Steve G.

Posts Tagged ‘Daniel Imperato’

LP Deathblog Update

In Daniel Imperato, Libertarian, Libertarian Convention, Libertarian Party-US, Politics, Presidential Candidates, Steve Kubby on May 23, 2008 at 2:58 pm

In case any of you have been wondering, I am not really actually dead.

Just extremely sleep deprived and without a laptop, or money for the Sheraton business center. Just found a free cybercafe by the exhibitor booths. Standing room only, unfortunately. Anyone with a laptop I can borrow, come see me or give me a call. My number is on my facebook.

Floorspace to crash always appreciated. Thanks to several of you who offered, but I lost y’all. when the time came. I was not supposed to be allowed to sleep where I got my two hours, so I won’t say where, but thanks.

In answer to a question on my last deathblog, best dressed at the masquerade: my award goes to Mr. and Mrs. Pimperato. Dannyboy was sporting a white ice cream suit with an open collar shirt straight out of Scarface, and Mrs. Imp had on all-black leather zippered get-up with a gold chain and Carmela Soprano hairdo. It reminded me of partying on Long Island in the 1980s. Speaking of which, anyone know if there is any snow left in the Rockies this time of year? I haven’t been outside much. Let me know.

Skipping ahead around 36 hours, I tried to go for a run with Michelle this morning and lasted about a block and a half. Reminded me why I’m no longer in crime for a living. Outrunning cops is pretty much not going to happen. I’ll fill you all in later on the 36 hours or so. Someone please fix my spelling, I do not have my glasses on.

Oh yeah, come see me if you want Kubby buttons and signs or if you want to give a token to the tokin’ candidate.

And thanks to GE for saying I’m cool. Actually I used to be a lot cooler, I’m kinda lame now. But I appreciate the compliment.

Advertisements

G.E. live from Denver: Part 2 – Libertarians for Justice

In Daniel Imperato, Humor, Libertarian, Libertarian Convention, Libertarian Party-US, Mike Jingozian, Politics, Presidential Candidates, Steve Kubby on May 23, 2008 at 5:02 am

I left off last time just as I was about go to to sleep, having had only four total hours the past two days. I did, and woke up four hours later, just in time for the Libertarians for Justice event. I chatted with some nice “Truthers” (I hate that word but don’t know a better one). There is no doubt that there are unanswered questions that need answering.

Anyway, I lost track of time, and when I went into the actual event, Mary Ruwart was speaking. I had missed Jim Burns. Ruwart gave a nice Ron Paulian speech, but the crowd had not warmed up yet.

Next up was Imperato. He was wearing some kind of papal knight accessory. He said he had an office next door to the Twin Towers and that he had friends who jumped out of windows. He said his employees heard bombs go off in the basement, but that he thinks they were planted by the terrorists. The cover up, he says, is to protect the bureaucrats who failed. Plausible enough. Then he goes into how the reason Muslims hate America has to do with Jacob and Esau, and that Christopher Columbe, a Jew, consecrated America as a Judeo-Christian land (no mention of the fact that “Columbe” never set foot on North America). George Washington also took his oath of office on the exact spot of the Twin Towers, according to Imperato, and Muslims attacked out jealousy . . . Jealousy over the Jewish people’s “shrewdness” at “controlling Wall Street.”

I can’t remember who came next, but I’m pretty sure it was Jingzian. Mike Jingozian is a really good speaker, and he did a great job. Seems like a nice guy. Not 100% libertarian, though. Also puts on airs. Presents self as expert on foreign policy and finance and is mildly condescending.

When Gravel came to the stage, there were cheers all over the place. I thought maybe the general audience “Truthers” were fans of his, but in reality, he had packed the crowd. He went on about his Maoist “Direct Democracy” and offered a free signed copy of his book, Citizen Power, to any delegate who agreed to read two chapters. Gravel’s big message was that the Libertarian Party is full of overly principled morons who’ve never accomplished anything, and that he can win if we give him the nomination. We have our heads in the clouds, he argues. Gravel is big on “power” (his word). He says Nixon should have been put in jail, and wants to use subpoena power (presumably on citizens as well as government officials) to get to the bottom of 9/11. When he was done speaking, there was huge applause and then, when he left, so did about 1/3 of the crowd.

This was unfair to Steve Kubby who went on next. Wow, Steve looks a lot better (not to sound Donderian) in real life than in his pictures. He looks very healthy and he is an excellent public speaker. He got the crowd riled up unlike any of the others before him, despite its smaller size. He dealt with the matter at hand, and limited his comments to the demand for an investigation. The crowd liked that.

Then came Alden Link. Yeah. He talked about socialist energy policy — he approves. Bragged about the solar panels he’s having installed on his house. Said the military-industrial complex was a good thing, for it kept us safe. But then talked very libertarianly and knowledgeably about ending the Drug War.

DRAMA ALERT!!!

That was supposed to be it, but then John Finan arrived. He seemed normal enough. He’s a handsome guy (I swear this is not Dondero posting under my name) who would be a believable as a business titan in a movie. His speech was fairly straight forward — although he did say he would get on Oprah, Letterman, and Conan O’Brien if made the nominee. He didn’t really address the issue at hand. Then, when he was finished, Jim Duesning (leader of Libertarians for Justice) stood next to him on the podium and, completely innocently, said (I’m paraphrasing) “I’ve just been informed that John Finan has not signed our pledge calling for an investigation. I have this glossy page right here, and this fancy marker, would you like to sign right now?”

It seemed to be that Duesning was giving Finan a nice little publicity opportunity here, but Finan did NOT take it that way. He took the mic from Duesning, he gladly gave it to him, and said (again, paraphrasing), “What do you think of me being put on the spot to sign this? Should I sign it?” The crowd was, surprisingly mixed. “I WILL NOT BE AMBUSHED! I WILL NOT BE PRESSURED!”

I should also mention that, while Finan’s speech seemed normal enough, after the following events, some of his gestures and facial expressions took on a Mussolinian context.

Duesning snatched the mic back from him and was like, “I’m giving you a chance to sign this or not.” Finan tried to grab the mic, but Duesning wouldn’t let him have it. Finan screamed in a booming voice, “I DON’T NEED A MICROPHONE! I WILL NOT BE PRESSURED!” And then made was looked like a Nazi salute and walked off stage, still carrying the apparently precious silver marker. “Give back the marker,” Duesning demanded. “I’m keeping the marker!” Finan declared.

Wow.

Eventually, a little lady in a red shirt stormed across the room saying she had paid for this event and the marker and demanded it! Finan passed it to a guy sitting down, who gave it to the lady. He was then escorted out of the conference hall.

And that wasn’t the end of the drama… (to be continued)

Voices from LFV Comments: Steve Perkins convention update

In Daniel Imperato, George Phillies, Libertarian, Libertarian Convention, Libertarian Party-US, Libertarian Politics, Libertarian Politics 2008, Politics, Presidential Candidates, Wayne Allen Root on May 23, 2008 at 2:12 am

Just got back from dinner, to change clothes and take a break before seeing what’s happing with hospitality suites. Other candidates are starting to show a presence… Root in particular has been wandering around working the floor pretty hard. I just met Gravel, and it’s kinda funny… usually with make-up and lighting and so forth, people look better on TV than they do in real life. Gravel, however, looks about 10-20 years younger and healthier in person than he does on TV. He also has a booth running now that’s about as large and professional-looking as Barr’s.

The approximate order in which I’m seeing buttons and signs is: Barr, Imperato (?), Root, Gravel, Ruwart, and Phillies. I’m not sure who’s running against Dixon for LNC, but it seems like three-quarters of the delegates are wearing Dixon stickers.

It seemed like almost all the volunteers and workers with the Barr camp are either: (1) Ron Paul activists who moved over, or (2) Stephen Gordon.

It’s really strange running into people that I only know from the blogosphere, and noting the difference between that and the real world. I’ve argued a ton with Knapp online, but met him in person and found him to be really cool guy.

I found out about an hour after I checked in that my state affiliate could have gotten my press credentials if I’d thought to ask (oh well).

G.E. live from Denver: Part 1

In Daniel Imperato, Libertarian, Libertarian Convention, Libertarian Party-US, Libertarian Politics, Libertarian Politics 2008, Politics, Presidential Candidates, Steve Kubby, Wayne Allen Root on May 22, 2008 at 8:42 pm

Arrived in Denver 9:00 a.m. local time. Found a dude waving a “Libertarian Party” sign and figured he was a fellow LPer. Instead, he was trying to round up Libertarians for the 45-minute shuttle trek from the airport to downtown Denver. I saw one guy walking around that I was sure was a libertarian, but the sign-waver was covering another area. Sure enough, he joined in a few minutes to wait for the shuttle. Come to find out, he was (is) a friend of Austin Cassidy and hopes to run with him on the multi-seat Soil and Water board.

Anyway, joining us in the shuttle six other Libertarian — three of them women. Taking shotgun was none other than Susan Hogarth. Susan heartily endorsed Ruth Bennett for chair. One of our shuttlemates, a guy named Scott who does ballot-access work for the LP, says a change would be disastrous to the LP’s ballot-access program. Maybe he has a point. But my vote goes against the current regime.

When I got to the hotel, the first thing I saw gave me chills: Allan Hacker and Daniel Imperato walking hand in hand. Is there a new conspiracy in the works? How do thetans relate to the Knights of Malta? Regardless, Austin’s friend and I got turned around in the hotel, and Allan Hacker lent us a helping hand. A little later, Daniel Imperato approached me — seeming totally normal and nice — trying to get my debate token. When I told him “I have to think about it,” he was totally cool with it.

No hardcore bad blood so far. But rumor has it that the former owner of TPW (and not the one now affiliated with IPR) wants to initiate force against my face. I guess I have become a scapegoat for everyone who sees this certain someone as part of a plot — call it a neocon plot. To the best of my knowledge, I have never called him a neocon, and if I have, I shouldn’t have.

Had lunch with Paulie, Angela Keaton, and Michelle Shinghall (sp). All of these people are way cooler in real life than they seem online, and they seem pretty cool online. Angela in particular has been very helpful to me and to the bloggers who were stripped of press creds following the Viguerie coup. I was invited by Angela to blog the LNC meeting, but my laptop was in my room which is like a mile away. I got here and decided to write this blog instead, and then I’m going to sleep. (I’ve had a combined total of four hours in the past 48).

Anonymous source: The radicals have, at best, 15 percent strength and either Barr or Root is going to be the nominee. This multi-person source supports Kubby/Ruwart. He/she/they all agree that the role for radicals will be to be kingmaker — who will do less damage to the LP: Barr or Root?

Not-so-anonymous source (Susan Hogarth): “I think Ruwart will take it.”

More to come.

Deathblogging the Libertarian Party National Convention

In Daniel Imperato, George Phillies, Libertarian, Libertarian Convention, Libertarian Party-US, Libertarian Politics, Politics, Presidential Candidates, Steve Kubby, Wayne Allen Root on May 21, 2008 at 8:23 pm

Deathblogging refers to not-quite-live blogging; not the LP per se.

Trying to stick within my five free minutes, $16/hour after that. Business center

2 PM. Danny Imps is in the house. The lobby of the Denver Sheraton smells like a case of Eau de Palermo fell off the back of a truck in South Boston.

4 PM. Helped unload Laissez Fair Books. Said hello to Mary Ruwart, hubby Ray Carr and campaign staffer Brian Irving getting off the elevator. Headed off to get herbalife uppers from Carol McMahon of the Phillies campaign.

6-7 PM. Said hello to (among other people) VP candidate Daniel Williams (we discussed whether my punk rawk friends from New York were here; the answer is no, they barely leave Bay Ridge, Brooklyn, much less New York); LNC member and Wayne Root staffer Scott Lieberman (we talked about ballot access, especially in regards to Oklahoma); Rob Power from Outright Libertarians; Deb and Steve-O “The Fixer” Gordon; my acting region rep, Stewart Flood, who lobbied heavily for my vote, and told me we had a deal with Texas and Louisiana to become a superregion with two reps; rumored challenger for his position, R. Lee Wrights; John Wayne Smith; The Duensings; Tony and Bette Rose Ryan; and Bob Barr, who seemed to be under the impression that I might not make it here.

Oh yeah, and I finagled a free shower up in Casa Phillies. In what may be a move to get support from Steve Kubby backers, George is passing out Phillies Blunts.

Jacqueline Passey: Endorsements

In Candidate Endorsement, Christine Smith, Daniel Imperato, George Phillies, Libertarian, Libertarian Convention, Libertarian Party-US, Libertarian Politics, Libertarian Politics 2008, Mike Jingozian, Politics, Presidential Candidates, Steve Kubby, Wayne Allen Root on May 20, 2008 at 7:55 pm

The following is posted with the permission of the author, Jacqueline Passey. You can view the original on her website here.

Endorsements: Wayne Allyn Root, Steve Kubby, Mary Ruwart, or George Phillies for President; adopt the World’s Smallest Political Platform

The Libertarian Party national convention is this weekend in Denver. I won’t be going, but I know at least one delegate reads this blog, so I’m posting my endorsements for candidates and issues in the hopes that they are at least somewhat influential in the delegates’ decisions.

First, to give my endorsements the necessary context, I should explicitly disclose my history, positions, and biases: I’ve been involved in the LP since 2000, including working as the Executive Director of the Libertarian Party of Washington State (2001-2002) and running as a Libertarian candidate for Washington Secretary of State (2004), but I’ve been less active since the 2006 election. I’m a minarchist, but I welcome anyone who supports reducing the size, scope, and power of government as a member of the Libertarian Party and libertarian movement even if they don’t share my exact vision of what Libertopia should be. I think that the Libertarian Party has the greatest chance for success in local races (state legislature and lower) and thus the role of the national party and Presidential candidates should be to first do no harm (do not say or do anything wacky that will hurt local candidates), and second, help recruit and develop a pool of Libertarian activists, donors, and voters that local candidates and organizations can tap into.

To get caught up on the candidates and issues, I read their websites, their Wikipedia biographies, searched YouTube for videos of them speaking, and sought out opinions and gossip from other Libertarians on blogs. I’ve also had personal interactions with George Phillies and Mary Ruwart, and I heard George Phillies and Steve Kubby debate at the LP Nevada convention last year.

GOOD CANDIDATES

Unfortunately, none of the candidates this year really excite me. However, there are a few that I think would help our party grow if they won the nomination:

Wayne_new2Wayne Allyn Root:

Pros: Moderately famous for his gambling TV shows/books and Millionaire Republican personal finance book. He’s a very good speaker and smooth with the media, as shown here. Has raised the second most money of the “good” candidates”.

Cons: He only recently made the switch from the Republican Party and is a little on the conservative side. He also seems to have already alienated a lot of people within the LP, although it’s not clear to me what exactly he did to get their panties in such a bunch.

StevekubbySteve Kubby:

Pros: Relatively famous politically. He was successful in getting California Proposition 215 (Medical Marijuana) passed, so we know he has the connections and resources to get things done. He would probably get media attention for being a convicted felon, but this is a good thing because it would show the stupidity of the Drug War. He’s been campaigning for 2 years. Consistently libertarian positions.

Cons: Most Americans are more concerned about other issues than the Drug War right now, so Kubby’s biggest strength is sort of wasted this year. Despite campaigning for 2 years he hasn’t raised much money.

Marypicture1Mary Ruwart:

Pros: Is an excellent speaker and communicator. Is moderately famous within the libertarian movement. She’s able to explain fairly radical libertarian positions and policies without scaring the crap out of people. Running a woman for President or Vice President this year might win us more media attention than we would otherwise get. She’s been involved with the libertarian movement for a long time so we all know her pretty well by now. Consistently libertarian positions.

Cons: She entered the race pretty late and hasn’t raised much money or probably built much of a campaign yet. She doesn’t seem to know how to dress appropriately for a Presidential candidate. Please, Mary, go get some black or navy suits and wear them to all future events instead of that hideous gray thing.

George_philliesGeorge Phillies:

Pros: George is probably the most sane/mainstream candidate for the nomination — he consistently advocates reducing the size of government, but in incremental ways that are actually politically viable. Has raised the most money of the “good” candidates. He’s a long-time member and activist in the Libertarian Party, so we all know him pretty well by now. He “gets it” that the Presidential campaign should be a recruiting tool for building the party and helping elect local candidates. He’s been campaigning for 2 years.

Cons: I think George might have a touch of Aspergers Syndrome — those of you who have met George know what I’m talking about. He’s not at all notable outside of the party.

I wish that George was working as the campaign manager or strategist for a prettier, more charismatic candidate instead of running for the nomination himself. Regardless of who wins the nomination, I hope that George stays involved in the Presidential campaign, because I think he’s got the right mix of libertarian ideology and strategic pragmatism that we need to run a party-building Presidential campaign.

MEDIOCRE CANDIDATES:

I don’t think these candidates would either help or hurt us that much:

Christinesmith_2 Christine Smith:

Pros: She seems to have consistently libertarian positions on all the issues. She’s a decent public speaker as seen here. Although I generally wish that female candidates would dress more conservatively, she pulls off the red suit look well. Running a woman for President or Vice President this year might win us more media attention than we would otherwise get.

Cons: She’s just not that notable — it’s too bad that she decided to jump into running for President, because she would have made a great candidate for local office if she actually wanted to be elected to something. She desperately needs a web designer to improve the look and feel of her campaign website.

Other: She shares a name with a Playboy Playmate (NSFW Google images search). Inevitably, some people will get the two mixed up — not sure if that will help or hurt her campaign. 🙂

MikejingozianMichael Jingozian:

Pros: Seems comfortable speaking, as shown here. Long-time member (claims he joined the LP in 1980). Founder and CEO of a successful small marketing company. Managed to score a Wall Street Journal blog post about his campaign (“A Small Business Owner for President“). I think his internet-focused campaign strategy is a smart idea given the LP’s lack of resources for conventional campaigning. Has raised the most money of the not-bad candidates. Hasn’t done anything to motivate people to write nasty things about him on blogs.

Cons: That no one is writing nasty things about him on blogs indicates that he’s not campaigning hard enough or being taken seriously as a candidate. Complete lack of notability — again, he should have run for local office instead of President. Campaign literature is way too cluttered and too focused on negative things.

LinkAlden Link:

Pros: Seems innocuous. The positions he describes on his website are fairly consistently libertarian.

Cons: I had never heard of him and didn’t know he was running until I did one last check of the LP’s website to make sure I hadn’t missed anyone. Has he raised any money or spoken anywhere? His website is pretty sad.

Jim_burnsJim Burns:

Pros: Seems to have consistently libertarian positions (although I couldn’t bear to finish slogging through all the text on his website, so there might be something that I missed). Strategically-minded.

Cons: I couldn’t find much about him so he doesn’t seem to be campaigning very much. Seems a bit nutty. His campaign website was difficult to find and is pretty lame. Keeps referring to himself as an “old, bald, fat white guy,” which may be accurate but is not the winning campaign rhetoric we should be looking for. He’s so very earnest that I want to pat him on his little bald head, but I don’t want him representing our party.

BAD CANDIDATES:

I think these candidates would be harmful to our party and I would be very disappointed if any of them were nominated:

BobbarrBob Barr:

Pros: As a former elected Congressman, he’s much more famous than most of the other candidates. His experience in public office gives him credibility, and demonstrates that he is able to run an effective campaign. His campaign website is very professional-looking.

Cons: HE’S NOT A LIBERTARIAN. He’s still really a Republican at heart, and he’s running to get Republicans to vote and help down-ticket Republican candidates (via), not to build the Libertarian Party. He’ll never be accepted by many libertarians due to his support of the Drug War, Defense of Marriage Act, and Patriot Act while he was an elected Congressman — he may give lip service to libertarianism now, but his actual legislative record on libertarian issues is abysmal. He waited until the last minute to officially announce, which seems to me like a slimy tactic to avoid giving Libertarians adequate time to investigate and debate his candidacy before the convention. I don’t trust him or his supposed change of heart (he doesn’t even declare his current positions on drugs or gay rights on the Issues page of his website) — this is a guy that we helped defeat for re-election in 2002, and now he sits on the LNC and is seriously being considered for our nominee for President?! Ron Crickenberger must be spinning in his grave.

MikegravelMike Gravel:

Pros: As a former elected Senator, and as a former candidate for the Democratic Presidential nomination, he’s much more famous than most of the other candidates. His experience in public office gives him credibility, and demonstrates that he is able to run an effective campaign. His campaign website is very professional-looking.

Cons: HE’S NOT A LIBERTARIAN. The only reason he’s running for the Libertarian Party nomination is because he couldn’t win the Democratic Party nomination. He is campaigning for socialized medicine, which would be a massive increase in government. Need I say more?

Bob Barr and Mike Gravel are examples of one of the worst threats to third parties — major party candidates who can’t get along in their own party and decide to leave and try to co-opt a third party’s ticket. We saw this happen with the Movimiento Libertario in Costa Rica (which was the most successful Libertarian party in the world to date). There, the co-opters were successful, and the Movimiento Libertario doesn’t even call itself “libertarian” anymore. Let the fate of the ML serve as a cautionary tale to US Libertarians — don’t be so excited over the prospect of an experienced and proven “electable” candidate from a mainstream party that you ignore their ideology.

Imperato2008Daniel Imperato:

Pros: He seems to be putting a lot of effort into his campaign.

Cons: He’s not actually a Libertarian, he’s just a slut for third parties — he’s also tried to win the Green Party, Reform Party, and Constitution Party nominations, and seems to just want to be on the ballot regardless of whose ticket he’s on.

PLATFORM:

I support the World’s Smallest Political Platform (click the link to sign the petition):

“The Libertarian Party supports reducing the size, scope and power of government at all levels and on all issues, and opposes increasing the size, scope or power of government at any level or for any purpose.”

I support it because I know from experience that opponents and media can and do go to the national Libertarian Party website, dig up something wacky from the platform, and use it confront local candidates in potentially winnable races. So while I personally don’t object to much in the current or old platform, I think it is a handicap and not a help for winning elections at the level we can realistically win them at. Let our CANDIDATES define their own platforms individually, based on the issues that THEY want to campaign on, instead of having to fend off questions about issues not related to the office that they’re running for or about positions much more radical than they themselves espouse.

________________________________

Jacqueline Passey is the former Executive Director of the Washington state Libertarian Party, and former LP candidate for Washington Secretary of State. Blog enthusiasts likely remember her from her 2006 blog entry covering the Nevada LP presidential debates, amusingly titled “Two whackjobs, a convicted felon, and George Phillies”. That blog entry set into motion a short-lived “memogate”, in which a memo from then-LP Executive Director Shane Corey, referencing her blog and asking whether the LP can offer better candidates, was leaked into the blogosphere.

Ms. Passey lives in Las Vegas with her husband and dachsunds, and is currently working on her Master’s Degree at UNLV. Her current blog is “Jacqueline Gets Her Geek On”.

Money Decides: After the Barr Announcement

In Daniel Imperato, Entertainment, Humor, Libertarian Party-US, Libertarian Politics, Presidential Candidates on May 13, 2008 at 9:12 pm

Latest Entries in TPW LP Photoshop Dissathon – Both by anonymous. No editorial comment here, just passing ‘em along.

None are intended as a serious attack on any of the candidates.

LP candidates’ cash on hand as of 3/31

In Christine Smith, Daniel Imperato, George Phillies, Libertarian, Libertarian Convention, Libertarian Party-US, Libertarian Politics, Mike Jingozian, Politics, Presidential Candidates, Steve Kubby, Wayne Allen Root on May 10, 2008 at 11:35 am

According to the FEC reports, George Phillies is by far best prepared to “hit the ground running” with an LP nomination, based upon cash on hand as of the end of the first quarter of 2008.

This is true even if Barr announces, based upon his website report, since Phillies has over twice as much cash on hand and has his campaign already well underway. Barr’s site, on the other hand, reflects that he barely has enough to pay his staff, and doesn’t yet even have enough to open (much less set up) his office; so it can be reasonably assumed that Barr has the equivalent of no cash on hand, and none in the foreseeable future given his estimated immediate expenses.

Phillies $118,716

Ruwart $6,765

Jingozian $4,002

Smith $1,634

Imperato $695

Kubby $339

Root $37,834

Gravel -$2733*

*Last quarter 2007. FEC warning letters for failure to file Q1 2008 report.

Comparison of FEC candidate reports

In Christine Smith, Daniel Imperato, George Phillies, Libertarian, Libertarian Convention, Libertarian Party-US, Libertarian Politics, Mike Jingozian, Politics, Presidential Candidates, Steve Kubby, Wayne Allen Root on May 9, 2008 at 5:22 pm

Not to be confused with LNC numbers (in which they include funds sent to their wacky “Liberty Decides” contest, which should not be counted since it’s actually a donation to the LP and not to the candidate), here is information from the Uniform Financial Report, filed with the FEC, for each candidate for the Libertarian Presidential nomination.

Mike Gravel has has not yet made his April filing, so I have included his numbers from December. Also, Daniel imperato appears to have a corrupted computer file, as explained in the notes, so his totals are not given; and Bob Barr had no exploratory committee as of 3/31 so his total for that date is zero. Otherwise, all candidates are compared as of their March 31st FEC filing.

Mike Jingozian
Others $ 13,090
Total $228,525

George Phillies
Others $ 16,727
Total $198,254

Wayne Allyn Root
Others $ 34,409
Total $ 59,410

Christine Smith
Others $ 16,244
Total $ 16,244

Steve Kubby
Others $ 16,219 (inferred from previous filings))
Total $ 16,219

Mary Ruwart
Others $ 5,655
Total $ 10,655

Bob Barr
Others $ 0
Total $ 0

Mike Gravel
Others $447,880
Total $521,396

Daniel Imperato:

Imperato filing appears to have a corrupted computer file. His most recent report claims his receipts for the quarter ($39,574) are larger than his total receipts for the cycle ($12,500), which is impossible.

LP.org reports candidate FEC filings as of today

In Christine Smith, Daniel Imperato, George Phillies, Libertarian, Libertarian Convention, Libertarian Party-US, Libertarian Politics, Mike Jingozian, Politics, Presidential Candidates, Steve Kubby, Wayne Allen Root on May 6, 2008 at 7:35 pm

LP Candidate FEC Filings

LP Presidential Candidate FEC and Liberty Decides ’08 Filings

Wayne Allyn Root
LD ’08: $15,764.00
Individual: $29,988.00
Candidate: $4,421.90

Daniel Imperato

LD ’08: $10,474.00
Individual: $0.00
Candidate: $0.00

Michael Jingozian

LD ’08: $8,490.00
Individual: $13,090.79
Candidate: $0.00

Mike Gravel*^
LD ’08: $895.00
Individual: $447,378.97
Candidate: $0.00

Steve Kubby**

LD ’08: $1,280.00
Total: $2,951.22

Alden Link

LD ’08: $885.00
Individual: $259.00
Candidate: $4,225.00

George Phillies
LD ’08: n/a
Individual: $16,727.75
Candidate: $81,527.01

Mary Ruwart***

LD ’08: $1,060.00
Individual: n/a
Candidate: n/a

Christine Smith**
LD ’08: $2,460.00
Total: $16,244.00

Bob Barr (still in Presidential exploratory phase):

Total Reported by Candidate Web site: $53,163.64

Most Individual Contributions Raised: Root
Most Personal Money Invested: Phillies

*Numbers reflect previous campaign for President in different political party
**No electronic report available. Only total available is net contributions that do not separate individual contributions and candidate contributions
***No FEC report available
^Candidate had failed to file April Quarterly Report when data was compiled

(LD ’08 totals current as of May 5, 2008. FEC Filing data taken from Election Cycle-To-Date totals from candidates’ April Quarterly filing. This information can be viewed at www.FEC.gov.)

Posted by Andrew Davis at May 6, 2008 12:52 PM

ENM responds:

Perhaps I am somehow confused, but in their wrap-up of “Most Individual Contributions Raised”, they list Root as the winner. Yet, isn’t Gravel’s $447,379 a LOT more than Root’s $29,988?

I still have to respect the heck out of George Phillies for putting so much of his money where his mouth is, so I think he should wear the “Most Personal Money Invested” win as a badge of honor.

I still think “Liberty Decides” is both a rip-off for the candidates, and misleading to voters. I have had to explain over and over again, to people across the net, that LD’08 has no bearing on a candidate’s actual chances of getting the nomination, because it’s nothing but a fundraising tool for the LP; and that if they contribute money to a candidate through LD’08, the candidate they choose doesn’t actually get the money. Argh.

“None of the Above” gets five votes in Indiana straw poll

In Barry Hess, Christine Smith, Daniel Imperato, George Phillies, Libertarian, Libertarian Convention, Libertarian Party-US, Libertarian Politics, Mike Jingozian, Politics, Presidential Candidates, Steve Kubby on April 28, 2008 at 12:07 am

While George Phillies and Bob Barr tied for first place in the Indiana State LP Convention straw poll, five people still voted for “none of the above”.  The NOTA vote is especially interesting, given that the convention is less than a month away.

All told, 48 people voted up to three times each.  Phillies and Barr each got 22 votes, Gravel got 20, Ruwart 19, Jingozian 16, and Root 16.

Imperato, Hess, Smith, and Kubby got single digit totals, but still polled lower than “None of the Above”.  Others – Link, Finan, Burns, Hollist, Milnes – received no votes.  At this point, many if not all of those candidates should drop out of the race and endorse one of the frontrunners, since it seems quite clear that they have no chance of becoming the LP nominee.

I cannot help but wonder if the NOTA votes are holding out for Ron Paul to run on a third party ticket (which seems extremely unlikely at best) or if they simply don’t like any of the candidates who have declared.

Candidates Gone Wild: Presidential Wackjob Edition

In Barack Obama, Children, Congress, Crazy Claims, Daniel Imperato, George Bush, Humor, Immigration, Iraq War, Libertarian, Lies and the lying liars who tell them, Politics, Presidential Candidates, Shine on you crazy diamond, US Government, War on March 22, 2008 at 10:08 pm

We’re all familiar with John McCain, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama. However, have you ever wondered what other presidential candidates are out there? Are you longing for a presidential candidate who is really and truly different? If so, one of these guys just might be your man.

Michael Jesus ArchangelUnlike most mainstream presidential candidates, God The Great Holy Spirit Saint Michael Jesus The Archangel doesn’t think he is God. He knows he is. This also ends the debate about the true name of God, since he quite clearly denotes his name as “Mike”. That’s a much easier name to spell and remember than “Yahweh”, for sure.

Apparently God/Mike runs a “modeling agency”, and if his website claims are to be believed, it’s quite successful as models literally flock to him. I’m not sure how lucrative that endeavor has become for him, but that’s okay because he also makes his own money. By that, I don’t mean that he works and makes money. No, I mean that he quite literally makes money, which he calls “Heavenly Banknotes”. Are you against the Federal Reserve? He’ll take care of that problem too, and replace it with his own “Cosmic Reserve Bank”.

Apparently God/Mike is an Old Testament kind of Creator, because he wants to arrest abortion doctors, judges who ruled abortions legal, and women who have had abortions, and execute them all within a year. He also thinks that smokers are both suicidal and homicidal, and he plans to arrest and execute, without representation or trial, all of the “tobacco lords”. He also has a problem with gay marriage, because the Bible (which he refers to as “My Holy Word”) speaks against it; for that reason, he plans to execute all gays and lesbians. On the other hand Mike/God is not quite so completely violent as it would appear, since he also thinks that nations should settle conflicts with a paintball war.

If you’re interested in contacting God/Mike, you can do so by telephone or email, since both are listed on his website. However, you can’t send him a fax, since his fax is listed as “CIA Top Secret Ultra-Grade.”

Like any other non-mainstream candidate, God/Mike has run into some difficulties during his campaign. Most notably, he was charged with attempted murder, undoubtedly while “at war with the homosexual Satan and his leftist queer devils and demons”. That’s okay, though, because since he’s God, he has the power of prophesy. To that end he says, “I prophesy that I will win by a crushing landslide.”

Jonathan The Impaler SharkeyOn the other end of the spectrum Jonathan “The Impaler” Sharkey may not be a Papal Knight, a Knight of Malta, or a Knight of the Orden Bonaria like Daniel Imperato; or God, Jesus, or the Holy Ghost like Mike, but he is an ordained Satanic Priest. Not only is he a Satanic Priest, but a quiz on his MySpace profile declared that he is Satan, so it must be true. He also promises to murder (by impalement, of course) certain people with his own hands as soon as he takes office; that list includes Osama bin Laden, George Bush, O.J. Simpson, and even Mike Tyson.

Jonathan is also a “Satanic Vampyre” as well as a “Hecate Witch”, and has some very serious military experience as a “Commanding General” of a vampire regiment known as the “Death Dealers”. He also has a great deal of previous political experience, having run for Congress in multiple states, for President during the last election as well as the present one, and he once also ran for Governor (of Minnesota). His campaigns have been unsuccessful, undoubtedly due to the media’s bias against third party candidates.

On the downside, he must be one of those shapeshifters David Icke warns us about because, while in Florida, he assumed the name “Kathleen Sharkey” and claimed that he is is his own half-sister, and also his own pagan wife. He sent a notice to the FEC under the Kathleen persona, implying that Jonathan is dead.

Not surprisingly, The Impaler does have an arrest record, including a record for stalking a former girlfriend, but for those who wish to support The Impaler, that could be easily spun into his being far more loyal than most people will ever be. He was also ordered to undergo psychiatric care since he believes himself to be a vampire, and of course that could be spun as his having had his right to practice his religion denied by the government. Despite The impaler’s shortcomings, there is always a way for a politician to spin anything into something positive.

John Taylor BowlesThen again, if God and Satan aren’t quite down-to-earth enough for you, there is also John Taylor Bowles. Bowles claims to be “the White People’s Candidate”. Dressed like a Neo-Nazi storm trooper, Bowles claims that it is “time for the white people to put a real white man in the White House”; apparently he believes that previous presidents weren’t really white.

Bowles wants to give us lower taxes, lower food prices, free health care, zero unemployment, no outsourcing of jobs, forgiveness of all credit card debt so all white people start with a fresh slate, a 5% flat tax on income with all other taxes abolished, no more foreclosures, and interest-free mortgages (though together those last two items are equivalent to free housing on a first-come first-serve basis) ….. but only after he has deported all non-whites in a “humanitarian” manner. He plans to give all non-whites a one-time stipend of $30,000 to make their involuntary move more palatable.

Bowles also wants to bring the white soldiers home, at which time he will position them at the southern border to help “stop the invasion”. He also believes that birth control is an invention of those who wish to destroy the white race, and to that end he suggests that whites take over the country by having as many children as possible (though if he deports all non-whites, we would have no need to out-breed anyone to maintain control). White families who produce four or more children will have their mortgage debt forgiven, though again, it doesn’t matter if the debt is forgiven, if there are no more foreclosures.

I’ve heard this particular line of thinking before. Former wacky Libertarian candidate Gene Chapman suggested that libertarians out-breed the non-libertarians, and even offered to store his sperm for any women interested in bearing his children. He also mentioned that both he and his webmaster Doug Kenline were single. Big surprise there.

So who gets to stay in the United States, and who will be forced to leave? According to Bowles, a white person (which he refers to as “Aryan”) is defined as “wholly of non-Jewish, non-Asiatic European ancestry, descendants of the autochthonous Peoples of the contemporary states of Austria, Belarus, Belgium, Britain, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Russia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden, Switzerland, and Ukraine. Many persons of Albanian, Bulgarian, Croatian, Georgian, Greek, Hungarian, Italian, Portugese, Romanian, Serbian, and Spanish heritage also qualify as Aryan, their ancestors being pioneers of Aryan communities in those lands.”

Now that we’ve reviewed the candidates, here is the interesting question. Given that the mainstream parties limit our choices to only three candidates at this point, soon to be only two candidates; and given that many Americans do not agree with any of the mainstream candidates on the issues …. if these were the only candidates from which you could choose, who would you choose, and why?

LP gets mainstream press coverage in Philadelphia Inquirer

In Christine Smith, Civil Liberties, Daniel Imperato, George Phillies, Iraq War, Libertarian, Libertarian Party-US, Media, Mike Jingozian, Politics, Presidential Candidates, Republican, Taxation, Torture, War, Wayne Allen Root on March 14, 2008 at 11:47 pm

Philly.com logoThe following article from the Philadephia Inquirer seems to place the LP in a positive light in the mainstream media, and they even got their information right. The only error I see is that Dr. George Phillies is an MIT-educated Physicist, not a chemist. On the other hand, the writer does seem to pick up on the strangeness which is Daniel Imperato, by listing him as a “self described” Papal Knight and Knight of Malta.

Good job and many thanks to Sam Wood at the Inquirer!

LIBERTARIANS HOLD CONVENTION IN PA

By Sam Wood, Inquirer Staff Writer

There’s a joke making the rounds that the Libertarian Party would like to dispel.

Q: What is a Libertarian salad?

A: Lettuce alone!

Libertarians prize individual rights, say party leaders. But really, the emphasis on “individual” ends there. They’re tired of being alone. They’d love to make more converts.

In fact, Libertarians are aggressively pursuing voters in the region, seeking to raise the profile of their party’s presidential candidates. (There’s at least 8.)

This weekend in Malvern, Libertarians from Pennsylvania and New Jersey will hold a joint convention scheduled to run three days at the Desmond Hotel and Conference Center.

“Everyone’s invited,” said James C. Babb, a small Main Line businessman and organizer of the weekend gathering, which begins tomorrow. “Saturday is the best day for someone who is not already a party member.”

The confab will give regional Libertarians an opportunity to size up eight presidential candidates before the party’s May 22 national convention in Denver, Colorado. About 200 delegates are expected to attend the Malvern event.

Babb said he’s routinely asked why the Libertarians even bother to run a presidential candidate.

“People say, ‘Gosh, you’re never going to win. Isn’t it a wasted vote?’

“But voters are really disappointed with the Democrats and the Republicans right now,” Babb said. “This is an opportunity to make a statement.”

The Libertarian party platform, Babb said, reflects the values of the Founding Fathers.

Babb said the party stands for a humble foreign policy, a sound currency, protection of individual rights, the elimination of taxes, an end to the war on drugs, no torture and no wiretapping.

He said the Republican Party had used bait-and-switch tactics to win the White House for the past eight years.

“They promised no nation building and invaded Iraq. They promised fiscal conservatism and they brought us a $3.1 trillion budget. And that’s just one year’s worth of squandering.”

Democrats, he said, haven’t done much better.

“They swept the House of Representatives promising to get us out of Iraq, but they’ve continued to fund the war and they’ve failed to protect civil liberties.”

Bill Redpath, the national party chairman, will also attend.

Among the candidates wooing voters in Malvern this weekend include:

Bob Jackson, 68, born in Woodbury, NJ and a 1961 graduate of Lehigh University. An inventor and engineer now based in Michigan, Jackson operates import-export businesses Triax Inc. and Jackson International.

Michael Jingozian, 48, an Oregon entrepreneur and founder of Angelvision Technologies, an internet marketing firm.

Alden Link, 76, businessman and entrepreneur from White Plains, New York. He owns Sundance Industries, the nation’s leading manufacturer of wheat grass juicers.

George Phillies, 61, M.I.T. trained chemist, former Libertarian congressional candidate, ACLU activist, and resident of Worcester, Massachusetts.

Wayne Allyn Root, 47, a Las Vegas-based sports oddsmaker, author, self-made millionaire and television personality.

Daniel Imperato, 50, of West Palm Beach, Fla. Businessman and self-described former semi-pro hockey player, Papal Knight and Knight of Malta.

Christine Smith, 31, a humanitarian activist from Golden, Colorado and author of A Mountain In The Wind – An Exploration of the Spirituality of John Denver.

For more information, see the state party websites at www.lppa.org and www.njlp.org or the national party website at www.lp.org.

By request

In Daniel Imperato, Entertainment, Humor, Libertarian, Libertarian Party-US, Mike Jingozian, Politics, Presidential Candidates, Wayne Allen Root on February 27, 2008 at 6:54 pm

I’m not sure I should identify the requestor, and I certainly should not identify the author of this image.

By the way, I’m not trying to be mean. I met Mr. Jackson in Las Vegas, and he was a nice fellow from what I can tell. I’ve also met and talked one on one with all the other Liberty Decides qualifying candidates and I don’t hate any of them. This is just supposed to be a lighthearted parody as a followup to

Liberty Decides

moneydecides.jpg

My response to “Ode To Imperato”

In Daniel Imperato, Libertarian, Libertarian Party-US, Politics on February 26, 2008 at 7:54 pm

Daniel ImperatoThere has been a discussion over at Third Party Watch, regarding whether Daniel Imperato should be listed as a Libertarian on the official Libertarian Party website. Among other statements by Stephen Gordon, owner of TPW, he didn’t call the media to cover a Libertarian presidential candidate debate, due to the participation of Mr. Imperato.Just as some brief background, Mr. Imperato is either a liar of unimaginable proportions, or insane. I haven’t decided yet, mostly because I honestly don’t care one way or the other about his candidacy since he will never in a zillion years become President, or even the Libertarian Party’s nominee. Yet his wackiness also isn’t interesting enough to keep my attention for more than a minute or two.I started to respond on that blog, then decided to do so here instead, so my thoughts on this issue aren’t buried in the comments section of someone else’s blog. I am so disgusted with the Libertarian Party and its powers-that-be that I don’t care if they know it. What follows is that response.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

If it were not for “Liberty Decides“, Imperato would still be just the butt of jokes among those of us who follow the lunatic fringe in politics. Without “Liberty Decides”, he would have forever remained an obscure Independent candidate whose only supporters were the voices in his head.

The Libertarian Party, however, recognized Imperato as a fully qualified Libertarian presidential candidate on their website, in “Liberty Decides”, which is nothing more or less than a moneymaking scheme for the LP since it does not stop candidates from buying their way to the top; and there is absolutely no accountability regarding the dates, amounts, or identities of contributors. Yet Imperato is not even a Libertarian candidate, even by his own admission, since he filed with the FEC as an Independent.

It is pathetic that no one invited the media just because Imperato was there, since it robbed the legitimate Libertarian candidates of much-needed exposure (especially true when it cost them $500 to participate, not to mention travel and lodging costs). Wackjob or not, I think Imperato would only have made the other candidates look even better, so perhaps you should have invited the media anyway. It’s not like it’s going to be shown on the evening news, after all. The only people who would be interested at all are libertarians, and insomniacs.

However, since you decided not to alert the media due to Imperato’s participation, someone in authority at that event should have alerted the media themselves (again, because they charged the candidates $500 each for the opportunity to participate). If they and you both thought Imperato was just too far out in left field to invite the media, you could have simply said, “We’re sorry, Mr. Imperato, but you’re registered with the FEC as an Independent, and thus you are not qualified to participate in this debate as a Libertarian. Here is a refund of your participation fee”.

How hard is that?

In my opinion, the LP has made a mockery of the party’s entire presidential candidate process. Not only did they ignore their own candidates in order to support a candidate from another party who repeatedly said he was not interested in becoming the LP’s nominee, but they also rolled out the red carpet for a wackjob who isn’t even registered with the FEC as a Libertarian candidate (and did the same for a lot of candidates who aren’t filed with the FEC at all).

The entire situation is an embarrassing mess, but it didn’t need to happen at all. Nevertheless, no matter how I view it, the LP is entirely to blame by lending Imperato credibility where he otherwise would have none.

Originally posted on Adventures In Frickintardistan

Liberty Decides

In Daniel Imperato, Democracy, George Phillies, Libertarian, Libertarian Convention, Libertarian Party-US, Libertarian Politics 2008, Mike Jingozian, Politics, Wayne Allen Root on December 20, 2007 at 5:42 pm

The Libertarian National Party has a new program, Liberty Decides ’08 designed “to promote our pre-nomination presidential candidates as they engage in a competitive process. To participate in the program, candidates must cross three thresholds: meet the LP bylaws requirements; file with the FEC; and raise at least $5,000 for the LP or LP state parties for ballot access.

Once qualified, candidates will be ranked by the funds they have raised for the program and promoted through the Internet, mail and LP publications.”

40% of all donations to this program will be set aside in a special fund to be used for expenditures coordinated with the candidate who does eventually win the LP nomination in convention. The remainder of the funds will be used to help the LP move forward with core issues such as media, ballot access and member recruitment.

One candidate has declined to participate, noting that the money does not go to help the candidates now, when they need help the most, and only 40% will go to the eventual nominee – whoever that may be – not necessarily the candidate that the donors click on to contribute in the name of.

Further controversy ensued when, in an early version of Liberty Decides, this candidate was included without his consent, and a silhouette of Ron Paul was used as a “Future/Unannounced Candidate.” The silhouette was removed, as was the objecting candidate, but in a controversial and widely talked about move, the LNC voted unanimously to invite Ron Paul to seek the LP nomination for President if he does not get the Republican nomination.

Some candidates are more positive about Liberty Decides.

Some other Libertarian activists have criticized Liberty Decides, notably Susan Hogarth, who wrote:

It would be a much more useful tool for Libertarian activists and likely convention delegates (you know, the folks who actually select the LP nominee) with two simple additions, which I mentioned yesterday:

1) some indication of how many individual donors each candidate has (and, ideally, how many of them are Party members).

2) some indication (other than a link to their websites) of positions.

Susan shares her thoughts about Liberty Decides here, here,
here, and
here.

Despite the criticism, the LNC expressed support for Executive Director Shane Cory and Liberty Decides at its recent meeting in Charleston.

Survey to determine libertarian perspective on the 2008 presidential elections completed

In Daniel Imperato, George Phillies, Libertarian, Libertarian Party-US, Politics, Wayne Allen Root on July 12, 2007 at 6:06 pm

The survey of libertarians being conducted by LibertarianLists.com is now completed and the baseline results are available on the site. Additionally, a new (and shorter and faster) survey has been initiated here. It asks a few new questions and breaks things out differently so we can learn more about how libertarians feel about the various presidential candidates. Please participate in the new survey so your voice is heard and your vote is counted.

It’s no surprise that Ron Paul dominated, pulling in a total of 1389 votes (69.62%) out of the 1995 people who responded to the survey. What’s interesting is that he got a slightly higher amount of votes from people who indicated they were members of the Libertarian Party than from the general libertarian community. Of the 1351 self-identified LP members, 976 (72.24%) chose Paul over the other candidates.

Of the Libertarian Party candidates, George Phillies won. Here’s how the vote broke down for members of the Libertarian Party (this excludes small-Ls not associated with the LP):

Field Summary for 0005:
If the presidential election was held today, for which candidate are you most likely to vote?
Answer Count Percentage
No answer 0 0.00%
Steve Kubby (1) 36 2.66%
Mike Gravel (2) 1 0.07%
George Phillies (3) 48 3.55%
Ron Paul (4) 976 72.24%
Wayne Allyn Root (5) 31 2.29%
Dennis Kucinich (6) 6 0.44%
Mike Jingozian (7) 2 0.15%
Newt Gingrich (8) 8 0.59%
Christine Smith (9) 16 1.18%
Barack Obama (10) 14 1.04%
Daniel Imperato (11) 4 0.30%
Tom Tancredo (12) 11 0.81%
Barry Hess (13) 8 0.59%
Joe Biden (14) 1 0.07%
Alden Link (15) 3 0.22%
Chuck Hagel (16) 0 0.00%
Robert Milnes (17) 0 0.00%
Mike Bloomberg (18) 7 0.52%
Bob Jackson (19) 2 0.15%
Fred Thompson (20) 39 2.89%
John Finan (21) 0 0.00%
Dave Hollist (22) 2 0.15%
Rudy Giuliani (23) 34 2.52%
John McCain (24) 8 0.59%
Hillary Clinton (25) 6 0.44%
Mike Huckabee (26) 9 0.67%
John Edwards (27) 3 0.22%
Tommy Thompson (28) 1 0.07%
Jim Gilmore (29) 0 0.00%
Duncan Hunter (30) 3 0.22%
Al Gore (31) 11 0.81%
Other (-oth-) 61 4.52%

With respect to name recognition and favorables, let’s take a look at the top five LP candidates. Again, these data are coming from big-Ls; I’m excluding the small Ls from these data. To see the full data, simply visit here.

Name recognition factors among LP members:

  • Steve Kubby: 49.37%
  • George Phillies: 38.49%
  • Wayne Allyn Root: 18.8%
  • Christine Smith: 17.84%
  • Barry Hess: 23.46%

Of those who actually knew the candidates, here’s the average number of what they thought of them -with 1 as the least favorable rating and 5 as the most favorable.

  Kubby Phillies Root Smith Hess
AVERAGE 3.83 3.60 3.35 3.34 3.58

In other words, LP member’s presidential preferences, so far, go in this order: George Phillies, Steve Kubby, Wayne Allyn Root, Christine Smith, Barry Hess.

To rank candidates by name recognition, the list looks like this: Steve Kubby, George Phillies, Barry Hess, Wayne Allyn Root, Christine Smith.

To rate them by favorability factors, it goes like this: Steve Kubby, George Phillies, Barry Hess, Wayne Allyn Root, Christine Smith.

In other words, it looks like any of the top five candidates could end up being the eventual LP nominee. It’s a shame that no one is paying much attention to them, considering how unlikely it is that Ron Paul will win the Republican nomination.

BTW, here’s a suggestion to some of the LP presidential candidates. If Hillary Clinton has more support from LP members than you have recieved, maybe you should consider dropping from the race.

I’ll be posting additional analyses of the survey results here and here.

Loony pseudo-libertarian Imperato strikes again

In Crazy Claims, Daniel Imperato, Humor, Politics on June 25, 2007 at 10:41 am

I1connect News: Ralph Nader and Daniel Imperato “More Voices and More Choices”

In what has been one of the busiest weeks for independent political activity, corporate activist and former presidential candidate, Ralph Nader, has indicated that he is exploring another run at the White House in 2008.

During a televised interview with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer on Thursday, Nader stated that America needed “More Voices and More Choices.”

Nader has gained some significant media coverage since New York City Mayor, Michael Bloomberg, announced that he is splitting from the Republican Party and declaring himself as an independent. The move was widely seen as a precursor to a 2008 Presidential run.

Thus far, leading the independent charge has been Florida businessman, Daniel Imperato. Imperato has been consistently the most active independent campaigner, and has recently started working with Libertarian Party in an effort to gain ballot access.

Imperato has openly stated that he is interested in working with members of the Green, Libertarian, Constitution, and Reform Party as well as other independents for a 2008 Presidential bid.

Now, with Ralph Nader in the presidential fray, perhaps an Imperato Nader collaboration could be a possibility.

Imperato brings a strong corporate background, and a no-nonsense style of governance, and straight talk that could be very appealing in the upcoming election.

Nader is a corporate whistleblower who brings an activist philosophy to a potential President-Vice Presidential ticket, and already has previous presidential election experience.

Both candidates are grass-roots oriented and rely very heavily upon strong organization.

Also a potential Green and Libertarian Party collaboration would increase the voter base, viability, and ballot access status of any third party presidential ticket.

So with Imperato, Bloomberg, and now, Ralph Nader on the table for the American public, America may now have more voices, and more choices for the 2008 presidential election.

Imperato and Chapman: Wacky LP Candidates Separated At Birth?

In Crazy Claims, Daniel Imperato, Politics on June 8, 2007 at 1:18 pm

Okay, let’s start with their physical appearance. No, I have not altered these photos in any way, with the exception of scaling down the Chapman photo to fit the space:
Daniel Imperato Gene Chapman

Hmmm …… well, they sure do look alike.

Both also seem to have a proclivity for shameless self-promotion (almost everything you’ll find on either of them was written by them – Chapman on blogs, and Imperato in self-published “press releases”). Both also seem to exaggerate their accomplishments tremendously, starting with claims about advising Fortune 500 companies.

It gets better (or worse, depending on how you view it). Chapman claims to have been tutored in economics by none other than billionaire investor Warren Buffett who, he claims, he can out-do in the stock market (yet he can’t seem to rise above driving trucks or changing oil for a living; and Buffett says he doesn’t know Chapman but he’d definitely remember if he knew somebody who could out-do him in the stock market …. you do the math). Imperato claims to actually be a multi-millionaire, though there is no evidence that it’s true except his claims in the endless self-published (literally, he owns the website which puts them out) press releases. However, according to the SEC filings for his corporation, Imperiali, Inc., the company had an accumulated deficit of $11,172,386.28 on November 30, 2006, operated on deficit for the quarter (and it appears most of that money went to him), and almost all of the company’s worth appears to be in unsold stock. [Click here to see the SEC documents.]

Imperato, in a self-published press release, boggles the mind with his claim (or is it a claim?) to own (or not to own?) a $5 billion undersea telecommunications cable, and another claim that he somehow suffered (or did he suffer?) a $3 trillion loss when Osama bin Laden caused 9/11, not as a purely terrorist act against America, but so he could short the stock market to his own financial advantage.

Wow. Just, wow. I’ve never heard that 9/11 conspiracy theory before. But, speaking of stocks, I need to buy stock in Goody’s Headache Powders if I’m going to keep following the lunatic fringe candidates.

Chapman states he never got even one donation, and gives that as his reason for dropping out of the presidential race (and while that is a legitimate reason, it appears it wasn’t the real reason given that some very serious anonymous accusations were leveled against him on several blogs less than 24 hours before he dropped out). Imperato doesn’t appear to have received any donations either, although he loans money to his own campaign (which looks more than a little like funds on paper only; for example, according to the FEC, he spent $125,000 in January – money his campaign didn’t have – then loaned his campaign $250,000 in March). Click here to see the FEC documents. Read the rest of this entry »