Steve G.

Record vote total for LP in 2008: Here’s how!

In Libertarian Party-US on September 11, 2008 at 9:35 pm

Bob Barr and the coterie of conspirators who helped him hijack the LP in May are either intent on destroying the Libertarian Party, or the most incompetent imbeciles in the history of world civilization. Either way, these odious self-important cretins — Bill Redpath, Aaron Starr, Shane Cory, Andrew Davis, Richard Viguerie, Robert Kraus, Russ Verney, etc. — cannot be shamed. Furthermore, they are emboldened by the feeble will of the “outsiders” on the LNC (a few heroic members notwithstanding) who are like infants afraid to do anything or say anything that might contradict Mommy and Daddy. Indeed, these “responsible” libertarians still do not admit that there was a plot to make Barr the nominee dating back at least two years, even with all of the evidence staring at them in the face.

Now Barr — a neocon who is already counting the days until his jump back into the evil Party of Lincoln — has destroyed any claim that the LP had as the rightful political vehicle of the Ron Paul R3VOLution. Well, almost destroyed. There is one way that the LP’s reputation could be restored, and that’s a complete disavowel of the heinous Barr candidacy. Anything less is a slap in the face to Ron Paul and his supporters, and as time continues to tick off the clock, even this radical action is losing its would-be potency.

No one seems to know how “removing” Barr would affect various state ballots. It could be that not having a candidate would ruin the LP’s already crumbling ballot access — crumbling under eunuch gun-grabber Bill Redpath’s purposefully destructive “leadership” — which is quite possibly the agenda behind the Barr/Root neoconspiracy. So I have a better idea.

The LNC should immediately disavow Bob Barr. “He is not a libertarian but a neocon, and anyone associated with him in any way is not a libertarian,” would be my preferred language. “Forty-nine-point-seven percent of our credentialed delegates — many of them never-before ‘libertarians’ there solely to nominate Barr — were duped by this repugnant man, and we now see this. Our apologies to Ron Paul, to America, and the world.”

That’s part 1. Now here’s part 2.

“As the LNC, we are instructing the various Libertarian electors to vote for Ron Paul if the Libertarian ticket carries their state. A vote for ‘Bob Barr’ is a vote for Ron Paul.”

We get rid of Bob Barr, we heal the LP’s relationship with the Campaign for Liberty, and we get a record vote total.

What’s not to like?

  1. Good idea, but I still think the Libertarian Party should have an emergency convention and say officially that Mary Ruwart is the official candidate and that a vote for Bob Barr is a vote for Mary Ruwart if the name isn’t changed on the ballot.

    Nonetheless, the Libertarian Party is dead until 2012. Perhaps Jesse Ventura can ressurect the party if he doesn’t run as an independent. Actually, killing the Libertarian Party would better enable a Jesse Ventura independent campaign in 2012.

  2. Sounds like another con job to get people to vote Barr.

    Just kidding.

    I think the LP needs an enema. If these losers were able to take it over, throwing out Barr is not enough. Unfortunately you might have to scorch earth to grow green grass.

  3. On a personal level, I don’t know that it would work… Paul doesn’t give me the feelings of total revulsion that I get from Barr, but there are some parts of the “Paul Package” that I have problems with, particularly the anti-choice stance, and the apparent support for DOMA, DADT and related anti-GBLT policies…

    I considered RP to definitely be the best of the Republican options, and if he had been the R nominee I would have given serious thought to voting for him over an unknown LP candidate on the theory of having at least a semi-liberty supporting person win.

    However mostly because of those two stances, and possibly a few others, I did NOT consider Dr. Paul to be a Libertarian, and wouldn’t have been willing to vote for him as a Libertarian candidate absent some visible platform changes…

    However, I tend to suspect that on a larger scale, G.E. is probably right, in that it is a policy that would get more votes than Barr would.


  4. No one can force you to vote for Ron Paul, Art. You, as an elector, have the right to choose for yourself.

  5. It appears that no one on the LNC is willing to make a motion to remove Barr from the ticket. Angela Keaton has already done enough and she gets a pass — and I don’t think she intends to run for re-election.

    But if the so-called “outsiders” — outside of the junta — are not willing to do their jobs and represent the people who put them in office, then they deserve to be thrown out on their asses along with Redpath and his criminal cronies in 2010.

  6. If the Republicans planned this, don’t you think that withdrawing Barr will just play into their hands? We can’t replace Barr – most states won’t allow substitution, we have no campaign and candidate in place, and the publicity will be even worse than what he’s doing, IMO.

    I’m with Dave Nolan – I’m going to hold my nose and vote for him. No $$. No attacks.

    I will maintain the facade. Then after Nov., I’ll be rebuilding the LP.

    And, BTW – I put forth a motion to apologize to RP and the R3VOLutionaries that Barr insulted. I think we ought to mitigate the damage as much as possible.

  7. Rachel – You could be right. Which is why what I’m proposing here is not literally “substitution” or “removal” — just total disavowal and instruction to the electors. Barr’s name would still be on the ballot, but the LNC would be endorsing Ron Paul as the candidate electors should vote for.

  8. By the way, Rachel, I still encourage you to take the heroic action of making a motion to remove Barr. The motion will fail — you have nothing to fear. But simply having a vote will be a much harsher condemnation of Barr’s actions than any “censure” could possibly be.

    I understand that taking this action will be at great personal cost to you, as you will be vilified by the evildoers who monopolize power within the LP. But listen to the people who voted you into office — we overwhelmingly want this put to a vote.

  9. Barr’s not the problem. They’re already trading memos on how to portray his candidacy as too ‘anarchist.’

  10. I agree with Rachel.

    It gets us nothing for our past many years of effort to eliminate the 2010, and 2012 candidates’ ballot access. (This is the only thing that protesting Barr will really accomplish, thus strengthening the RP.) Let’s also not forget that Bill Redpath was a competent ballot access administrator in 2004, and that it has primarily been his subordinates who have recently been behaving disgracefully. I think it would be a good thing to have Bill working as the ballot access chair or the political director, because he is a smart guy who is able to use logic.

    Not so, the likes of Sean Haugh.

    There are currently 6 states that can now begin petitioning for 2010, and 2012 full-party-slate ballot access. The typical cost to do these states last minute is around or exactly $7 (If the Kohlhaas/Haugh donor-mulcting-machine is utilized). Moreover, the ballot access is then granted at a date too late to significantly benefit the individual down-ticket libertarian candidates (many of whom have never run a campaign before).

    In AR this year, the Greens have statewide downticket
    ballot access. (They had the foresight to pay for early full-party ballot access). After this year, they will likely win enough vote totals to challenge the existing laws in AR more soundly. (Existing AR law states that you must win a certain percentage for Governor, and that no other downticket candidates count towards ballot access. They are already challenging this in court, but with a very minor office.)

    I am part of a team of people that is assembled to place the 2010 LP candidates on the ballot. Right now. With plenty of time left over, and vastly less expensively than would typically happen under Kohlhaas.

    In addition to benefitting the LP enormously, it will save the donors a ton of money and give the LP’s next slate of candidates a fighting chance that they typically never get.

    If anyone is with me, they can contribute to the effort for 2010 ballot access here:
    (all Alabama third parties)
    or here:
    (LP ballot access only)

    If you contribute online, zero funds will go to “fundraiser” overhead (except the small fee that the online processor charges). (Kohlhaas charges an exhorbitant 50% fundraising fee, in addition to higher than industry standard per signature costs, in addition to demanding that the drive gather 200% of the State signature requirement in order to have enough signature “padding” to account for invalid signatures. This “padding” could be rendered unnecessary in some cases, if the job was started much earlier than the deadline, because the state would then validate the signatures as we go along, without requiring large excesses of signatures. –so perhaps the excess number of signatures beyond the minimum requirement would be 10-20% instead of 100%.– This contributes to savings of at least 33% while still allowing the petitioners to be paid at the normal pay scale. Additional savings are possible if the petitioners themselves accept less per signature, which is possible given this scenario.)

    So if you want the libertarian movement to continue, full speed ahead for 2012, feel free to contribute to 2012 ballot access, and take a long term view of the situation. …Because that’s what it’s going to take to win back our freedom.

    In the future, there are many projects that can be undertaken to win back our freedom via the ballot box. When libertarians are seen by the public as the primary promotors of popular pro-freedom initiatives, this gets many people on our side.

    In Boston T. Party’s book “Molon Labe” he discusses using the initiative process to place a FIJA amendment on the ballot in Wyoming. If enough funding was left over to provide for pamphlets describing the initiative, (such as these: ) it would likely pass.

    In getting active and organized, we will succeed, and not before.

    The sooner the better.

    Jake Witmer

  11. I agree with Ken: Barr’s not the problem. It’s his campaign handlers.

    I remain convinced that Barr was beginning to really come around and start making his campaign more libertarian, but oddly, it seems that each time he began to sound MORE libertarian, his campaign pulled a boneheaded blunder.

    Has anyone else noticed this?

  12. I’m with Gene, he does seem to have a regular rotation between “okay” and “shitacular.” The heap’s gotten too high and smelly to notice the couple daisies growing out of it, though.

  13. Screw the LNC. The LNC has nothing to do with electors who function at the state level. Each state’s LP can choose to adopt G.E.’s idea, or not. The electors have to answer to their state party, not the LNC.

    The local media is more apt to run a press release from local LP affiliates than from the LNC anyway.

    The LNC would never engage in such a radical act suggested by G.E. – hell, Ron Paul is probably too radical for them at this point.

  14. BizARRe emBARRassment

  15. The voters will little notice or long remember what Bob Barr says that offends libertarians more principled than him.
    They may remember, however, if the LP renders itself in shreds with denunciations, walk-outs, and other acts perceived as immature. How the hell can we expect people to vote for us and accomplish anything if elected if every disagreement over some parsed policy statement becomes an internal war among ourselves? I didn’t vote for Barr in Denver, and wish he wasn’t the candidate. But we joined a political party to play politics, didn’t we? I say, like Ms. Hawkridge, we live with our disappointment in 2008 and make sure it doesn’t happen again.

  16. Here’s the problem with “Vote for Barr=Vote for Paul”: it might work. And if it does, i.e., if the Barr line beats Ed Clark’s vote totals, then the Nerf Libs will argue, “Look what happened when we nominated a Republican! Let’s do it again!”

  17. Sorry, I haven’t read all the comments, and somebody probably already said this. But my big problem with this plan is that it requires asking people actually literally to vote for Bob Barr. First, I don’t think it would actually lead to the highest ever LP vote total, because that little kink in the plan would be a big barrier–it wouldn’t be easy to convince a lot of people that they have to vote for Bob Barr, but that when they do, they’re really voting for Ron Paul. Second, the issue of electors would only matter if the Barr ticket actually managed to win any electors, which it won’t under either scenario. So, even if this plan did work, and it did result in the highest ever LP vote total, it would only further feed Barr’s arrogance, because the matter of the electors’ vow would be an irrelevant footnote, and all that anybody would notices would be the number of votes gotten by Barr.

    Sorry, can’t do it. I’m gonna have to vote Baldwin. Just like I think that voting third party has the potential to have a positive impact on the GOP, in calling it to some soul searching, I also think that voting CP can do the same to the LP when the same thing is needed there.

  18. 10 Gene Trosper

    I agree with Ken: Barr’s not the problem. It’s his campaign handlers.

    And the Reform Caucus, and the LNC (to the extent that the LNC tows the Reform Caucus line, which may be a lot!), and the new and “Boldly Libertarian” Reform Caucus Platform. Oh, and it is Barr as a problem as well. Barr and W.A.R. are part of the reformers plan . . . scheme, if you prefer.

  19. If Barr is firmly denounced and burned in effigy by the LNC, then I don’t think a high vote total — explictly stated to go to another candidate — could possibly build upon his arrogance.

    But regardless: Tom Blanton’s plan is better.

  20. Fred: My line of thinking about Barr’s campaign is that as he gets more libertarian (to the point that people such as G.E. calls some of his press releases “heroic”), something happens to wipe it out. Almost makes me wonder if his handlers are PURPOSELY trying to sabotage the campaign.

  21. Yeah, he issues a “heroic” press release in support of South Ossetian independence, and then goes on Glenn Beck and supports going to war to “defend” Georgia.

    It isn’t Barr that’s being sabotaged — it’s someone within the Barr campaign doing the good stuff (i.e. writing those releases), and then Barr sabotaging good words with evil and stupid actions.

  22. I made my thoughts about Barr known last night on my campaign site. I did get slight “blow back” today via email from some Barr supporters. However, I also got a few “Thank You” emails from local Ron Paul supporters.

  23. I have stated my agreement with Gene Trosper (imagine that!)

    I think his handlers, whether it is Shane Cory, Russ Verney, Mike Ferguson, or whoever, are screwed up.

    Also true, as Gene and G.E. have pointed out that there are mixed messages/positions being broadcast . . . for Georgia, go to war with Georgia, and others which show a lack of campaign coordination and focus.

    However, this points to a much bigger problem, or a fundamentally flawed campaign. That fundamental flaw is, the Barr/W.A.R. campaign isn’t grounded in fundamental libertarian principles and/or philosophy! If it was, there would almost never be a problem with contradiction, diverted focus, or misunderstood positions. Everything would be based in principle, and that gradualism toward reaching the goal is voiced as simply STRATEGY and a workable process to get there.

    Instead, we get “lower taxes and limited government” as the “principles” of the LP! We get a “fair tax” as a libertarian position because it is “lower” (potentially). We get a libertarian position of less foreign intervention.

    If complete foreign non-intervention (a libertarian “principle”) was the Barr campaign’s position, there would be no controversy as to what the U.S. should do with regard to Georgia/Russia.

    Just one more reason that a principled libertarian campaign is the only way to run a Libertarian campaign.

  24. At least in CA we don’t have to vote for the sake of ballot access. It’s determined entirely by the Governor’s race.

  25. […] Barr became president of the Libertarian Party as part of a plot to destroy the party from within: Record vote total for LP in 2008: Here Last Free Voice The latest stupidity doesn’t make this allegation so far-fetched IMO. This Bob Barr fiasco […]

  26. Steve LaBianca wrote that “the problem” with the LP is not just the Barr campaign but also

    SL) the Reform Caucus, and the LNC (to the extent that the LNC tows the Reform Caucus line, which may be a lot!), and the new and “Boldly Libertarian” Reform Caucus Platform. (SL

    The Reform Caucus has no “line” for the LNC to toe (let alone “tow”), since the Reform Caucus is about reforming the SoP, Platform, and Pledge — none of which are under the control of the LNC.

    The Platform is indeed still boldly libertarian — it’s just no longer boldly quasi-anarchist.

    SL) Barr and W.A.R. are part of the reformers plan . . . scheme, if you prefer. (SL

    Our plan was just for the LP Platform to accommodate a presidential candidate not only like Mary Ruwart but also like this year’s Wayne Root, or the Bob Barr who campaigned in Denver. Quick challenge: please quote the worst alleged deviation from libertarian principle by either Barr or Root since Denver that wasn’t also a deviation from the Denver platform.

Leave a Reply

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

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: