
    …JUST FUCKING FIRE EVERYBODY WHO HAD WORKED FOR THE LP IN THE LAST 10 YEARS IN HYSTERICAL FITS OF RANTING LUNATIC RAGE, ALL WHILE IGNORING THE BASIC FUNCTIONS OF THE JOB…

    …Duhhhr.

    Ron Crickenberger, RIP. …Nevermind Angela Keaton pissing on your grave. …She just wants to make “important” friends. I guess she just wants to prove that she’s not really friends with those crazy petitioners that have done more actual work for the LP than she could ever do in 1,000 years. Either that, or she’s impressed with: [FIRED! HA HA HA! YOU’RE ALL FIRED! OOPS, I CRAPPED MY PANTS, AND BLEW $50K OF OPM!]

    …Sorry about that last little bit of Sean-Haugh-character-acting that crept into that last paragraph. …I guess I just found out how seductive Haugh’s view of reality can be.

    Sean Haugh actually said this to a libertarian activist:
    “You are so fired, dude.”

    Exact quote. …I’m not making that up.

    Is the gravity of the situation becoming clear? 11 year old in a grown man’s body. That bad.

    We’ve entrusted 20 or so years of difficult party-building to an emotional girly-man with no apparent oversight what-so-ever.

    Angela, I understand if you like the sound of Sean’s voice, or are otherwise enchanted with something he once said or did. A broken clock is right twice a day. (…Although in that analogy, Haugh is a digital alarm clock that won’t stop ringing, …and with the same solution.) …But youreally need to get outside and sign the petition banning dihydrogen oxide if you think that Haugh is serious about anything. I also have some land (on a bridge) in Florida I’d like to sell you, right after you get back from Dondero’s training camp for young liberal-aryan Reblubbliccans.

    Jeebus, save me.

    BTW: I wish that the Barr Campaign would pay me what they owe me ($3,106.77), for the signatures of mine they handed in in WV, plus the expenses they agreed to pay. Maybe then I could get promoted to a level above my area of expertise, and collect a permanent paycheck.

    It happened to Haugh and Cory. Why not me? Why don’t I get Libertarian Party welfare, completely independent of my performance?

    Ahhh. I know. …All that pesky truth-telling.

    Not that anything I say here matters. Cory, Haugh, and the rest of the prick squad will be ancient history in 2012 and beyond, and the LP will have 50 states of ballot access then. How do I know this?

    …Because…

    …“We never had to take any of it seriously, did we?”

  171. Awesome album cover idea for Mojo Nixon or other libertarian rock artist: A picture of a bunch of Dodo birds standing around, with the words “Donderoland” above them, hovering in the mist.

    …Good on so many levels. Dondero sounds a little bit like “Dodo”, and in reality is similar to a Dodo. Small. Flightless. Pea-brained.

    …And about as competitive as an airline ticket to Hawaii that has to make mandatory 4-hour stops in both Nebraska and Antarctica. (This idea is made all the more poignant by Dondero’s inane defense of military action for the purposes of Eugenics.)

    ————-
    How cool would it be if someone else could laugh at this? Then at least _2_ people will have extracted the maximum value from the 2008 Libertarian Party. (In our defense, for those of you reading this from the far future, we were restructuring that year.)

  172. Flame wars? You’ve got to be kidding! LOL You know Colt, or whoever you are, your opinions are moot but we’ll see who believes you or me. Stop this silly obsession to take me down, not everyone in Libertarian-land reads this blog. You really haven’t proved your case except for one post on a yahoo-list. Besides that you have nothing…

  173. How many votes did Phillies receive at this NHLP convention to be their unique nominee for President?

    How many attended? And how many voted for Phillies?

    As far as I can tell, the only support Phillies has is among members of the Boston Tea Party–particularly those who are trying their best to destroy the LP.

    Phillies received 5% of the delegate votes at the LP national convention. That should have been no suprrise to anyone. His policy views, especially on the economy, are too moderate for the radical faction. His attacks on the Browne/Willis/Cloud faction of the party has created lots of bad blood in the middle. And he is much weaker than past candidates supported by the “moderate” faction in the past.

    My impression is that the moderate faction was mostly supporting Root (or, like me, were busy with the Paul campaign.) When Barr announced, most of the moderates switched to him.

    I think the general view among moderates was that Root is better than Barr on social issues, but that Barr is better on foreign policy. And, of course, Barr is better on name recognition, etc. (I thought Root was unnacceptable on foreign policy.)

    And that left no room for Phillies. Sure, his strident attacks on Barr and Root were satisfying to the radical faction, but his policy positions were always unnacceptable to those who appreciated these attacks.

    Phillies never had a chance.

    So…. What was the LPNH thinking?

    Were they as delusional as Phillies about his chances for the LP nomination?

    There have been Libertarians who support having multiple candidates for President. Each state chooses its own standard bearer.

    This isn’t something I have ever supported and I don’t beleive there is much support for it. How many of those attending the LPNH convention favored it?

    The notion that those signing the petitions in NH did so because they knew and liked Phillies is pretty much absurd. The notion that they were aware that they were nominating a “NH only” nominee is more absurd. We should give any credence to the notion that the typical ballot petition signer is aware of “substitution” or “no substitution” rules?

    Perhaps they thought this Phillies nobody was the national LP nominee. Or, maybe they didn’t even notice the name at all.

    I have my doubts about Dondero, but I find his testimony about NH very plausible.

    Again, how many LPNH convention-goers voted for Phillies to be their nominee?

    Was the vote recorded? Can we see their names?

  174. Who is this misfiring legume, Colt Peanut, anyway?

  175. Witmer, Angela was being SARCASTIC. It was very much lost on you.

    Get over yourself.

  176. Woolsey, the “moderates” in the LP are the conservatives, and the radicals occupy what in the bigger picture is the political middle and to the left.

    IOW, Barr pulled votes from the right side of the party again, pulling it back in that direction, ensuring more MSM misconception as the LP being the GOP-lite party.

    It’s a load of crap. The LP needs to ditch the GOP leftovers once and for all. That doesn’t mean abandon fiscal responsibility, but it does mean better embracing the socially left side more. We tend to win more political battles that way anyway.

  177. Curious of Bill Woolsey to want to know who attended the LP of NH convention. Perhaps he is just saying that not many people show up to these things, so it must not be the “will of the people” that he would have his followers fight and bleed and kill and die for.

    But, perhaps what he is saying is he wants the names of those who attended, and who voted for George Phillies, so he can join Carling in organizing a purge. Get rid of George Phillies, a life member, over policy differences, and then identify and round up all his supporters, and get rid of them.

    And if his militarist mind has its way, perhaps they’ll be spirited away to dungeons in other countries to be tortured to death.

  178. Michael, I’m surprised about your thought that Angela was being sarcastic about Sean Haugh.

    Being serious about his job doesn’t mean he knows how to do. It doesn’t mean he does his job well. It doesn’t mean she thinks he’s done a good job.

    If we tune in on the context, I don’t think sarcasm explains what she wrote:

    “1. Richard Winger’s activism puts him on the side of the angels.”

    See? Richard Winger cares very deeply about ballot access. And he’s worked very hard for ballot access. So, while one can argue that everyone knew substitution was not possible in NH, and one can argue that petitioners had flyers about Phillies to provide to voters who were considering signing, we can’t be upset with Winger for wanting to sue over substitution.

    Otherwise we have the mystery of Republicans and Democrats on the ballot, with their national candidate the same in every state, but the LP (and maybe one day the Boston Tea Party) not able to work the same magic. Winger’s position that substitution should be permitted is a sensible one.

    More sensible than Woolsey’s argument that voters in NH were duped, or didn’t agree to what the petition they signed says, or shouldn’t be honored because they aren’t that many people, and his cadets could bayonet all of them in a few days time.

    “2.Susan Hogarth’s commitment to libertarianism is above reproach.”

    I’m game. Sounds like sarcasm to me.

    Clearly Susan’s commitment is only to party loyalty, only to whatever absurd candidate in a clown costume (sorry, business suit) the LP emits at its convention, like so much vomit. Her attack on George’s position on the ballot in NH seems to be a commitment to party loyalty and enthusiasm for brown shirts destroying anything of value created by others.

    Besides, she is a self-confessed “screaming racist Barr sycophant.” Now, that passage might have been sarcasm, but I plan on taking it seriously, forever.

    “3.Neither Starchild or Michelle Shinghal have any cellulite.”

    ENM validates the truth of this statement. Hard to see where it could be sarcasm.

    “4.Colt Peanut is a gutless racist.”

    Clearly true. Where is the sarcasm here?

    Colt Peanut called a black man with two jobs a welfare queen. Taken as a body of work, his stuff reads as racism.

    “5.Sean Haugh is very serious about his job.”

    What if we substituted “his mental condition” for “his job.” Would it seem less sarcastic?

  179. Besides, she is a self-confessed “screaming racist Barr sycophant.” Now, that passage might have been sarcasm, but I plan on taking it seriously, forever.

    Not surprising. You don’t strike me as the type to let reality intrude on your prejudices, let alone to seek it out.

  180. And you don’t strike me as the type to let anything interfere with mindless party loyalty. LP uber alles, that’s you.

  181. This comment in honor of Turk 182

  182. Witmer, Angela was being SARCASTIC. It was very much lost on you.

    Au contraire. Apparently, she believes I owe Sean Haugh an apology, among other things. She is apparently quite serious, since she has asked me not to contact her, removed me as moderator of the antiwar yahoo group (which I agreed to do solely as a favor to her), removed me as a facebook friend, etc.

  183. Sean Haugh actually said this to a libertarian activist:
    “You are so fired, dude.”

    It reminded me of the Queen of Hearts in Alice in Wonderland trying to figure out how to cut off the Cheshire Cat’s head, when all he is is a free floating head.

  184. seebeck: That doesn’t mean abandon fiscal responsibility, but it does mean better embracing the socially left side more. We tend to win more political battles that way anyway.

    me: hmm, it seems to me we don’t win too many “political battles,” so I wonder what your point is here, Michael. Your post seems to call for a purge of right Ls. I’d suggest that’s contra-indicated, and I say that as a more left L, and a moderate one. do you also want to purge those who are not “radical” enough, and if so, what’s your standard for purge candidates?

    strikes me that we need more people agitating in the less government direction, not fewer. last I checked, politics is a numbers game. we need more people to do the heavy lifting, yes?

    sometimes that means agreeing to disagree, yes?

  185. From the Editor:

    Swear to your chosen deity all you want, Mr. Dondero, but you absolutely will not be allowed to threaten anyone with physical violence in this forum.

    Disagreements are fine. Threats are not fine. This is not complicated.

    At this point you can either behave yourself, or have your posting privileges revoked. The choice is yours, but I will not warn you again.

    Eric responds:

    Spoken like a true hater of the US Military who doesn’t understand Military talk. Welcome to the brave new world of Political Correctness. Has even infiltrated the libertarian left. Only thing is, for the libertarian left, political correctness is only applied to those who served in the Military and have Military values.

  186. ENM removed Jim Davidson from this site, for reasons she describes at the LFV contributors page (scroll to the top of any page to reach it). There’s no evidence in Davidson’s biographies that he has any military service record.

    So, Donderoni-baloney is not a victim. Nor are the thugs who invade and occupy foreign countries in the name of American empire and hegemony.

    There’s no question of understanding military talk. Erica Dondera made a direct threat of physical violence because someone else expressed a view with which she did not agree. In making this threat, the clear intention was to intimidate and coerce.

    The important point to note in post 187 is that Donderoleo is not apologetic, is not regretful, and demands instead that he is being victimized by ENM. He then claims the aggrieved status of a minority (who butcher foreigners in the name of keeping banking gangsters in power and military contractors wealthy) in an effort to gain sympathy. Let Bill Woolsey and the other militarists rise (again) in his defense.

    We can expect the same from him, he informs us, by insisting that it is military talk to threaten to beat someone up for something they said.

    Well, I say that you are a baby killer, Dondero. I say that you and the rest of the US military are thugs, thieves, and scum. So, if you have the courage of your convictions, threaten me with violence. If you don’t, then I call you a coward.

  187. The difficulties I describer with WordPress were the likes of ‘after cut, paste, and save, saves old version of story, not new version’ and ‘saved half of old version’ and ‘seems to have interchanged Massachusetts and New Hampshire’–but that could have been a cut and paste issue.

    What actually happened with Colt Peanut’s material — which should not have been done — very certainly could not be explained by the effect I am describing.

  188. seebeck: That doesn’t mean abandon fiscal responsibility, but it does mean better embracing the socially left side more. We tend to win more political battles that way anyway.

    capozzi: hmm, it seems to me we don’t win too many “political battles,” so I wonder what your point is here, Michael. Your post seems to call for a purge of right Ls. I’d suggest that’s contra-indicated, and I say that as a more left L, and a moderate one. do you also want to purge those who are not “radical” enough, and if so, what’s your standard for purge candidates?

    me: I don’t see how Seebeck’s statement quoted above had anything to do with purging anyone, although I admit to not scrolling up just now to see if there is any context I am missing. Embracing the socially left side can mean things like changing the tone of the party literature and press, and engaging in more persistent and effective outreach to the libertarian leaning left.

  189. Paulie, my apologies for not copying Seebeck’s whole post.

    Here tis: Woolsey, the “moderates” in the LP are the conservatives, and the radicals occupy what in the bigger picture is the political middle and to the left.

    IOW, Barr pulled votes from the right side of the party again, pulling it back in that direction, ensuring more MSM misconception as the LP being the GOP-lite party.

    It’s a load of crap. The LP needs to ditch the GOP leftovers once and for all. That doesn’t mean abandon fiscal responsibility, but it does mean better embracing the socially left side more. We tend to win more political battles that way anyway.

    “Ditch” sounds like “purge” to me. You? I’m more a more left-leaning L AND a moderate, although I’d grant that a lot of right-leaning Ls are moderate. Some right-leaners are radical, too, like those will a more Rockwell type mindset.

    I’d hope the LP has room for different approaches and come froms. Otherwise, I suspect we’ll have little to no influence going forward.

  190. I guess interpretation of that statement would hinge on how you interpret GOP leftovers.

    If you take it to mean people, that can certainly be interpreted to mean purge. If it is taken to mean ideas, not necessarily as much.

    Even if it is taken to mean people, it would also depend on what you mean; one interpretation you apparently favor is that he means asking (or even demanding) that Republitarians leave the LP.

    While I used to argue in favor of that position, I’ve come to believe that increasing left outreach is the more positive approach, and any Republitarians not broad-minded enough to coexist with folks coming in from the left, a la Gravel, under one roof, would naturally “purge” themselves without any such demand or invitation.

    Another interpretation might simply be to stop focusing the bulk of our recruiting efforts in one direction, a move I strongly favor. After all, a big tent that tilts too far to the right will just topple and leave you with a bunch of crushed
    elephants.

  191. Paulie, going into the convention, I thought Barr/Gravel was probably our best ticket for similar reasons to yours. Not without its challenges, of course, but a superior optical and sustantive balance, IMO.

  192. Could you enlighten me…?

    I doubt it.

    Then don’t hop on my back when I choose to disagree with you on this.

  193. My disagreement with you then was a tactical disagreement about the strategic value of having out-of-staters attacking a NC Republican who is supported by many NC Libs

    NC Republicans who are running for federal office, that is.

    And NC Republicans who are using our branding and our own friggin’ web site template.

    Frankly Susan, you cannot pull this party loyalty double-standard.

    You cannot demand that I and other Libertarians not speak out against Republicans — members of another party — simply because some of your misguided local party people are supporting them… and then simultaneously demand that George Phillies show absolute loyalty to LNC central.

    PS — Lots of Libertarians are supporting George, too — and last time I checked, you’re not a New Hampshirite.

    So here you are, you naughty out-of-stater, alienating Libertarians who have chosen to support George in this debate!😉

    Get the double-standard now? You’re pissed off at me for attacking out-of-state REPUBLICANS who steal Libertarian branding, but you’re willing to attack out-of-state LIBERTARIANS who are actually running a real Libertarian campaign.

    This doesn’t vouch well for the intellectual consistency of the “radical” movement.

  194. I thought Barr/Gravel was probably our best ticket

    Why am I not at all surprised?

  195. Since Brian apparently finds that I thought Barr/Gravel might have been the best ticket for the LP somehow unsatfisfactory, allow me to clarify.

    I liked the idea mostly for 2 reasons:

    1) A “Right”/”Left” balance.
    2) Both former MCs, giving the LP ticket maximum credibility in the public square.

    This doesn’t mean I agree with both on everything. I can’t say that will ever happen for anyone ever. What a boring world we’d live in if it was even theoretically possible!

  196. Personally, I am a libertarian moderate and a centrist.

    The notion that moderates are “right leaning,” is ignorant.

    There are plenty of right-leaning radicals. Their major concern is the immediate abolition of taxes (especially on income) and they are especially upset about transfer payments to the poor.

    Moderates, on the other hand, emphase the need to cut taxes and are more than willing to focus spending cuts on corporate welfare, defense, and even.. middle class entitlements.

    Moderate libertarians catch plenty (probably most) grief from radicals who count this as a sell out of principle.

    Personally, I believe that the personal liberties and peace agendas should receive equal weight with economic issues.

    I believe that Barr is doing a great job on foreign policy and on civil liberties (contra the Cheney/Woo attack on the Bill of Rights.)

    I don’t believe that it is necessary to make the War on Drugs a major issue in every campaign. Not that I don’t think that it isn’t an important issue.

    But, here again, I support a more moderate position. Medical marijuana for sure… look into treating recreational marijuana like liquor… Something like that.

    I very much prefer candidates who are pro-choice on abortion.

    I actually agree with the state by state solution on gay marriage, but I would prefer a candidate whose personal view was more supportive of gay marriage–with a long run goal of privatization.

    Anyway…

    I think Barr is a good candidate for today. Republicans delusioned by out of control spending and the Iraq War (and going to lose anyway) are a good place to look for supporters in 2008.

    The social conservative extremists are wedded to the federal solutions to “their” problems– human life amendment and federal marriage amendment. Barr opposes those positions. Good.

    I think a left-leaning campaign in the face of Obama would be foolish.

    But, in 2012, perhaps the situation will be different.

  197. 2012 could be different, agreed, Bill.

    Of the credible presidential, national type figures, there are very, very few left-libertarians that I’m aware of. The only one I can think of is Tim Penny. Or, very remotely, Jesse Ventura…sorta.

    Most of the LPs presidential candidates have been right-leaning, IMO. Badnarik and Browne were, as I see it.

    I’d say Ed Clark and Bergland, too, despite Clark’s “low tax liberal” off the cuff statement.

  198. I said nothing about purging, just changing message focus. If people don’t get the LP is for fiscal responsibility by now, then they are under rocks. The LP’s reputation of anti-tax and small government is well-cemented. The civil liberties side, especially in this day and age, lacks the emphasis it deserves.

  199. BTW, it is long past due for the LP to ditch the “socially liberal Republican” moniker we’ve had for 35 years and instead get to “fiscally conservative Democrat” moniker that we also deserve. The latter in thisd day and age is an offshoot of the winners, not the losers, even if it is unfortunately statist in nature. But that’s the game the MSM plays. I agree it’s not accurate, but given the choice between to inaccuracies, politically I’ll take the one closer to the winning side.

  200. Michael,

    I guess I’ve not seen the moniker “socially liberal R” associated with the LP. Can you give examples?

    There are what are called fiscally conservative Ds, but neither label works for me.

    Fiscal conservatives sometimes equal tax increasers to balance the budget. That’s not a path to liberty, as I see it.

  201. Eric Dondero wrote:

    Spoken like a true hater of the US Military who doesn’t understand Military talk. Welcome to the brave new world of Political Correctness. Has even infiltrated the libertarian left. Only thing is, for the libertarian left, political correctness is only applied to those who served in the Military and have Military values.

    Actually, Mr. Dondero, I served in the US Air Force. In fact, I far outranked you, which will likely come as a surprise to absolutely no one. While you were busy swabbing decks and working in Supply, I was doing real military work in Intelligence. So don’t tell me what I do and do not think about the military, you arrogant little prick. I served my country honorably, and I am a disabled veteran. I have had relatives die for this country in every single American conflict, going all the way back to the Revolutionary War. My own father has been in a VA hospital since Vietnam, his mind so far gone that he will never be able to leave. So the truth is, you have no idea of the true sacrifices military men and women and their families make every single day. You just pretend to know, because it makes you feel important.

    Furthermore, despite your protestations to the contrary, that was most assuredly not “military talk”. It was a verbally violent outburst by an abusive little man who uses his previous military service as an excuse for his obnoxious and outrageous civilian behavior. You may get away with that excuse when dealing with those who have no military service experience, but I see right through it. In truth, you bring shame upon the military you claim to love, by making such facially ridiculous assertions about the behavior of the average soldier. More to the point, you bring shame upon yourself.

    So while you can try to falsely project hatred for the military onto me all you want, the fact remains that I make the rules here, not you. The most important of those rules is that no threats are ever permitted. I don’t care what you think about that rule, and I don’t care what you think about me. What I do care about is that you understand, without any doubt whatsoever in that little pea brain of yours, that I will remove you from this forum without even so much as a second thought if you ever do it again.

    Again, Mr. Dondero, this is not at all complicated.

  202. You cannot demand that I and other Libertarians not speak out against Republicans…

    I haven’t demanded a damn thing. Please stop with the hyperbole.

    Get the double-standard now? You’re pissed off at me for attacking out-of-state REPUBLICANS who steal Libertarian branding,[and our own friggin’ web site template]…

    No, I disagree that any theft has occurred. The site you refer to existed before the LP’s, and it has a similar look because it was put together by the same company – that was one of the (mistaken) reasons the LP chose that company. How could this candidate have ‘stolen’ something that existed before the thing he was supposed to have stolen? But perhaps it’s much easier for you to tell me what I think and react to that than to listen to what I’ve said and respond to that.

  203. ENM,

    Don’t hold back so much. Tell us what you really think!

  204. “Frankly Susan, you cannot pull this party loyalty double-standard.”

    Sure, she can, and has done. She is opposed to any opposition to Barr’s candidacy by libertarians, whether they are Boston Tea Party enthusiasts for Charles Jay, or Libertarian Party enthusiasts for George Phillies. You are not allowed to oppose her party’s choice for president. She’ll be extremely vindictive and hateful toward you if you do.

    Her support for other North Carolina Republicans against any criticism is consistent with her being a screaming racist Barr sycophant, as she admits. Obviously, she likes Republicans, such as Barr.

    The really inconsistent and hypocritical part is, she sought and received endorsement from the Boston Tea Party. So, party loyalty when it serves, and hypocrisy when it doesn’t.

  205. [Susan] is opposed to any opposition to Barr’s candidacy by libertarians,…

    I find it depressing that I have to defend my anti-Barr ‘cred’. Although maybe it’s a good sign, in the long run.

    Regardless, here you go:

    http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=hogarth+barr&btnG=Google+Search

    Her support for other North Carolina Republicans against any criticism is consistent with her being a screaming racist Barr sycophant, as she admits. Obviously, she likes Republicans, such as Barr.

    Are you a real person, or are you Jim Davidson? There surely can’t be two personas with this sort of rhetorical ‘style’.

    The really inconsistent and hypocritical part is, she sought and received endorsement from the Boston Tea Party. So, party loyalty when it serves, and hypocrisy when it doesn’t.

    Yawn.

    Someday I may take the time to do a followup analysis of BTP-endorsed candidates and see just how closely they track to the BTP pledge (which I wholeheartedly embrace). I was very disappointed with at least one (also a Lib candidate), Lisa Leeds, whose save-the-fairgrounds proposal I can interpret as nothing less than a call for the government to spiffy up the fairgrounds on the taxpayers’ dime(s).

  206. Actually, you should review the deliberations on that fairgrounds thing. If you care to learn anything, that is.

    Leeds is in favor of not scrapping the existing fairgrounds and therefore not building a whole new fairgrounds in a new location at enormous expense.

    She also favors privatizing the fairgrounds. She was questioned in detail on the issue. All the deliberations are published.

    Which, of course, doesn’t prevent you from being deliberately ignorant.

  207. No, I am not Jim Davidson. He is a friend and co-worker, though.

  208. http://bostontea.us/node/175

    Thank you for your interest in my candidacy and the issues I address on my campaign web site. It is trough some of the fine people that live and work in my district that I have become aware of the issues surrounding the racetrack and fairgrounds. I recognize that fine individuals within State House District 58 have taken positions on both sides of this issue.

    The racetrack and fairgrounds have important historical and cultural value that connect them not only to District 58, Nashville but Tennessee as a whole. These historical roots originate with the charter that granted the land to Nashville so that it could be used for a state fair. The racetrack became a later addition that actually traces its history back to harness racing. In its most recent form, the track is being used for NASCAR racing.

    The historical context in which the fair grounds and racetrack came to be what they are today provides certain limits on what can be done with the property. Implementing the best solutions may require making changes to the charter which originally created the fairgrounds.

    Moving the race track and fairgrounds would involve bigger government expenditure, as long as the fairground remains a function of government. As a Libertarian, I must wonder if we are best served by having the fairgrounds and racetrack stay under government ownership and management. The Mackinac Center for Public Policy has done a study on the benefits of Privatizing State Fairs and how this Could Save Michigan Nearly $60 Million. http://www.mackinac.org/article.aspx?ID=5853 Apparently a number of states have privatized management of their state fairs and these fairs have started turning a profit. When one removes the possibility of government bailouts, the motivation to make a profit accomplished wonderful things.

    Under proper management the racetrack itself could become something even more amazing than it is now. When most people think about NASCAR, the environment is the last thing that comes to mind. However, last April NASCAR took an opportunity to promote individuals to get regular car check ups. According to the NASCAR web site, “A few basic tips and a pit stop at your local repair shop can help anyone on their way to peak performance, while saving fuel costs and benefiting the environment. Motorists can see anywhere from a 4 to 10 percent increase in gas mileage by performing these maintenance steps, which can mean saving upwards to 30 cents per gallon with today’s average gas prices.”

    You can read the full article at:
    http://www.nascar.com/2008/news/headlines/official/04/10/nascar.tips.nat

    Going back as far as 1997 NASCAR was promoting oil recycling
    http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/pressroom/1997/Oct/nr132.htm

    Some race tracks also are encouraging recycling at their events. All of this is being done voluntarily without the force of government. Under appropriate private management, the fairground could become a fine example of what a community wants from facilities such as the fairground. The fairground should be put to use for most of the year, instead of just a small percentage of the time. All of these would be things best accomplished through getting government out of running the fairground and privatizing the daily operations. Privatization can be set up with certain stipulations, such as that the property should continue to host a state fair and racing. These stipulations should recognize that things to change and allow some flexibility, but maintain the intent of the original charter. Ultimately we want to do what is best for the community, the Tragedy of the Commons, shows us that what is best for the community tends to be private ownership and management. People tend to take care of what belongs to them, while that which belongs to no one ore everyone tends to fall into disrepair. I think that we see that with the current condition of the fairground and racetrack. It is the tragedy of the commons that has brought us to the point where we are today. Simply relocating the fairground and racetrack to another location will not solve the problem, for the problem is much deeper than that. It is time to abandon the nineteenth century notion that government has any business running a business.

  209. There are always going to be debatable propositions regarding what “the libertarian position” is on an issue or whether or not a party has chosen a good, or even acceptable, candidate (and that’s all well and good) but to characterize Ms. Hogarth as a “Barr apologist” is just 180 degrees at variance with reality.

    Ms. Hogarth’s opinion on Barr v. Phillies in New Hampshire is based on her view of how the LP’s bylaws apply to its affiliates, and on her (incorrect) understanding of who owns the phrase “Libertarian Party,” not on which candidate she prefers.

    Insofar as “party loyalty” is concerned, the Boston Tea Party does not require it of the candidates whom it endorses. It merely requires that they (believably) endorse the BTP’s platform. In applying for and accepting the BTP’s endorsement, she in no way committed to herself supporting other BTP-endorsed candidates, LP or not, versus LP candidates. And while the LP’s bylaws forbid its affiliates to endorse candidates of another party, they don’t forbid its candidates or members to so refrain, nor do they forbid LP candidates to accept the endorsements of other parties.

  210. Mr. Amendall, I apologize that your comment (which included a quote from the BTP site) didn’t post immediately. It was caught in the spam filter, due to having multiple links.

  211. Lisa Leeds’ Fairgrounds proposal:

    http://lewisdt.com/lpmndc/FairgroundsProposal.pdf

    “However, we feel that with major improvements, the fairgrounds could become a major factor in the local economy. But it will take imagination, hard work, and of course, some “front money” to make it all happen.”

    Yeah. Front money. Guess where THAT comes from? How exactly is that ‘reducing the size and scope of government at all levels’?

    The plan goes on to describe major road re-working, adding a police station to the grounds, additional bus routes, soundwalling for the racetrack, etc., etc.

    “Therefore we challenge the fair board to undertake a “Project Centennial.” The purpose of which is to examine, plan, and implement the proposals that would carry us into the next 100 years.”

    A very libertarian document. Not!

  212. Funny, the “Republican-lite” label is seen all over the MSM, and the LP is oftern referred to as “conservatives that want to get stoned and laid” on so-called “progressive radio” (Thom Hartmann is the biggest offender).

    IOW, they present that image. Time to change it.

    I’m one of the libertarians that never arrived in the LP from the GOP, or from the DP, either. I was an independent, only declaring a party to vote in specific primaries, then switching back again. To me, both branches of satism suck.

    Unfortunately, the reality of our political world, like it or not (and I don’t), is that the world is viewed almost completely through the eyes of one of those branches.

    That means to be suceesful, we need to play that game, and we need to play it smarter, better, and yes, if necessary, dirtier, than they do.

    One of these decades the LP will learn marketing. They’ll also learn how to actually politically fight in the media.

    But I’m not holding my breath on that one.

  213. As for Woosley:

    “The notion that moderates are “right leaning,” is ignorant.”

    Nope, that’s the microspectrum inside the libertarian part of the political spectrum. If you were to look at a demographic Bell Curve of the LP, you’ll find it swells right of center.

    “There are plenty of right-leaning radicals. Their major concern is the immediate abolition of taxes (especially on income) and they are especially upset about transfer payments to the poor. ”

    Yeah, that’s true, but they fall into the corporatist trap of replacing the government in these equations with business, which is no better. And unfortunately, we get that stereotype all the time (Less-government=letting big business run amuck and unregulated).

    “Moderates, on the other hand, emphase the need to cut taxes and are more than willing to focus spending cuts on corporate welfare, defense, and even.. middle class entitlements.”

    Maybe. But the moderates also focus more on civil liberties. For example, the LP’s amicus brief on Heller was a joke, because it had nothing to do with the civil liberty and constitutional right at issue. Proper focus on the civil liberties area would have made that brief actually legitimate instead of laughable and incomprehensible.

    “Moderate libertarians catch plenty (probably most) grief from radicals who count this as a sell out of principle.”

    Maybe, but that is usually because the radicals don’t see these moderates as being as enamored with their pet cause as they themselves are. To me, that’s not a sellout, just different priorities. A sellout is one who claims to be a libertarian in principle but in practice is not. There are plenty of people in the party who fit that description in one form or another, probably including me, depednign on who one asks, and we spend way too much time bitching about it instead of working to move the mass inertia forward into something resembling momentum.

    “Personally, I believe that the personal liberties and peace agendas should receive equal weight with economic issues.”

    I agree, but that hasn’t traditionally been the case. When are we going to put the “libertarian” back in the LP? How many Libertarians wer on the radio post-9/11 demolishing the PATRIOT ACT *before* it passed, besides me?

    Given the choice of a tax cut or restoring other freedoms, such as rolling back the PATRIOT ACT, NFA, etc., I’ll take the latter. Sure, taxes suck, but cash can be replenished more easily than freedom and our rights can, especially when we reove the governmental hurdles to replenishing that cash.

    My overall point: embrace, exploit, and expand the left side of the libertarian POV. The economic conservatism argument has been effectively killed by the current political landscape, and it is a fool’s errand to stick with it in this environment, not matter how inaccurately the media protrays the situation (we all know that the GOP was about as fiscally conservative as Jack Benny’s TV character was generous!). The reality of public perception dictates that politically we shift message focus from that losing topic to a winning one, and we as a party are inexplicabley loathe to do so. That needs to change.

  214. Gee… Can’t a guy go off on vacation for a couple weeks w/o people getting all bent out of shape w/ each other?😉

    As a reminder, Phillies was nominated by LPNH long BEFORE Ruwart announced, or Barr crawled out from under his rock… I’m not sure of the exact %age, but it was a very clear majority vote at an LPNH convention.

    Looking into the wayback machine, one notes that of the “serious” candidates (i.e. those that had enough traction to get onto the Denver ballot) – Mary and Barr weren’t running; Kubby had little or no money, and his medical / legal issues caused doubts about his ability to run a campaign; WAR was busy promoting the war as the pro-intervention candidate; Jinozian was making noise, but didn’t seem to be getting any traction; Gravel was still chasing the Democratic nomination; folks were trying to figure out what planet Imperato was coming from; and Christine Smith was not campaigning that hard outside her local area (lack of money?)… At that point in time, George looked like the best choice out of an arguably poor set of options… (I support George , but he was not (and still isn’t) my “Dream candidate” – but L. Neil Smith wasn’t running this year…)

    It was KNOWN at that time that NH didn’t allow substitution. It was KNOWN by LPNH (even if Dunderohead and the LNC didn’t believe it) that NH petitioning is difficult in the late season, but by putting up a presidential candidate early, it would be possible to get that candidate on AT NO ADDED COST as part of the effort to get all the other LPNH state-wide and local candidates on… In previous cycles LPNH had delayed petitioning to wait for the National candidate to be announced, and, as a result of the LNC dropping the ball on promised petitioning assistance, ended up with NO candidates on the ballot. This time they picked the candidate that AT THE TIME looked like the best choice, and put him on with all the other LPNH candidates AT NO ADDITIONAL COST IN TIME, EFFORT, OR MONEY

    Then we had the Denver Disaster, and Barr got the nomination (I strongly suspect with the help of some dirty tricks, but won’t go there at this time…) The situation in NH was KNOWN at the time of the convention, but the LNC (in the person of Sean “Firebug” Haugh) was more interested in burning LPMA petitions, and having pissing contests with COMPETENT paid petitioners than they were in getting people on the ground to do a new petition drive in NH, especially when the LPNH told LNC that they weren’t terribly interested in doing a second drive for a non-libertarian since LPNH already had a good Libertarian candidate on the ballot…

    Of course, it may well be the case that Dunderohead and friends blew the drive and didn’t get enough sigs from NH District 2 (the big challenge, something any LPNH person could have told them about, instead of having them wasting time getting sigs from Manchester (District 1))

    As to the level of support for George in NH at present? I don’t know for certain, other than that I do know that there is a motion for a statement condeming Barr and endorsing Phillies under consideration by the LPNH – with a vote being delayed until it is known whether or not Barr made it onto the ballot – since it’s moot if he didn’t.

    Arthur Torrey
    LPMA Operations Facilitator
    LPMA Presidential Elector – NOT voting for Barr
    Speaking for myself…

  215. seebeck: Funny, the “Republican-lite” label is seen all over the MSM, and the LP is oftern referred to as “conservatives that want to get stoned and laid” on so-called “progressive radio” (Thom Hartmann is the biggest offender).

    me: I’ve seen lots of “radicals” use the term “Republican-lite,” not once in the MSM about Ls. My google search found it in re: to Ds, however. Can you find some examples? Ls are anything but “lite”, even moderate Ls. I’d say it’s a figment of some “radicals” imagination, a mixing up of a term designed for blue dog D types that simply doesn’t apply.

    obscure progressives saying Ls are conservatives who want to get stoned and laid means nothing to me. who cares what they say? i’m involved peripherally with a group of progressives/libertarians on civil liberties, and I edit a webzine called the free liberal designed to reach out to progressives. but I’m also moderate L, because I live in the real world, seeking progress, not libertopia.

  216. I am advised by the LPNH that they will not be joining the rumored LNC/Barr/Root (and according to some /Machia/Brendan Kelley) lawsuit that will by rumor be filed ca. Wednesday perhaps in Federal Court.

    George Phillies

  217. Hogarth asks, “Guess where THAT comes from?”

    Why guess? Why not ask Ms. Leeds? She repeatedly notes the value of the fairgrounds as an asset to the state of Tennessee where it is, the extreme cost of moving it to a new location as proposed by others in the state, and she notes the benefits of privatization.

    Front money could come from the private sector. If you are asserting that you know for certain that Lisa Leeds wants it to come from the taxpayers, please point to where she says so. And if you know for certain that moving the fairgrounds to a new state-owned location and building up that new location with extensive and certain to be corruptly allocated contracts, do make your calculations known.

    But, the purpose here is not to attack Ms. Leeds, but to attack the Boston Tea Party. You wanted the endorsement of the Boston Tea Party, and now you want to attack it. I call shenanigans on your hypocrisy.

  218. Woolsey notes, “There are plenty of right-leaning radicals. Their major concern is the immediate abolition of taxes (especially on income) and they are especially upset about transfer payments to the poor.”

    Could you please identify at least one “right-leaning radical” who is especially upset about transfer payments to the poor, as compared to transfer payments to the rich and well-connected? I can’t think of any off the top of my head.

    He also writes, “I actually agree with the state by state solution on gay marriage.”

    What is that solution? How does any state at any level “solve” the problems and concerns of equal protection under the law raised by gay and lesbian couples, families, and groupings? What part of the reciprocity requirement in the constitution do you not understand?

    Loving versus Virginia makes it a settled matter that black persons married to white persons are married even if they move to a state which did not recognize the validity of inter-racial couples being married. Indeed, Loving v. Virginia invalidates the entire concept of having state by state laws against “miscegenation.”

    The marriage license laws were intended to prevent inter-racial couples from getting married, just as the gun license laws were intended to prevent black persons from getting guns. So, what is this solution you favor, Mr. Woolsey? Does it work the way having some states refuse to recognize the concealed carry permits issued to blacks in other states would work? Does it work the way having some states refuse to recognize the inter-racial marriages licensed in other states would work? Do you actually believe that the reciprocity obligation in the constitution should not apply to marriages recognized in some states?

    And once you are done moralizing on how great it is to denigrate gay marriage – did you teach that idea in Sunday school at your Catholic church ? – perhaps you can explain your state by state solution to polyamorous bondings. Or don’t you believe that people should have the option to have a multiple partner marriage recognized in law?

    On this link:
    http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2008/07/boston-tea-partys-charles-jay-slams-bob-barr-over-jesse-helms-press-release/
    Woolsey appears to assert that all members of the Boston Tea Party are liars and frauds, presumably because he doesn’t like how Tom Knapp, Todd Andrew Barnett, Chris Bennett, and Jim Davidson reacted to Barr’s glowing enthusiasm for every aspect of the life and career of racist segregationist Jesse Helms.

    Given what I suspect, that Woolsey is also a Jesse Helms enthusiast, and a segregationist, it is little wonder he thinks that one state should have the option to refuse to recognize the legitimacy of a marriage performed in another.

    I find it extraordinary that he calls all the members of the Boston Tea Party frauds, yet claims himself to be a libertarian. Militarist racist seems more apt.

  219. John,

    If Ms. Hogarths’ purpose was to attack the Boston Tea Party, she’d have actually done so. So far, your imagination seems to be the only place that that has happened.

    Regards,
    Tom Knapp

  220. Why guess? Why not ask Ms. Leeds?

    Please do. Her proposal seems heavy on spending ideas, but light on funding ideas.

    She repeatedly notes the value of the fairgrounds as an asset to the state of Tennessee where it is, the extreme cost of moving it to a new location as proposed by others in the state, and she notes the benefits of privatization.

    Why would a libertarian want the state to have assets?

    Bad option 1: sink tax dollars into public land. Bad option 2: sink tax dollars into public land. Let’s argue over which bad option is best!

    Calling Lisa’s proposal ‘privatization’ is like calling federal logging leases ‘privatization’. Real privatization would mean getting the state out of the fair-running business.

    Front money could come from the private sector.

    Sure it could. All the government has to do is sell the land, or invite

    If you are asserting that you know for certain that Lisa Leeds wants it to come from the taxpayers, please point to where she says so.

    Unless you think Lisa is suggesting that a new Metro Police substation be run by a private company, there is at least one unambiguous example. Also road ‘improvements’ and new bus stops – do you think those can be built with private funds?

    A more direct example:
    “Alternative Power Sources

    The fairgrounds has literally acres of rooftops, all unobstructed by trees or other buildings, and all could easily be fitted with solar collector cells.
    This is also an area where the cost of implementation could be offset by assistance from government agencies.”

    Lisa’s County LP Chair, Daniel Lewis, says: “I wil admit that it is not as Libertarian as I might like… Lisa includes some proposals that would use government funds,…”

    And if you know for certain that moving the fairgrounds to a new state-owned location and building up that new location with extensive and certain to be corruptly allocated contracts, do make your calculations known.

    You seem to be suffering under some sort of false dichotomy. The issue isn’t whether Plan A is better than Plan B, it’s whether the government should be making Plans to spend new money at all.

    But, the purpose here is not to attack Ms. Leeds, but to attack the Boston Tea Party.

    Ah, a mind reader. That’s a pretty handy skill!

    However, you are wrong.

    The purpose was not to ‘attack’ Lisa, nor suggest she isn’t ‘libertarian enough’ to deserve support for office (though I think this proposal is a bad idea and should NOT be supported by libertarians), but to point out that holding people to a plain smaller-government-always pledge isn’t as straightforward as it might seem.

    You wanted the endorsement of the Boston Tea Party,

    I did. One reason is because I thought it *meant something*. I didn’t think it meant “We endorse this candidate whose big government proposal A looks like it might be smaller than someone else’s big government proposal B, so we’ll support that candidate, completely neglecting proposal *C*, which is to get the government the hell out of anything to do with A *or* B”

    and now you want to attack it.

    No, I want to *defend* it. I may be wrong about Lisa’s proposal – but the evidence that she wants the government to stay in the Fair business and *expand* their operation is pretty damning from my perspective. If you can show how Lisa’s proposal “the size, scope and power of government”, please do. I want to be reassured!

    I call shenanigans on your hypocrisy

    Whatever. Those who can’t argue ideas always resort to name-calling.

  221. “If the LNC had any balls they’d sue his ass for everything he’s got.”

    You’re correct, in that neither Rachel, Mary, nor Angela have any balls.

    It is widely rumored that all of us have great big brass ovarios.

    :o)

  222. Susan should have known that Boston Tea Party was not remotely hardcore when it offered its presidential nomination to George Phillies, and super statist.

  223. […] As previously discussed, the lawsuit is expected to seek the removal of George Phillies from the ballot, and the placement of Bob Barr on the ballot.  New Hampshire ballot law does not allow for substitution, and George Phillies is currently the LPNH presidential nominee. […]

  224. Hogarth writes, “Why would a libertarian want the state to have assets?”

    The state already has assets. Elected officials should be fiduciaries in the management of assets until they can be privatized. You seem to be saying that you blame the Boston Tea Party for Lisa Leeds having observed that the State of Tennessee already owns a fairgrounds. You seem to think that it is appropriate to object to her position that it is cheaper to keep the existing fairgrounds rather than buying a whole new one from some politically connected land owners.

    “Bad option 1: sink tax dollars into public land. Bad option 2: sink tax dollars into public land. Let’s argue over which bad option is best!”

    No. Let’s wake up and notice that Tennessee already owns a fairgrounds. You can say that it is evil and repugnant to buy land for a fairgrounds, which is what Lisa is saying. You don’t offer any solution for the fact that Tennessee currently proposes to buy a brand new fairgrounds. Lisa does. Lisa’s proposals is: don’t do it.

    You seem to think that it is unacceptable for her to hold any position on this issue but your own. But, why belly ache about it here, Hogarth? Talk to Lisa.

    It isn’t my job to ferry your idiotic ruminations to her. If you have questions about her policies as a candidate, ask her. I have no questions for her. Her positions seem quite sensible and result in a smaller government than her opponents, who want to buy a brand new fairgrounds and spend enormously on developing a new fairgrounds.

    Hogarth: “Calling Lisa’s proposal ‘privatization’ is like calling federal logging leases ‘privatization’. Real privatization would mean getting the state out of the fair-running business.”

    But, I have not called Lisa’s proposals privatization. I have pointed out what she has said about the benefits of fairgrounds privatization. Unlike her opponents, she recognizes the value of privatization, and at least mentions it. I would like it better if you would stop lying about what I’ve said. I defy you to find where I have called all of her proposals privatization. I think you are deliberately mis stating my views because you are some sort of evil racist Barr sycophant. I find you intolerant and your views ugly.

    Obviously, road improvements and bus stops can be built with private funds. They have been. All city streets in Texas have been built by private land developers. A great many private bus companies around the world operate bus stops. I suggest you go to the local Greyhound bus depot in your city or state to see what they are like.

    I think Daniel Lewis is also unfair, since Lisa’s term is “could use” and his version is “would use” government funds. I don’t have to prove that she would be a perfect libertarian, only that her proposals would result in a smaller government. And I think she’s shown her desire for a smaller government on all issues and at all levels. Her opponents want to build a whole new fairgrounds on a new location with expensive new development contracts allocated corruptly among favored companies. So, her proposals such as they are, and as vaguely outlined as they seem, appear to be a desire to make the most of what is already in the public sector rather than acquiring a bunch of new land at cost to the taxpayers, or through eminent domain theft.

    If you want to be reassured about Lisa, talk to her yourself. I don’t care to reassure you. I hope you live the rest of your life in fear and trepidation. I would frankly just as soon not see you include the Boston Tea Party’s endorsement in your campaign, since you don’t want to share it with anyone with whom you have policy differences. Since you don’t live in Tennessee, I don’t think you are adequately acquainted with the fairgrounds issue to have an informed opinion, and if you do, it isn’t a relevant opinion. i do think the party’s national committee were careful in reviewing her position on this issue. But, if endorsing you comes at the cost of removing her endorsement, by all means, ask the party’s members to reconsider the action. Make an issue of Lisa’s endorsement, so she can think poorly of you in future. I’m not sure that’s a great way to bring someone around to a more purist position, since you’ve had so little success with it to date.

    GE, the Boston Tea Party did not nominate George Phillies. I find your contention that he is a super statist to be disgusting. I think you are a divisive and hate filled person who is constantly going off half cocked to criticize anyone who disagrees with you slightly. Like Hogarth, you don’t want to have people with whom you have even slight policy differences included on the road to freedom. You spend an enormous amount of venom in your poisoned pen writings about how evil and bad and wrong your fellow freedom lovers are, when you could direct even a tiny portion of that ire and hate at Joe Biden or Barack Obama or John McCain or whatever socialist he chooses for vice prez.

    I don’t mind saying that the Boston Tea Party is capable of accepting people who aren’t pure by your misguided and idiotic standards. There aren’t enough purists who meet your ideological purity test. And there don’t need to be. We don’t have to kick out (and kick sand in the faces of) everyone who disagrees on slight policy variations. What we want are people who want to choose a smaller government on all issues and at all levels. If we work with enough people who share this goal, we can get rid of some government on some levels.

    If there are any solutions available to us in this area of political activity, which is not something I regard as proven, but which I’m willing to look for, then they will be found by finding agreement with more people rather than fewer. It might make you feel great to issue hate filled polemics about what a worthless person George is because he doesn’t agree with every policy you prefer, or what a nasty person Lisa is because she prefers making the most of the existing fairgrounds rather than building a brand new one, or because you (GE) like to moralize about other people’s sexual preferences. But I find it all very tiresome and boring.

    The people who read this blog aren’t numerous enough or powerful enough or significant enough to bother to impress with ideological purity. They are just a group of some dozens of activists who are hard working enough to bother to seek better methods for accomplishing their goals. And, possibly, a group tolerant enough to accept each other as fellow travelers until they’ve gotten rid of one government program. And then another….

    In the interests of tolerance and effectiveness, why don’t you take your next polemic and choke on it?

  225. Tom, it seemed a reasonable interpretation of her rant. She’s obliged you by focusing her recent comments on how she needs to be reassured that she has something of value in the BTP’s endorsement. Maybe you should reassure her. I can’t, because I don’t want that result.

  226. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

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: