Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘2008 Elections’ Category

I’ve told bits and pieces of this story in response to comments on various threads in various places. Having done so over and over, I feel the need to go ahead and put it all out there now so that everyone has one place to turn to for my perspective as state chair. I’m going to go over this first in timeline format, then share a few additional facts about WV and the ballot access situation for us and other parties. If something in the timeline is a bit confusing, see the facts section for clarification.

December 2007: Bill Redpath approaches then-chair Kirsten Milligan about assisting WV with national party funds for ballot access. I was secretary of the party at that time. Kirsten discussed it with the executive committee, and the concensus we reached was that since we did not have a gubernatorial candidate for 2008, national party funds would be better spent elsewhere, and that we would pursue ballot access in 2012 when we had a gubernatorial candidate so that we could achieve major party status and never have to petition again.

March 2008: Kirsten Milligan resigns, and I become interim chairman.

April 2008: Russ Verney contacts me about the possibility of the Barr campaign going for ballot access in WV if Barr wins the nomination. He seems enthusiastic, and I am as well. Mr. Verney comes across very well, and I’m genuinely looking forward to working with him on this together at that point.

May 2008: I’m elected chairman for a full term. Tad Britch is elected to replace me as secretary.

May 2008: Several Barr campaign folks speak to me about the possibility of ballot access in WV while I’m in Denver as a delegate, both before and after Barr receives the nomination. Shane Corey and Russ Verney are among them. I ask them to keep in touch moving forward, and state that I’d love to bring out whatever volunteers the state party has available, but that we have very little in the way of funds, and not enough to really pay for petitioners. I state that we would like some training for our volunteers who primarily reside in the north-central area of WV. This is the last time I would be in contact with any Barr campaign staff, however. I mention to Paulie and others that I’d like to have them come petition and party with me in WV if the Barr campaign sends some funds to the state party for ballot access.

June 2008: Towards the very end of June, Jake Witmer contacts me, and says they are petitioning. I mention that I’d like to get some volunteers trained from the state party’s volunteer base. Jake states that he is in Charleston (a few hours south of the north-central area, where we have very few activists and likely no volunteers.) Jake tells me Shane Corey is coming to the Charleston area, and that he’ll be contacting me. I ask if any petitioners are active in northern WV. Jake doesn’t know. Jake sends me some documents including petitions.

July 2008: I’m still in contact with Jake every once in a while. I offer to house petitioners in my home since Morgantown/Fairmont/Clarksburg/Bridgeport is a good area for petitioning. He says he has a friend who might take me up on it if his friend is brought in by the Barr campaign. That never occurs. I also mention that several other members of the state party would likely volunteer couch space or an air-bed. Later on, Jake gives me contact info for Shane who is apparently in Charleston. I am never able to get in contact with Shane, and he never attempts to contact me.

August 2008: The Barr campaign fails to meet its deadlines. Our state party volunteer base was never utilized. Barr also fails to register as a certified write-in candidate, so that write-in votes for Barr would be counted.

September 2008: A state party member calls me, asking about the Barr lawsuit. This is the first I’d heard of it.

Now for some facts. Ballot access is a 2% theshhold of prior-election voters in WV. To achieve major party status (which means you get free ballot access without petitioning) you must have a gubernatorial candidate who receives 1% of the popular vote. After the national convention, the only person who I was ever in contact with regarding the ballot access efforts was Jake Witmer. Jake was not equipped to really do what needed to be done, as a petitioner and not someone with any real authority. In the future, ballot access efforts will be undertaken by the LPWV. I firmly believe this will better serve the interests of LP candidates throughout the state as we move forward.  The Constitution Party achieved ballot access by petition in 2008 for their presidential candidate, as did Ralph Nader as an independent.  The Green Party affiliate, which is called the Mountain Party, had major party status and did not need to petition.

- Matt Harris, LPWV Chair

Read Full Post »

Nevada’s Republican Lt. Gov. Brian Krolicki was indicted today by a grand jury on four felony counts related to his previous stint as state treasurer: 2 counts of Misappropriation and Falsification of Accounts By Public Officer, and 2 counts of Misappropriation by Treasurer. Krolicki had just last week announced he planned to run against Harry Reid for Senate in 2010, and claims this indictment was a politically motivated conspiracy hatched by Reid and Nevada’s Democratic Attorney General. The main problem with his story is that the indictment is hardly out of the blue. It has its roots back in January 2007, when the State Treasurer who took office after him, asked and received permission for an audit looking into possible improprieties. Krolicki even admits he was informed about a probable grand jury indictment late in November, so he announced his intention to run against Reid knowing it was coming.

The Hill happily pimped Krolick’s claim in an article titled: Top Reid challenger indicted.  In the article The Hill also mentioned that two other Republicans, who were considered possible challengers to Reid in 2010, had their political fortunes greatly decreased by losing their reelection bids last November. One of those was Congressman Jon Porter, and the other was State Senator Joe Heck. From The Hill article:

The two GOP names most often floated as top-notch challengers, however, have had difficult years of their own. Rep. Jon Porter, who represents Southern Nevada’s 3rd district, just lost his bid for a fourth term to state Sen. Dina Titus; and state Sen. Joe Heck lost his seat by fewer than 1,000 votes thanks to a Libertarian candidate.

Thanks to a Libertarian candidate? Not due to Heck’s lack of appeal in his district? The Hill conveniently failed to mention that an IAP candidate was a fourth contender in the field, who performed fairly well.

Candidate Party % vote votes
BREEDEN, SHIRLEY DEM 46.57% 46,420
HECK, JOE REP 45.81% 45,655
HAGAN, TIM LIB 4.77% 4,754
BLANQUE, TONY IAP 2.85% 2,843

Source: Nevada Secretary of State

Given the political views of Independent American Party members, it seems much more likely that Heck lost, “thanks” to the IAP candidate, not the Libertarian.

Read Full Post »

Over the years, I’ve met many libertarians in different places. In July 2000, it was my pleasure to drive from Texas to London, Ontario (yes, driving to the one in UK would have been more difficult) to meet quite a few. It was there at a conference of the International Society for Individual Liberty that I met Lynn Atherton and her husband Roger Bloxham.

As with most libertarian relationships, our friendship has waxed and waned. We’ve been out of touch for times, and back in touch at others. Nevertheless, we’ve always had a pleasant relationship, based on mutual respect and trust.

Among my many regrets with respect to my ventures in Somalia going so badly awry, due to NATO intervention, was not getting a chance to put Roger’s dry dock technology to work for mutual benefit. The airport we were planning near our sea port would also, likely, have gotten a visit from Roger in one of his home built airplanes. These things were not to be. Many of our conversations include reminiscences.

But, recently, one was about a friend of Lynn’s from Oklahoma. Angela O’Dell had been hired to do ballot access work for the Barr campaign in West Virginia. I gather she is owed several thousand dollars for work actually performed. Moreover, she had contacted Shane Cory of the Barr campaign, who attempted to assure her that she would be paid.

Thus far she has not been paid. Lately, she has come to regret her choice in not making an issue of this matter during the campaign. Happily, just because the election is over doesn’t mean that the Barr campaign wraps up and goes away. They still have money – possibly even some donations still coming in. After they pay their debts, my understanding of federal election law is that the candidate gets to put in his pocket the remaining money. I’ve no idea how much that might be.

Anyway, it seems likely that this obligation doesn’t go away even if the campaign does. So, I am doing my part to help Angela get her money. It is also my intention, here, to continue to make clear to the libertarian community what kind of a guy Shane Cory is. I think we all know he was asked to resign as executive directrix of the LP when he began campaigning against Mary Ruwart while still in his job. He did resign, though the payments to him didn’t stop. I don’t believe he was ever censured for his part in the Andrew Davis press release calling for more federal spending.

As well, I think we all know what Shane said to one of the Campaign for Liberty organisers after the Barr snubgate fiasco. Those words were “go f#ck yourself.”

So, I don’t think he’s much of a man. I doubt he has anything like honor. But, he does have other people to report to. And he might be shamed into paying Angela. That would be nice.

Obviously, she’s asked to be paid. She’s offered to accept a partial payment with more to come later. She’s tried to work with the campaign on a payment plan. It isn’t much money to them – they had money to spend on limousine services to quite a hefty figure. But it is a lot of money to her. And wouldn’t it be nice to see her get paid?

Volunteers and paid petitioners do a lot of the heavy lifting for this community. They go out and get signatures on petitions. They go out and get voters to register for our parties. They go out and face the cops in places, get arrested at times, and do a lot of actual physical work – manning tables, moving things around to set up petition tables, talking for hours on end to people who are interested. They are our faces to the public.

So it would really be nice to treat them decently. It is really shameful that wretched men like Shane Cory get to screw decent, hard working individuals like Angela out of their pay. It is fraud, it is theft, and it is initiatory force.

It isn’t like Shane can do the right thing at this point without apologising for his misconduct and making an act of contrition. He got paid by the campaign, right? For all we know, he was hired and working for the campaign while still executive directrix. We certainly know that he was acting on behalf of one of the candidates for the nomination while he was paid to work for all the members of the party. So we know he’s unethical and sleazy in this way. And we cannot expect that he’s missed a pay check from the Barr campaign.

Angela has suffered. She did the work to get the money, not because the work is grand, not because West Virginia is a desirable destination resort community, but because she needed the money. And she hasn’t been paid. That’s wrong. And it is Shane’s fault. Shane should not only apologise, he should reach into his pocket to pay her interest on the funds she has had to make do without.

For my part, I would like to see him crawl on his hands and knees over broken glass from his home to hers as a thorough going act of contrition. Since I don’t expect him to do so, I don’t intend to forgive him. But I’m tough that way.

Read Full Post »

Maybe the LP will nominate this guy next time around.  Seems like a modest improvement to me.

Old, Grizzled Third-Party Candidate May Steal Support From McCain

Read Full Post »

I’ve heard a number of genuine, dyed-in-the-wool Libertarians lately talking about *not* voting for the party’s presidential candidate, Bob Barr.  There are a lot of folks who just don’t think he was a good choice and I can understand that.  That said, it’s important to consider all of the facts before making a decision like this one.  In this case, one important fact is that the number of votes for a presidential candidate impacts the number of delegates that one’s state gets to the LP national conventions.  This means that states with more people who support, and hence vote for, Barr are likely to get more national convention delegates than states with Libertarians who will refuse to vote for Barr on principle.  Think about it! Personally, I want the most principled individuals serving as delegates to the LP national conventions.  Of course, this advice is only what it is.  I’m not necessarily urging anyone to take any specific course of action.  What I am doing is urging everyone to consider all of the facts in this, as in any situation, prior to making a final decision.

I’ll be back later to read comments.  For now, I’m off to go vote for Bob Barr.

Read Full Post »

I’ve previously listed the LP candidates here, here, here and here. Now, George Donnelly has turned this list into its own website with graphics and continuous updating. George explains:

An Effort to List all LP Candidates

We Libertarians need to know how many candidates we’re fielding for office. Which states are fielding full slates? no slates? Who are the candidates, what do they look like, what is their history, what are their positions and motivations?

This is all very basic but, before Libertarian Party Candidates (LPC), you could not find all this information in one place.

It’s important to see how well (or poorly) we Libertarians are doing at challenging the Republicrat duopoly at the ballot box. Hopefully LPC will serve as a measuring stick and as an incentive to run more and better candidates in 2010, 2012 and beyond.

Background

When Paulie pointed out in July of 2008 that LP.org doesn’t list all the Libertarian Party candidates running for office, it piqued my interest. How can we expect people to support and vote for Libertarian candidates if they don’t even know who they are – or even that they exist?

So, after chatting with Paulie, I decided that Libertarians might like a website where they can find all LP candidates in one convenient place.

Thanks to Paulie, the state parties and others that have collected the raw information presented here. All I did was design the site and enter the data.

Future Years

The site was built in a hurry during my spare time in the last couple weeks of July 2008, but I plan to significantly improve it for 2010 and beyond. Your sugestions and comments will help make that a reality.

Please Share your Feedback

Please feel free to contact me, George Donnelly, at me@georgedonnelly.com with any suggestions, ideas, complaints or whatever. I’m open to developing the project in new directions. I’m also interested in other strategies to advance the cause of liberty.

According to the site, the LP is running

* 15 for US Senate
* 109 for US House
* 5 for State Governor
* 4 for State Lt. Governor
* 1 for State Treasurer
* 3 for State Attorney General
* 2 for State Auditor
* 22 for Other State Offices
* 42 for State Senates
* 216 for State Houses
* 3 for Local Executives
* 26 for Local Legislatures
* 6 for Judge
* 12 for Sherriff or Constable
* 78 for Other Local Offices
* 546 Total LP candidates

Read Full Post »


Rasmussen
reports that

Libertarian voters make up 4% of the nation’s likely voters and they favor Barack Obama over John McCain by a 53% to 38% margin. Three percent (3%) would vote for some other candidate and 5% are not sure. These results, from an analysis of 15,000 Likely Voter interviews conducted by Rasmussen Reports, challenges the conventional wisdom which assumes that strong support for a Libertarian candidate would hurt John McCain.

In June, Rasmussen Reports asked 15,000 Likely Voters if they were fiscally conservative, moderate, or liberal and if they were socially conservative, moderate, or liberal. This created a total of 16 possible combinations (not sure was a fourth option for both questions). However, 87% of voters fit into one of seven combinations. Libertarians, defined as fiscally conservative and socially liberal, are the smallest of these seven combinations.

Read Full Post »

originally posted by GE at IPR. Headline by Fred Church in the comments.

In response to House GOP leader John Boehner’s comments to Reason‘s Dave Weigel — that conservatives considering a vote for Bob Barr “might as well vote for Barack Obama” — the LP has issued a press release with harsh words for the GOP and its leadership.

Libertarian Party spokesperson Andrew Davis said that Boehner’s comments “reflect the same fallacy of thought that has put America in its current situation, with neither Republicans or Democrats offering the solutions voters want to hear.”

Davis also said Boehner’s comments were “a symptom of the same delusion that cost Republicans control in 2006.”

Read the entire release here.

Read Full Post »

Press release posted on the LP Radicals yahoo group. Starchild has had various offices in the San Francisco and California LP, and is one of the spokespeople for this initiative.

The San Francisco Department of Elections announced today that the measure prohibiting city officials from spending money arresting and prosecuting people for prostitution, and mandating equal legal protection for sex workers, has qualified for the November ballot. Of 500 signatures randomly sampled and checked by department personnel, 80 percent were found to be valid. “This is a happy day for San Franciscans who want government to focus on fighting real crimes like homicides and robberies, and are tired of seeing resources wasted in a futile effort to police consensual sex between adults,” said Starchild, a sex worker activist and spokesperson for the campaign. “We’ve cleared the first hurdle.” By the Elections Department’s tally, supporters had turned in 12,745 signatures of registered San Francisco voters on July 7.

The campaign to decriminalize prostitution will hold a kickoff rally and press conference to formally announce the results on Tuesday at 4:00 p.m. in front of the Polk Street entrance of City Hall, with
speakers to likely include Supervisor Jake McGoldrick, who was a signer of the petition to put the measure on the ballot along with two of his board colleagues. “It is way past time that the
recommendations of the Board of Supervisors 1996 Prostitution Task Force were implemented,” said the measure’s proponent, Maxine Doogan. “Criminalizing sex workers has been putting workers at risk of violence and discrimination for far too long.”

The prostitution reform measure joins two other voter-submitted measures on the local Nov. 4 ballot, along with eight measures put on the ballot by the mayor or members of the Board of Supervisors, with many others expected to be added in the next several weeks.

Starchild – (415) 621-7932 / (415) 368-8657 / RealReform@…
Maxine Doogan – (415) 265-3302 / MistressMax@…

Read Full Post »

In this essay, LP radical and LPNY state chair Eric Sundwall advocates that radical libertarians avoid the BTP and stay in the LP. It is entitled Party Like It’s 1973, an apparent ironic reference to Party like it’s 1773 by BTP interim chair Jim Davidson.

I was somewhat intrigued when popular Libertarian blogger Tom Knapp started the Boston Tea Party soon after the 2006 Portland massacre. An online political party that hearkened to the radical sensibility with a savvy for the political seemed an interesting notion without any real threat to LP work and activities. A place where members could vent and fume within their own diaries and entries and perhaps still effect meaningful activism within the libertarian community in general. Fine. Sometimes a great notion . . .

The current self-flagellation from its members and current standard bearers for office is a greater reflection of petty narcissistic traits and ambitions that one finds within splinters of a small movement, than any real grassroots or political effort. To be sure, most of the current brouhaha is based on the success of reform elements within the LP and the eventual nomination of Bob Barr. But there has also been a disproportionate coverage of their activities within the small third party blogosphere and even some mention in the higher echelons of typical political coverage. I’m beginning to think about getting sixteen of my buddies together to form the American Anarchist Party so as not to be left out. At least there would be no compromise on real principles.

In my estimation the BTP became untenable, less credible and utterly ridiculous when the New York affiliate formed without my knowledge or possible input. I expressed my discontent about this to founder Tom Knapp and got a reply that membership wasn’t tracked on geographical basis and thus any notification about formation of an affiliate wouldn’t be forthcoming to members unless they kept abreast of the website and those postings. At the time I thought I had kept a current feed from BTP in my aggregator (Bloglines) and it was only another entry at the time that serendipitously showed up that brought me back to the site for a quick re-reference. It was at that time that I became knowledgeable of the NY affiliate startup.

Of course the elements forming that start up were no more radical in spirit than in truth ambitious for titles and accolades. In fact some of the players were in dispute with the LPNY about one of their affiliates and a factional shoot off from it in another arena wasn’t all that surprising. Having also expressed some insider concern to Knapp about this, he just shrugged it off and said something about long ropes and the like.

In the course of 2007 one saw a gradual decline of the website and eventually spam took it over and the case for neglect made itself very obvious if one visited the site. Again Knapp was shrugging it off as not his baby anymore since the formation of a national committee and control being handed over to the new principles. Any other misgivings about Knapp and his organizational abilities were already being sent to me through my association of other notable activists and to some extent LNC connections. After he was almost completely rejected for the Platform Committee in Pittsburgh that summer I figured any possible radical ally in this figure was improbable. At the time he was flailing for Kubby as the official or non-official this or that and it was obvious where his pre-occupation was at. Once he started running Ron Paul up the racist flagpole based on a Suicide Girls post, I was done. After the Sean Haugh attack after Vegas, I was disgusted, despite reassurances from Angela Keaton and Paulie that he wasn’t the drama queen I might have marked him as.

Enter the Independent Political Report. They started covering the mini-convention of the BTP in Denver and it seems like new life was born from it. Apparently that long rope came back to bite BTP and Knapp put the kibosh on any usurpation of his baby. Utilizing an administrative override on the former national vice-chair and asserting a violation of by-laws and original intent, he summarily dismissed the usurpers and rallied his original cabal and pressed ahead with their own convention online. I’m sure if I’m wrong about this and on any radar as such, I’ll be corrected on a dozen counts by TK or the like.

But my general point is this. The BTP is an operational and philosophical mess. Great, a one line platform states that they want to reduce government on all counts. So what?! While it’s not the contorted twistings of the Reformista’s tired ruminations and redefinitions, its just annoying at this point. When some kiddie script hacker represents some percentage of the actual vote of their convention and all former users are told to sign up again because their database got trashed, you don’t have to wonder. You just don’t take it seriously. Radicals ought to stay in the LP and exert what influence they can in a franchise which has stood the test of time for at least thirty years. Getting all huffy over one candidate in an impossible race to win is not the solution. There is plenty of room for spirited protest candidacies and meaningful activism.

So don’t get your panties in a wad because Brian Holtz won the platform or that Bob Barr said something about Fannie Mae on TV. Easy ballot access in Colorado and Louisiana may get you on the ballot there and might put you on a temporary pedestal amongst chortling colleagues, but seriously, get a life (or a sound card). Do what you can, where you can. Stop fantasizing about a greater liberty movement or party. Stay real. Stay radical. Stay LP.

Read Full Post »

Candidate Endorsement: Chris Bennett for Vice President

Chris Bennett[NOTE: Originally posted on Last Free Voice]

As you are hopefully all by now aware, longtime LFV contributor Chris Bennett is seeking the LP’s Vice Presidential nomination. While he would have my support simply for being an LFV contributor and a great guy, there is so much more to his candidacy that I have decided to formally endorse his bid for the LP Vice Presidential nomination.

Chris is 35 years old (will be 36 on August 30th) and lives in Springfield, Illinois. He graduated from Heritage High School in Littleton, Colorado. As an interesting aside, Chris was classmates with Matt Stone, co-creator of “South Park”.

Chris has been married to Evonne Bennett for eight years, and they have two children, Brandon (age 7) and Charity (age 9). He will graduate in May from the University of Illinois at Springfield, with a degree in Political Studies, and a minor in Economics. As such, there should be no question that he has the education to back up his candidacy, especially when compared with other LP candidates (including many of those seeking the LP’s Presidential nomination).

Chris also has the actual experience to back him up. As a libertarian activist for the last 16 years, he has volunteered on four presidential campaigns, three of them Libertarians. He was Scheduling Coordinator for the late Aaron Russo during his 2004 presidential campaign, and was also heavily involved in the Marrou and Badnarik presidential campaigns. He is currently the Legislative Chair for the Libertarian Party of Illinois, where he has fought for better ballot access for third parties in one of the most difficult ballot access states in the country.

Chris announced his candidacy right here on Last Free Voice last year, and his platform is as follows:

I will not make promises I can not keep. I do not have 200,000 dollars in future contributions and I am not endorsed by a famous dead person. However there are some promises I will keep:

I am strongly against the invasion and the “police action” in Iraq and will help push for an anti-war resolution at the Denver Convention.

I am against a fair tax and I will continue to fight to decrease the tax burden for all Americans.

I will continue to fight to restore our civil liberties and constitutional rights and fight to eliminate the Patriot Act, the Real ID Act, the Military Commissions Act and the North American Union.

As an African-American, I will use my candidacy to recruit more minorities and women into the libertarian movement.

As a soon-to-be college graduate, I will continue to convince younger voters and non-voters that the Libertarian Party is the future not the two “boot on your neck” parties and use my candidacy to re-energize libertarian college campus and local organizations across the country.

If I am nominated, I will help/assist state parties on getting our presidential ticket on their respective state ballots.

If I am nominated, I will assist serious Libertarian candidates running for office in all facets of their campaign across the country.

The days of a dormant Libertarian Party VP candidate are over. Our VP candidate should be as active as our Presidential candidate and I will proudly work with whoever you choose as our Presidential candidate in order to spread our message of liberty and freedom to the American people.

Chris has been working hard to spread the word about his candidacy, and in fact he is one of the few Libertarian candidates to get attention from the mainstream press. Even better, he received FRONT PAGE attention in a major newspaper, the Springfield State Journal-Register.

By BERNARD SCHOENBURG
POLITICAL WRITER

Published Monday, October 15, 2007

At 6-foot-9, Chris Bennett is hard to miss. And his political aspirations match his height.

Bennett, 35, a senior at the University of Illinois at Springfield, is hoping to become the vice presidential nominee of the Libertarian Party.

“The days of a dormant Libertarian Party VP candidate are over,” said Bennett in a news release announcing his quest last week. “Our VP candidate should be as active as our presidential candidate and I will proudly work with whoever you choose as our presidential candidate in order to spread our message of liberty and freedom to the American people.”

Bennett was soft-spoken as he explained in an interview how he realized, after working on Bill Clinton’s primary campaign in 1992, that he didn’t really believe in Clinton’s platform.

“I just didn’t like how he wanted more government in more stuff,” Bennett said. “I didn’t like government having more control over the health-care situation, as Hillary tried to do and she’s proposing to do now.”

So, Bennett said, “I went soul searching.”

“The Republicans didn’t feel right,” he said. “They never really do reach out to minorities or a lot of women. And the Democrats, it just seems like they were taking the black vote for granted. So I decided ‘I’m going to search for another party.’”

Bennett had seen a Libertarian Party convention on C-SPAN. The convention included an African-American candidate for the presidential nomination, Richard Boddie.

“He was saying stuff that I really agreed with,” said Bennett, who is black.

Bennett now has been a Libertarian activist for more than 15 years, including working as scheduling coordinator during the late Aaron Russo’s 2004 attempt to be the Libertarian nominee for president.

“For the longest time, I used to carry a Constitution in my back pocket,” Bennett said, “so if anybody wanted to get in a philosophical, constitutional argument, I could whip out my Constitution.”

Bennett doesn’t think the country’s leaders are adhering to the Constitution, including going to war in Iraq without a formal declaration of war. Among his platform planks are “restore our civil liberties and constitutional rights,” including elimination of the Patriot Act and a proposed federal “Real ID” identification card. He said both invade people’s privacy.

He’d like to see lower taxes, with eventual elimination of the Internal Revenue Service.

Bennett frequently posts on Web sites, including one called

lastfreevoice.com, often in strong language.

“Jesse Jackson has taken up the anti-gun issue only because he failed as a ‘civil rights’ leader and pushes his new agenda to re-invent himself,” Bennett claims in one entry. “Just remember Hitler forced his people to give up their guns and look what happened; millions died in concentration camps. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; I’ll defend those values with my gun to protect my right to bear arms.”

Bennett said he actually doesn’t own a gun, but believes in the right to own one.

He’s also taken off on television preachers who get rich through their appeals.

“TV evangelists are the scum of the Christian community,” he said, writing about recent allegations of misspending by Richard Roberts, son of Oral Roberts. “Isn’t it immoral to steal from your contributors for your own lavish lifestyles …? Who do they think they are — the GOVERNMENT?”

And in an essay chastising Democrats for not doing more to get U.S. troops out of Iraq, he refers to the president as “Fuhrer Bush.”

Bennett is pro-life on abortion, which goes against the Libertarian platform. But he thinks other Libertarians may be coming around. He also thinks steps should be taken to legalize drugs.

A native of Cedar Rapids, Iowa, Bennett moved to Littleton, Colo., at age 9. He’s been married to his wife, Evonne, for 71/2 years, and they have two children. He moved to Springfield in 2005 to attend UIS.

While he said rural or suburban Libertarians might not be keyed into the issue of race relations, those from urban areas are, and he thinks the party is good for African-Americans.

In addition to ending discriminatory drug laws, which he blames for too many blacks being in prison, the Libertarians’ anti-tax sentiment would also help, Bennett said.

“If we lower taxes, people would be more able to get the house that they want or be able to contribute to their church or their social organization a little bit more,” he said. People could also “save for a rainy day.”

“I know a lot of people who would like to start their own IRA account, but they can’t because they’re taxed so much,” Bennett said.

Clearly, Chris interacts well with the media, and is able to get across his point intelligently, but also in a way that the average person can easily understand.

For the above reasons, I endorse Chris Bennett, without reservation, for the Libertarian Party’s Vice Presidential candidacy.

This brings me to another point. Chris is in desperate need of donations, to help him get to the Libertarian Party Convention in Denver. As a family man working his way through college, with a wife and two children, he is far from wealthy. Not only will he need the funds for travel and hotel, plus incidentals such as food and beverage, he will also need the funds to print brochures, to hand out to the delegates in order to get the votes he needs.

We all give money to other candidates, whether Ron Paul or Steve Kubby or George Phillies, or someone else. We need to start giving money for Chris’s campaign, because unless he can afford to get to Denver, he will be unable to continue his campaign. It would be a travesty if a qualified candidate such as Chris was not seriously considered for the LP’s Vice Presidential nomination, solely because he lacks the funds to attend the convention. We can do much better than that, especially with a candidate who has proven his worth. If we all pitch in, we can get Chris to Denver.

You can make donations to Chris’s campaign by clicking here, or you can click directly on the “donate” link on his website, which will take you to the same place. You can donate by credit card, debit card, or by setting up other payment arrangements via PayPal.

While I normally would never ask anyone to donate to a specific campaign, I’m making an exception in this case. Chris is “one of us”, a valuable and respected member of the blogosphere, a valuable and respected contributor to Last Free Voice, and a valuable and respected member of the libertarian movement, who has given freely not only of his time and expertise on other campaigns, but also has managed to engage in hands-on activism while in college and trying to raise a family.

Chris is not just another libertarian on the internet, waxing philosophical about libertarianism, who suddenly decides he should be nominated to represent the LP in a lofty position; nor is is a Johnny-Come-Lately to the LP who suddenly decided he should be nominated for for the Vice Presidency; he has actually made many years of sacrifices which benefit us all, and he has the experience and education to back up his campaign for the Vice Presidency.

Unlike many candidates, Chris is not looking to raise millions. He has set a goal of $3000 to attend the LP Convention, and since I used to live in Denver, I can assure you that it’s a very reasonable goal, especially since it will also cover the costs of his campaign brochures.

I have made a commitment to donate $100 to Chris’s campaign, to help him get to Denver. If only 29 more people match that commitment (and I know there are many others who can afford to do so), Chris will have met his goal. However, even if you can only spare $10, or $20, or $50 – or if you can give the legal maximum of $2300 per person, or $4600 per married couple – you can rest easy with that donation, knowing Chris is a tried and proven libertarian, and a candidate who has actually earned that donation through his many years of activism on behalf of libertarians everywhere.

Please, help spread the word. Let’s raise the funds necessary to get Chris to Denver!

Read Full Post »

Kn@ppsterI found this entry on Thomas Knapp’s blog, Kn@ppster, and found it quite interesting. Here is an excerpt; you can read it in its entry in its entirety at the link:

I’m not one for silver bullets—no one thing will put third party candidates into contention for the presidency—but some changes just make sense. One of those changes is nominating earlier. My recollection is that the Libertarian Party used to nominate its presidential candidates the year before the election. Andre Marrou was nominated for president in 1991. Ron Paul was nominated in 1987. And so on, and so forth. It was only in 1996 that the LP moved its nominating convention into the year of the election itself.

Late nominating conventions handicap third parties. We can’t expect the kind of pre-nomination media coverage that “major party” candidates get. The sooner a party positions itself behind a nominee, the sooner that nominee has access to the party’s full pool of presidential contributors and can get to work reaching beyond the party to the American public. It’s all well and good to hope that a pre-nomination third party candidate will “break out” and catch the mainstream media eye … but it seldom works out that way.

I think Tom Knapp makes a very good point. As far as I can see, the only downside to nominating earlier is that third parties won’t get any media attention at all during the primaries. Right now they don’t get much, but it does get them at least mentioned in many newspapers.

Then again, can the third parties overcome that negative, and list their presidential nominee on the primary ballot, as just one candidate for that office? I’m honestly not sure. If so, it would look in the press as if that one candidate has a great deal of support within the party, rather than as it is now when it appears to the public that each candidate receives a little support here, and a little support there. Making third party candidates appear to have overwhelming support during the primaries can only be a good thing.

On the other hand, many third party voters wouldn’t even bother to vote during the primaries, if they knew their candidate had already been chosen, so there may be no reason to mention them at all in the mainstream media.

It’s a complicated issue, and one which should be thoroughly explored.

_________________________________

Originally posted on Adventures In Frickintardistan

Read Full Post »

Alden Link is a Libertarian candidate for the Libertarian presidential nomination. He’s an older gentleman, and his main emphasis seems to be on nuclear power. He claims that nuclear power plants can produce enough gasoline to end our dependence upon foreign oil.

I’m no scientist, but I don’t understand how nuclear power plants can produce gasoline. Perhaps someone reading this can explain if the following is possible:

A nuclear power plant has the energy to produce about 15 thousand barrels of gasoline a day.

Given the following equivalents:
• 1 watt equals 3.4 british thermal units (BTU)
• 1 nuclear power plant produces 1,000,000,000 watts
• 1 barrel of gasoline contains 42 gallons
• 1 gallon of gasoline is equal to 125,000 btu
• 1 day has 24 hours

1) 1,000,000,000 watts / hour x 3.4 btu = 3,400,000,000 btu/hour
2) 3,400,000,000 btu/hour divided by 125,000 btu/gallon =27,200 gallons per hour
3) 27,200 gals./hour divided by 42 gallons per barrel = 647 barrels/hour
4) 647 barrels per hour x 24 hours = 15,542 barrels of gasoline per day

The raw materials needed for this process are carbon from recycled atmospheric carbon dioxide and hydrogen from water. This process is therefore non polluting and actually cleans the air

The United States imports about 13,000,000 barrels of oil per day. Some of it is used to run electric generating facilities. Most is used as motor fuels.

If the US builds 900 nuclear power plants for converting energy to fuel we would be energy independent. and not need ANY imported oil. More power plants than that and we could export petroleum products.

____________________________

Originally posted on Adventures In Frickintardistan 

Read Full Post »

Clinton and ObamaAccording to The Smoking Gun, Jose Antonio Ortiz stabbed his brother-in-law, Sean Shurelds (who was flown to a hospital, where he was admitted in critical condition) due to a disagreement about Hillary Clinton vs Barack Obama.

Yes, you read that right.

Apparently Shurelds supports Obama, and Ortiz supports Clinton. While the two were in the kitchen of someone’s home (it is unclear whose home) Shurelds told Ortiz that Obama was “trashing” Clinton, and Ortiz responded that “Obama was not a realist.”

While for most people that would be pretty much the end of the conversation, not so with these two, for whom those were not just fighting words, they were stabbing words. Ortiz and Shurelds argued, began to choke and punch each other, and eventually Ortiz grabbed a knife and stabbed Shurelds in the abdomen.

Ortiz then went back to doing the dishes, including, of course, the knife he had used to stab his brother-in-law.

Not at all surprisingly, Ortiz has a case of selective memory (not unlike the typical politician), and conveniently denies any memory of the stabbing incident. He has been charged with felony aggravated assault, as well as two misdemeanor counts. Bail has been set at $20,000.

I’m sure Clinton and Obama are proud to have supporters who are willing to go that far for their chosen candidate. Or not.

__________________________

Read Full Post »

Carmen Kontur-GronquistVoters in Arlington, Oregon, are very, very angry. That’s not unusual, since there are very angry voters everywhere these days.

What is unusual is the reason why they are angry.

Apparently their Mayor, Carmen Kontur-Gronquist, had some photos taken to send in for a fitness magazine, and in them she was dressed in her bra and panties. This all happened before she became Mayor, incidentally. A relative posted the photos on MySpace, hoping to find the single mother a date.

I didn’t see a thing in the world wrong with the photos; the most controversial of them is posted at top left. Basically, she’s showing off her rock-hard abs, and if I had abs like hers, I’d be showing mine off too. So what. Those photos are no different from any other photos for a woman’s fitness magazine, because I used to read some of those periodicals myself, back when I was into bodybuilding and fitness. In fact, her photos actually showed a lot less than they usually show in those magazines. Those types of photos are not at all sexual in nature, though, because they are intended only for other women to see, as inspiration in their fitness routines.

The people of Arlington, however, are absolutely outraged over those photos, and they actually threw her out of office for it.

When I first heard this story back when it first broke I thought, no way would a town actually recall their Mayor for posing for a fitness magazine. After all, Arnold Schwarzenegger made his living as a bodybuilder, and even posed fully nude multiple times, and he’s the Governor of California.

I was wrong, because they did recall her. The vote was 142-139 in favor of throwing her out of office.

If we are still so backward in this country that we’d throw a woman out of elected office merely for posing for a fitness magazine, covering more than the average bathing suit covers, are we really ready for a female president? Or would Congress impeach her the first time they see a picture of her in a bathing suit?

What do you think? Is it just that one town, or is most of American that narrow-minded? Given this, are we ready for a female president?

______________________

Originally posted on Adventures In Frickintardistan 

Read Full Post »

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

Read Full Post »

George PhilliesPosted by Rob Power on Outright Libertarians blog:Thursday, January 17, 2008

I recently saw a message from Log Cabin Republicans entitled “Who Can Log Cabin Endorse for President?” The article described how this may be the first brokered GOP convention in 60 years, and that Log Cabin would be working to see that the lesser of evils with respect to gay rights would win the GOP nomination.In contrast, we at Outright Libertarians have had an embarrassment of riches this year, with three of our candidates getting a perfect score on our scorecard, and the one who differed with us on marriage at least matching Clinton and Obama (and surpassing all of the Republicans) by supporting civil unions. We had a serious debate in our Executive Committee as to whether we ought to make any endorsement at all prior to the LP nominating convention in Denver.But in the final analysis, there was only one Libertarian with a perfect score on our scorecard who was actively campaigning (for himself, not for some major-party candidate), who had a truly national campaign, who was receiving media attention (including magazines and television), and who has continued to receive FEC-reportable campaign contributions that are better than any Libertarian candidate in recent history.For these reasons, the Executive Committee of Outright Libertarians voted on January 16 to endorse George Phillies for the 2008 Libertarian Party Presidential Nomination.

From his interview in The Advocate magazine, to his one-liner response to a marriage equality question at a debate in socially conservative Fresno, California — “We’ve already solved that problem in Massachusetts” — we can tell that Dr. Phillies would never try to rationalize anti-LGBT bigotry as a way to “grow” the Libertarian Party. He recognizes that Liberty is impossible so long as the boot of big government remains on the neck of any disfavored minority group.

Outright Libertarians proudly supports George Phillies and calls on all of our members and allies to attend the Libertarian National Convention in Denver this May and cast their nominating vote for Dr. Phillies.

Explore posts in the same categories: 2008 elections, Federal Election Commission (FEC), George Phillies, Libertarian Online Community, POTUS ’08, People in the news, activism, candidate endorsement, elections, libertarian, politics

Read Full Post »

Leno invited Ron Paul on his show for a second time due to the FAUX/fixed news exclusion of Ron Paul from a debate forum on Sunday.

In a move that had many people to protest

and

Boycott FAUX, fakes news Fuehrer Murdoch

may have experienced the phenomenon of blowback that NSGOP henchman Adolf Giuliani pretends to be unfamiliar with here:

The boycott was even joined by the official
NH GOP
, who withdrew their sponsorship of the FAUX debate.

During part of the Leno appearance (see first clip above), Ron Paul said Dennis Kucinich is his favorite candidate among the Democrats and that they often are the only two members of the House to vote the right way on peace and civil liberties issues.

The feeling is mutual.

Fakes News stooges like Hannity can expect this type of treatment everywhere they go now:

aaaboycottfox.gif

aaagoptvelephantwd4.jpg

aaamurdogacy.jpg

aaanofoxfp8.jpg

Here is an accurate review of the Leno appearance I received in myspace bulletins. The author was not identified.

Ron Paul, muffled by Fox, wows Jay Leno
Last week, Mike Huckabee gave up the last half-day of campaigning for the Iowa Republican caucus and flew to Burbank, Calif., to appear on “The Tonight Show with Jay Leno.” Next day, Huckabee won.

So tonight, the night before the big New Hampshire primary, Ron Paul tried to pull a Huckabee. He flew all the way across the country for his own second appearance with Jay. And Leno, now a developing political kingmaker, greeted him with a most sympathetic hearing. You can see it on your NBC stations in a couple of hours. Paul’s supporters, who financed a new eight-state ad blitz for their man, will be very happy with tonight’s program.

It’s not easy for a 72-year-old, 10-term congressman from Texas, who once before ran for president on the Libertarian ticket, to get much media attention. He’s been polling a long time in single digits. But then a couple of things happened. Paul’s thousands of outspoken, fervent followers set a new one-day fundraising record and reaped almost $20 million for him in the fourth quarter, likely more than any other GOP candidate. Then last week Paul came in fifth in Iowa with 10%, a lot better than the 4% of Rudy Giuliani, who’d criticized Paul strongly in an early debate.

But the best thing that happened to Paul in recent days was that despite his $20 million and his 10% showing in New Hampshire polls, Fox News excluded Paul from its Sunday night Republican debate with the big five — Giuliani, Fred Thompson, Huckabee, Mitt Romney and John McCain. So Paul gets 10% in Iowa and gets excluded, but Rudy gets 4% and sits on the left end of the Fox Box desk. Hmmm.

There was quite an uproar and the New Hampshire GOP withdrew its sponsorship of the debate. Paul supporters, mocking the network’s “Fair and Balanced” motto, flooded Fox with protests, calls and e-mails and are organizing a boycott of Fox sponsors. Never one to miss an opportunity, NBC’s Leno invited Paul to appear and explain.

Introducing his guest as “a long-shot maverick,” Leno said, “I’m trying to figure out why Fox News chose not to put you on.”

“You know,” Paul replied, “we tried to find that out. But they didn’t return our call.”

“You seem like a gentleman,” notes Leno. “You don’t seem like that type. But it seems like you should be kicking somebody’s ass right now.” [Laughter] [Applause] “You’re being extremely polite for something I think you got screwed over, quite, you know, ….

I mean, I might not necessarily agree with you, but I think, as an American, we like to see everybody get an equal shot.”

Paul speculates that Fox “didn’t want to hear the message. Maybe they’re intimidated. Maybe they’re frightened. Maybe they don’t want to hear the truth. Who knows?”

Leno asks about Romney’s slide in the polls and attacks by other GOP candidates. “I’m a little bit afraid that they might be doing that for religious reasons,” says Paul. “And I don’t like that. I disagree with Romney on some of the issues, and he’s gone after me onstage, but that shouldn’t be the reason that he doesn’t do well.”

Paul noted that “nobody’s ever accused me” of saying different things to different crowds. “I say the same thing, no matter which ear it is and which crowd it is.” Paul corrected Leno that he had not collected all that campaign money but that “we” had: his followers and their 1,400 meet-up groups nationwide.

Paul said after his earlier debate confrontation with Giuliani “when he was confused about what causes terrorism [Laughter] I sent him some books, And I said, ‘Please read these books.’ But so far it doesn’t sound like he’s read [them]. He hasn’t done his homework.” [Applause]

Paul, the only GOP candidate opposing the Iraq war, criticized the Bush administration. “The trillion dollars went to the war,” Paul said. “It should be here taking care of our people here at home.” [Applause] Paul also noted how all candidates now say they’re for change but nothing changes. “To me,” he added, “that means the only significant change we ought to have is get enough people in Washington that read the constitution, obey the constitution, do only the things that we’re allowed to do.” [Applause] To read the entire interview, click here.

Meanwhile, across the country in New York, Huckabee was trying to pull another Huckabee of his own on late-night television, this time on “The Late Show with David Letterman.”

Read Full Post »

H/T Jason Gatties.

Leonard Schwartz has announced he is seeking the Vice Presidential nomination of the Libertarian Party.

He is the political director of the Michigan LP, ran for Senate in 2006, and a couple of other offices previously.

He has been an LP member since 1980, and is a retired professor of business law and economics.
You can contact him at Leonard@LeonardSchwartz.us or 248-546-3569.

Additional details on page 7 of the February 2008 Michigan LP Newsletter:

http://mi.lp.org/Past%20Newsletters/Michigan%20Libertarian%20Jan%20Feb%202008.pdf

Schwartz joins Chris Bennett as the only
announced
VP candidate I am aware of in the LP.

Unconfirmed candidates include Karen Kwiatkowski, whom the LPNH is already collecting signatures for as VP nominee. Kwiatkowski discussed her possible candidacy at Lew Rockwell.com, but has more recently indicated that she is not interested.

Another one who is rumored to be running is poker player Greg Raymer, but there has been no official statement either way from Raymer.

UPDATE Leonard Schwartz and Chris Bennett will be on Liberated Space with Angela Keaton today (TH 1/10) at 7:30 Eastern, 4:30 Pacific time.

Read Full Post »

moneydecides2.jpg

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.

Read Full Post »

Christine Smith put out a
somewhat controversial
essay which said that, unlike some other libertarians, she would not compromise principle.

The first time I saw it was on the LP Radicals yahoo group, and given that I have recently volunteered to help the caucus members make more informed decisions about the various LP Presidential candidates, I thought of a few questions to ask.

They have been up for several days, and I also since posted them on several other yahoo groups on which Christine Smith posted the same message. I am hoping that the candidate sees the questions and responds to them. Several people have said that she is not very good about getting back to people, but this is the first time I have personally tried to get a hold of her, so for now I will keep an open mind.

I’m guessing she’s just been busy, so I hope maybe posting them here will help bring these questions to her attention.

OK, here they are:

I have gathered there are no issues on which you think the 2004
platform was too extreme. Is my understanding correct? If not, what do
you think may have been too extreme?

Are there any issues on which you think the 2004 platform was not
libertarian enough? If so, what issues, and what was inadequate about
them?

Do you think the platform should be about the length of the 2004
platform or that of the 2006 platform? Somewhere in between? Longer
than both? Shorter than both?

What issues, if any, do you think are the most glaring omissions?

When did you join the Libertarian Party?

Prior to running for President, in what ways were you involved in the
Libertarian Party or libertarian movement? What other libertarian
movement groups have you been involved with, and what was the extent
of your involvement?

In what ways do you plan to be involved if you do not get the
Presidential nomination?

If you lose the Presidential nomination and are offered the VP
nomination, would you consider it?

Have you ever run for office with another party or as an independent
candidate? If so, where and when, and for what office?

Have your views changed during this campaign? If so, on what issues
and why?

Do you plan to share all contacts your campaign generates with the
national party? Would you characterize your present working
relationship with LPHQ and/or LNC to be friendly or somewhat adversarial?

Do you have any significant involvement in issue organizations or
political coalitions which intersect with libertarianism but also
include significant numbers of non-libertarians? (for instance, Steve
Kubby has been active in medical marijuana legalization and the drug
policy reform movement; George Phillies is active with his local ACLU
chapter; Wayne Root claims he can reach out to internet gamblers on a
large scale).

Steve Gordon has criticized your position on the middle east wars,
claiming that you said that you would evacuate the troops and leave
their equipment behind. Is that an accurate description of your position?

Do you believe the national party platform (past or present) would be
adequate to serve as your campaign platform, or do you plan to have a
separate campaign platform if you are nominated?

Are there any innovative ways in which you hope your campaign will
work to surpass all previous LP Presidential results, and what do you
think your chances are of doing that?

How much of an emphasis do you plan to put on working with local
candidates and building state and local LPs? Ballot access? Youth and
college outreach?

Have you spoken to large crowds not just of
libertarians? (For example, Steve Kubby spoke at Hempfest, estimated
attendance 50,000, and I believe George Phillies said he spoke at
MassCann, which is also a large legalization event).

Also: have you played a significant role in passing any legislation
that actually made people more free? (Steve Kubby helped write and
pass prop 215, California’s medical marijuana law).

UPDATE:

As I mentioned, Steve Gordon also has
some questions
for Ms. Smith which he has been trying to get her to answer through several phone and email attempts for several days.

Steve Kubby has some concerns, too.

Hopefully we’ll hear back!

Read Full Post »

According to this network’s website:

New England Cable News (NECN) is the largest regional news network in the country, serving more than 3.6 million homes in over a thousand cities and towns throughout New England.

Launched on March 2, 1992, NECN is a partnership between the Hearst Corporation and Comcast Corporation. NECN is available exclusively to New England cable subscribers, providing 24-hour access to breaking news, sports, weather, and traffic. The network’s original programming includes NewsNight, an in-depth news analysis program with Jim Braude; The Chet Curtis Report, a review of the day’s tops stories; Sports LateNight, a sports news and daily wrap-up program; New England Dream House, a home improvement program; and TV Diner, a restaurant review program with Billy Costa. NECN also airs three business-targeted programs—CEO Corner, New England Business Day, and This Week in Business. The news channel is the only station in the region to regularly produce its own documentaries.

NECN serves a six-state area encompassing Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Connecticut and Rhode Island. The network broadcasts from its studios in Newton, Mass, and additionally maintains bureaus in Manchester, New Hampshire; Hartford, Connecticut; Worcester, Massachusetts; Portland, Maine; and Burlington, Vermont.

NECN is distinguished as a leader in the industry, having received several awards for broadcast journalism excellence including the George Foster Peabody Award, the Alfred I. duPont–Columbia Journalism Award and the Scripps Howard Foundation Award. The news channel was twice named News Station of the Year by the Associated Press, and for two consecutive years was named Television Station of the Year by the Gabriel Awards.

Read Full Post »

Something stinks in the Sooner State.

Oklahoma voters were the only voters with no choices for president on their ballot except Bush Skull and Kerry Bones in 2004, and Oklahoma is one of 5 states that doesn’t permit write-ins, so Oklahoma voters who wanted to vote for someone other than Bush or Kerry in 2004 completely lost their right to vote (Source: Ballot Access News). In order to be on the ballot, an independent candidate or alternative party has to get signatures equal to 5% of the last vote cast, which is the hardest standard in the country, and they have to get 10% of the vote to keep their place on the ballot, second behind only Alabama with 20%. Half of the state legislative races go completely unopposed. The Oklahoma Supreme Court refused a challenge to this edict, and the feds have no jurisdiction.

Currently, there is an
effort
underway to change this crazy scheme by initiative, but Oklahoma makes it hard to get issues on the ballot by initiative. Statute initiatives must get the signatures of 8% of the voters, which is among the highest percentages among states which allow citizen initiative, and constitutional amendments need 15%, tied with Arizona for the highest percentage required by any state that allows constitutional amendments by citizen petition according to a chart by
National Voter Outreach. The signatures have to all be gathered within 90 days, and then the State Supreme Court can hold up approval for the vote to take place by over a year.

After you gather the signatures, you have to print the names of everyone who signed on the back of the page. Imagine having to do that several hundred times after you get back from a hard day of asking people to sign and getting run out (or attempted) of every location imaginable, public and private, or having to flip the page over and ask busy people to print their name a second time for every single signature – especially when working on more than one issue. Yep, it sucks, and is one of the most asinine rules I have encountered in petitioning in 27 states plus DC over the past ten years. And there are some very asinine rules out there, such as New England states requiring signatures from every city to be on a separate page, and Massachusetts ruling that any tiny tear, food stain, stray pen mark or writing outside the box disqualifies a whole page of signatures.

To make matters worse, in a decision in the case of Yes on Term Limits v. Savage, U.S. District Court Judge Tim Leonard upheld a challenged Oklahoma state law (in effect since 1969) banning out of state residents from being ballot petition circulators and signature-collectors there. Who, exactly, is a state resident? People move all the time. Some more frequently than others. Some people don’t predictably live in one place long enough to get a mortgage or apartment lease, so we prefer to live in motels or stay with friends (I resemble this remark). Some people don’t even have a place to live at all. Does that mean we should lose our right to petition the government for redress of grievances?

Shortly after this ruling, as Brian Doherty reports at Reason Magazine,

longtime libertarian political activist Paul Jacob was indicted on felony charges in Oklahoma for conspiracy to defraud the state, along with Susan Johnson of National Voter Outreach and Rick Carpenter of Oklahomans in Action.

It isn’t Jacob’s first time with the guns of the state aimed at him. He served five months in jail in 1984, after a year on the run, for refusal to register for the draft.

In his interview about the arrest with Brian Doherty, Paul Jacob explains:

(more…)

Read Full Post »

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
10/09/07

CONTACT:
Thomas L. Knapp
kubby.communications@gmail.com
314-705-3042

TRAGEDY ON KUBBY VIDEO SET: CAMPAIGN RELEASES “DEATH OF DENNY” FOOTAGE

FORT BRAGG, CA — In a stunning turn of events, Libertarian presidential candidate Steve Kubby’s campaign organization has announced that it will release previously unseen shocking footage of an on-set death — the murder of the South Park, Colorado medical marijuana patient known to friends and loved ones as “Denny” by none other than Republican presidential hopeful Rudy Giuliani.

The footage is included in a “Director’s Cut” of The Kubby Chronicles, Episode One, which was released today on YouTube.com. The circumstances of Denny’s death are still under investigation by California authorities, but the footage clearly implicates Giuliani. The former mayor of New York — known for his rabid opposition to medical marijuana and for his city’s record-setting marijuana arrest rates, while he was mayor — apparently made an unauthorized entry, accompanied by fellow drug warrior and presidential candidate John McCain, to the cannabis dispensary where the video was being shot. There, he assaulted Denny during a break in filming, while the young patient was receiving his medical marijuana via IV. Denny was pronounced dead at the scene.

“Capitalizing on this senseless tragedy wasn’t in the playbook” says director Doug Scribner. “We just wanted the actors from our 1998 South Park commercial back together again for a screen reunion. But Denny’s grieving parents convinced us that publicizing it may help America stop Giuliani from killing again.” Friends say the young actor, who had been battling cancer for the past two years, had just gone into remission.

Kubby was unavailable for comment and rumored to be accompanying Denny’s body back to Colorado for burial but, says Scribner, “he approved the message before he left.”

Giuliani’s whereabouts are unknown. Local authorities have warned citizens not to approach Giuliani, as he is considered prone to bizarre, and it now seems violent, behavior.

-30-
about 290 words

The Kubby Chronicles, Episode One — The Director’s Cut:
http://www.kubby2008.com/cartoon

Read Full Post »

Ron PaulHat tip Presidential Politics ’08.

Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul, a former Libertarian Party presidential candidate, has raised a staggering $5 million for the third quarter of 2007.

Dr. Paul, currently a Republican Congressman from Texas, is an obstetrician who has a very large grassroots following, especially among libertarians. To many that libertarian support is even more stunning, considering that Dr. Paul opposes abortion, whereas the Libertarian Party does not hold such opposition. However, completely in keeping with libertarian principles, Dr. Paul advocates immediate withdrawal from Iraq, at one time angering Rudy Giuliani during a debate when he suggested that the 9/11 attacks were “blowback” from previous US activities in the Middle East.

Wolf Blitzer broke the fundraising news on his CNN show “Situation Room” with the following statement:

Some stunning political news this hour concerning Ron Paul: The Republican presidential hopeful is low in the national and state polls, but now, when it comes to campaign cash, he’s standing very tall.

Ron Paul’s campaign reports that the congressman from Texas raised five million dollars over the past three months. That’s in the same neighborhood as what rival John McCain is expected to report, and it’s five times what former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee reportedly raised. It’s also more than three million dollars more than Paul raised over the first six months of this year. Paul can partially credit his big bucks to a strong following on the Internet.


Blitzer was not the only political pundit to express astonishment at this unexpected development. A similar sentiment was expressed by other news organizations, including MSNBC and ABC.

ABC World News Tonight is flying to New Hampshire to interview Mr. Paul for tonight’s episode. Earlier today, ABC called Ron’s totals “jaw-dropping.”

Read Full Post »

George Phillies

George Phillies For President 2008
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Uncle Sam has no business in your bedroom, your churches or your private lives. That’s the message of leading Libertarian Presidential candidate George Philles. “The George Bush Republican party disagrees: They’ve made it Uncle Sam’s business by passing the so-called Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).”

Phillies, 60, a college professor from Worcester, Massachusetts, is traveling the country, presenting the Libertarian message of peace, freedom, and prosperity for all citizens.

“The debate over gay marriage is a wonderful example of what’s wrong with Washington,” Phillies observed. “Down the street where I live are two churches. One church views gay marriage with horror. The other has been happily marrying gays for years. The Libertarian position is simple: Gay marriage is purely a personal and religious question, not a question for government to decide.“

Dr. Phillies believes the Defense of Marriage Act is deeply flawed. In 1967, the landmark Supreme Court case, Loving v Virginia found that the right to marry is a “basic civil of man.” “Loving v Virginia ended legal discrimination in marriage,” the Libertarian hopeful pointed out. “DOMA tries to bring legal discrimination back into marriage.”

Critics of DOMA say that the act violates the Constitution because it does not require states to recognize same-sex marriage contracts created in other states. The interstate validity of contracts is guaranteed by the Constitution’s Full Faith and Credit clause. Phillies agrees. “No wonder the Bush Republican Party now wants a Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. …. When I am elected, I will ask Congress to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act. I will protect the right of States to license same-sex unions or not, as they will. But I will also hold states to the United States Constitution and require them to recognize legal unions created in other states, just as they have always done in the past.”

Uncle Sam has no business in your bedrooms, your religious ceremonies, or your private life. It is none of the government’s business which consenting adults marry each other, and which do not. Do you want your religion’s marriage practices protected from government interference? Only the Libertarian Party will protect the privacy of your bedroom and your conscience.

To support the George Phillies campaign, please visit http://phillies2008.org/donation.

Contact Information:

Carolyn Marbry,Press Director

pressdirector@phillies2008.org (510) 276-3216

http://phillies2008.org

Read Full Post »

Sorry folks, been too busy to post. But I thought I’d post this since no one else has yet. Our own Michelle Shinghal on Tucker Carlson, thanks to posts by our fellow blogger Steve Gordon.

Read Full Post »

Dennis Kucinich peace sign

To be quite honest, I haven’t given Dennis Kucinich much thought as a candidate, but after reading this, I think I’ll check him out.  I have to like a candidate whose supporters have such a good sense of humor.

While the poll put out by Ron Paul’s LibertarianLists.com web site is highly self-selected, we at Libertarians for Kucinich are excited to announce a poll that is even more rigorously self-selected.

Our latest baseline data indicates that Dennis Kucinich has an infinitely higher support level than Ron Paul among Libertarian Party voters — 66.67% versus 0.00% for Ron Paul.

Even more interestingly, when Ron Paul is run in a hypothetical election against more liberal members of his party, such as Pat Buchanan, Libertarians continue to support Kucinich by a consistent 2:1 margin.

In fact, 2 out of 3 Libertarians recommend Dennis Kucinich as part of a healthy political diet.

Now, we know that the Libertarian Purists and the Ron Paul campaign alike will attack our methodology and point out that our margin of error is 35%. However, they are just being political and are angry that our rigorous poll has 65% correctness.

Below are the poll percentage results:

1) Which of the following candidates would make the best president of the United States?

a) Dennis Kucinich — 66.66%
b) Ron Paul — 0.00%
c) Doug Stanhope — 33.33%
c) Some other Libertarian purist who will never, ever win — 0.01%

2) Which of the following is the greatest political tragedy of the 21st century?

a) We still lack a national health care plan — 33.33%
b) The federal government is overruling the rights of states to ban guns — 33.33%
c) Eric Dondero — 33.32%
d) The USA PATRIOT Act — 0.01%

3) Which of the following is the least unappealing option?

a) A night of sweaty debauchery with Hillary Clinton — 33.32%
b) A night of sweaty debauchery with Karl Rove — 33.32%
c) Are you serious? — 33.32%
d) Paying my income taxes — 0.03%

4) If Ron Paul loses the Republican Party primary, which one of the following actions would you support?

a) Having Ron Paul declare his undying support for Dennis Kucinich for president — 33.33%
b) Having Ron Paul get real and understand that only Dennis Kucinich could bring us Liberty in Our Lifetime ™ — 33.33%
c) Having Ron Paul donate his life savings to the Kucinich for President Campaign Committee — 33.34%
d) I am a purist Libertarian pantywaist who intends to vote for Phillies or Smith — 0.00%
e) I support Daniel Imperato and forgot to take my lithium this morning: — (-0.01%)

5) Who is the hottest?

a) Shane Cory — 33.33%
b) Stephen Gordon — 66.65%
c) Daniel Imperato after 11 drinks and a Social Security reform speech — 0.01%

6) Which is the most reliable way to get unbiased statistics about politics?

a) FOX News — 0.01%
b) CNN — 0.01%
c) LibertarianLists.com — 0.00000000000001%
d) LibertariansForKucinich.com — 99.967%
e) Other — 0.0000001%

7) If Dennis Kucinich loses the Democratic primary, should the Libertarian Party change its bylaws to allow him to become the Libertarian nominee?

a) Yes, because we need Dennis Kucinich in the White House! — 33.33%
b) Hell yes, because Dennis’s eyes see through the lies! — 33.33%
c) Are you kidding?!? Of course! — 33.32%
d) I am a Libertarian purist who hates real progress and thus am opposed to this incredibly good idea you’ve brought up — 0.01%

Many thanks to Libertarians For Kucinich for the laughs!

Hat tip Stephen Gordon.

Read Full Post »

 

 

George PhilliesWe Don’t Attack Our Allies

share_data={max_recipients:20}

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Thursday, August 16, 2007

Phillies: We Don’t Invade Our Allies

“It’s very simple. Invading a foreign country is an act of war,” Libertarian Presidential candidate George Phillies said in answer to fellow candidate Barack Obama. “I am shocked that an allegedly serious Presidential candidate would call for invading Pakistan. Not only is Pakistan an ally, but it is a nuclear power.”

Under pressure from Republican opponents and fellow Democrat Hillary Clinton that he appeared too soft on terrorism, on August 1 Senator Obama said* that the United States might invade Pakistan to pursue Al Qaeda members. Obama said “I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges. But let me make this clear…If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will.”

Phillies strongly disagrees. “Thank goodness Obama is not our President. It has always been understood that when you invade a foreign country you are potentially at war with them. President of Musharaf of Pakistan is honor-bound to defend his country. He cannot afford to look weak. Apparently these issues are beyond Senator Obama’s understanding of foreign affairs.” Phillies asks Mr. Obama, ‘What is your working plan if the Pakistanis respond to our act of war with their own acts of war? They might arm the guerrillas now fighting our forces in Iraq. They might send their army to deny us bases in Afghanistan. Worse, Pakistan knows that their nuclear arsenal is not secure against an American strike. Any militarist can start a war. Stopping one is far more challenging.’

In a recent statement on pursuing Al Qaeda, Professor Phillies said that the United States needs to stop fighting “the last war,” and update its tactics. “Finding Mr. Bin Laden is a job for spies, not a job for tank divisions. The Afghan people have been governing themselves for a very long time. They will not long tolerate foreign occupation, even ours. Only a Libertarian President will give the Bin Laden problem to the right people.”

*For the text of Senator Obama’s speech: http://www.barackobama.com/2007/08/01/remarks_of_senator_obama_the_w_1.php To support the George Phillies campaign, please visit http://phillies2008.org/donation.

Contact Information:
Carolyn Marbry,Press Director
pressdirector@phillies2008.org
(510) 276-3216
http://phillies2008.org

Read Full Post »

I’d like some help with setting up an internet forum of some sort to hook people up with shared rides, group rooms, camping, hostels, cheap motels, and other ways of getting to the Denver LP National Convention affordably.

A lot of what happened in Portland may have had to do with the fact that it was a long drive for most people, and one of the more expensive places to fly to, and partially as a result of that, the lowest attended LP national convention since the early 1970s. Furthermore, the people who are unable to afford these things are more likely to be radical and left-libertarians, although that is far from universally true.

Anyway, if anyone wants to help with setting this up, please let me know in the comments.

Read Full Post »

Less than six months before its 2008 presidential primary, election officials in one of the country’s most important swing states admit electronic voting machines are seriously flawed and can be easily tampered with.A 35-page report released by Florida’s Secretary of State says that hackers can easily change votes without a trace in Diebold optical-scan machines used in 25 of the state’s 67 counties.

Conducted by Florida State University, the thorough study found that an adversary could easily use a pre-programmed computer card to swap one candidate’s votes for another or create a “ballot-stuffing attack” that multiplies votes for a candidate or issue.

The statewide investigation was ordered shortly after an election supervisor in Tallahassee’s Leon County conducted a test that exposed serious security problems with the expensive machines because they could easily be hacked.

In fact, a renowned nonpartisan election watchdog called the revelation the most serious hack demonstration to date because the Diebold machines succumbed so quickly to alteration of votes.

Florida officials spent millions to purchase the unreliable high-tech voting machines after its punch-card voting system attracted national attention in the 2000 presidential election. The controversial dimpled, pregnant and hanging chads held up a final count in the election and the U.S. Supreme Court had to actually step in.

Incredibly, the controversy continues in the Sunshine State as the 2008 presidential election approaches. Florida is a key state with an early presidential primary (January 29) that could dramatically alter both parties’ presidential nominating campaigns. Yet, even after spending millions of taxpayer dollars for new equipment, officials can’t guarantee that every vote will be accurately counted.

Judicial Watch is a non-partisan, educational foundation dedicated to fighting government and judicial corruption and promoting a return to ethics and morality in our nation’s public life. To view the Judicial Watch Internet site click here (www.judicialwatch.org).

Read Full Post »

Here is an organization I hope everyone will get more active in supporting…I received a notice
from its chairman, Mark Rutherford, through facebook.

July 23rd I’ll be flying to Atlanta and having dinner with current Libertarian Party of Alabama Chairman Stephen Gorden, Deborah Gordon and a very influential national political figure. Stephen and I will be introducing Atlas!PAC to this influential person. Please invite fellow libertarians to join Atlas!PAC. Although we just started, we’ve already sent four Libertarians for campaign training to Washington, D.C. and our sponsorship of the Region Three Convention will enable several student libertarians to receive fund raising training free of charge.

Spread the word! Atlas!PAC is finally helping libertarians do the practical things needed to get elected.

Remember, I’d rather have Libertarians on the inside then the outside. You can changes things easier from the inside.

Mark W. Rutherford
Chairman
Atlas!PAC

Read Full Post »

The following links are permanent, because they are based on the candidate’s FEC registration number, so those interested in such things may want to bookmark them (or bookmark this page, whichever is easier). Each candidate page lists links to contributions, reports, and all kinds of interesting things.

What I found most interesting of all, though, is that the much-touted Wayne Allyn Root is not even registered with the FEC as a candidate, libertarian or otherwise. Dondero isn’t registered with the FEC for his alleged run against Ron Paul, either.

George Phillies: One contributor has donated over $1000. It appears that Dr. Phillies has donated much more to his own campaign than what I originally thought. Nothing wrong with that, but it’s interesting if his own contributions are being counted in overall contributions for the quarter for comparison purposes with other LP candidates.

Steve Kubby: Three contributors have donated over $1000 each; two of them have given $2000. Kubby has not contributed any funds to his own campaign, and that’s okay too.

Christine Smith: One person has contributed $2000. Ms. Smith also received an individual contribution from someone who works for the Oregon LP. She has not contributed to her own campaign.

Mike Jingozian: Jingozian has received no contributions.

Alden Link: Link is registered with the FEC as a Republican presidential candidate. He has received no contributions.

Bob Jackson: Jackson has received no contributions.

Daniel Imperato: Imperato is registered with the FEC as an Independent. He has received no contributions.

Barry Hess: Not registered with FEC

Wayne Allyn Root: Not registered with FEC

Robert Milnes: Not registered with FEC

Dave Hollist: Not registered with FEC

John Finan: Not registered with FEC

Read Full Post »

George PhilliesGood News from Phillies 2008
July 22, 2007

For second quarter, Phillies 2008 raised $11,700. Counting checks in hand, we are already over $10,000 for third quarter. In the same quarter, the Smith campaign raised $2264, while the Kubby campaign raised $568.

The week featured two extended radio interviews and a trip to New Jersey. Check out the debate with Daniel Imperato at http://www.blogtalkradio.com/asher . Listen to the interview with Chuck Gooch at http://www.blogtalkradio.com/thehawgpen

Advertising: Phillies 2008 Radio ads will start airing in the next few weeks. One ad an hour, 6 days a week, for 13 weeks. This is a live broadcast plus podcast on a show heard from sea to sea by many libertarian Republicans. The contract has been approved, and the check is being written.

More advertising: Another web page milestone was passed: The front page has had 150,000 downloads. The Google Adwords Campaign is now well over two million impressions. The click-through rate for the core campaign has tripled, comparing first half of July with first half of June. A major newsletter and fundraising mailing should start hitting libertarian mail boxes this week.

Staff News:

Please welcome Carolyn Marbry of San Francisco as Press Director. She will be preparing several press releases a week, circulating widely to bring our issues to all Americans.

Nevada State Coordinator (and LP of Nevada Vice Chair) Debra Dedmon has taken over materials distribution, sending printed matter to state coordinators and others.

Jake Porter received the additional position of Associate Chief of Staff, reflecting his major role in campaign operations. He continues as National Mobilization Facilitator, in charge of all volunteer operations.

Volunteer operations are now so large that Jake Porter needs assistants. Press Director Carolyn Marbry will be Assistant National Mobilization Facilitator for Electronic Operations, in charge of recruiting volunteers for all the net outlets and in charge of classical media operations. An Assistant National Mobilization Facilitator for Volunteer Operations to be named will support recruiting and assisting state and affinity group coordinators.

Read Full Post »

Robert Milnes

First I’d like to say that by far the most important development in the libertarian race thus far is “The Libertarian Vote” study published by The Cato Institute. See: http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6735 Briefly, 20% of voters are libertarian leaning at the beginning of the election cycle (Gallup Governance Survey). 13% are reliably libertarian. 1% wind up actually voting Libertarian. My own conclusion is that 7% of the 20% are leftists. Further, I estimate the leftist vote as 27% which leaves 20% left, 20% right i.e. 40% possible progressive vote. If you understand this study, you understand a lot about the Progressive Alliance Strategy and what is happening with Ron Paul. Paul has tapped into this initial cycle 20%. It represents a kind of “glass ceiling” which no Libertarian can penetrate. This is why I believe it cannot last and Ron Paul cannot get the GOP nomination. Now, I believe, and I have read others about this, that Ron Paul’ s positions actually fit best in the Constitution Party. Kubby correctly describes Paul as a “right-wing libertarian” & I enjoyed his description of the Libertarian Party as like a plane with only a right wing. Kubby wants to reach out to leftists but he wants their vote and support but offers them little compared to an actual agreement (alliance).The Progressive Alliance Strategy calls for a left-libertarian presidential candidate OR a Green. Briefly, this strategy calls for cooperation between the inclusive Green and Libertarian Parties in order to garner the 40% progressive vote. One Green OR Libertarian on EVERY ballot, so as not to split the vote; first come, first served. The executive ticket is more complicated but the most simple strategy would be for the Green Party to endorse the Libertarian ticket as it will probably garner more ballot access. Clearly in all this Paul’s candidacy is an anomaly and an unfortunate complication. He is drawing libertarian support from the libertarians to the GOP. If we further assume a working hypothesis that there are about 50% right and left libertarians, Paul is getting most right and many left libertarian support (70%). I am convinced the LibertarianLists poll is fairly accurate. See: http://www.libertarianlists.com/surveyresult1 In all of this in my opinion Kubby’s endorsement of Ron Paul’s candidacy is a huge strategic blunder. He should call for, as I do, for libertarians to cease their support for Ron Paul. He is diverting libertarian support to the GOP. He is not a good progressive alliance candidate.In fact, if he gets the LP and/or the Constitution Party nomination, he could ruin (spoiler) a Progressive Alliance attempt at victory.”All Together Now” should mean all the LP candidates call for libertarians to cease support for Ron Paul. Kubby wants his cake & eat it too. He endorses Ron Paul yet says”I’m still running for president”. Also that if Paul wins the GOP nomination, he “…will withdraw, ask the party to nominate “None of the Above”… and work as a volunteer on Paul’s…campaign.” If not, he will”…continue preparing to give the LP the best presidential campaign I can…”. I, on the other hand, will not endorse Ron Paul and continue to offer all progressives the reasonable chance of election victory. For further information about my candidacy, See; http://www.robertmilnes.net
WE ARE IN TO WIN.

That’s all well and good, and his point is just as valid as anyone else’s on this topic, but this is as good a time as any to say that voters have a right to know about Robert Milnes’ very serious criminal record (which he doesn’t try to hide, to his credit, but it’s the nature of the crime about which voters have a right – and may even have a need – to be informed since he is running for President). Milnes spent about four years in federal prison. Here’s his description of what happened, from his biography page on http://www.robertmilnes4president:

But then I got tripped up by the FBI. They arrested me on charges related to several fan letters I had written to a local Philadelphia TV anchorwoman, Deborah Knapp. She had married present day Congressman Henry Bonilla, R-Texas. Of course I suspected this was a colateral attack on me by the FBI for political reasons, but I could not articulate that or convince my court appointed federal defender. He convinced me to plead guilty to one count. This was a big mistake. I was sent to FCI Butner, N.C. in 1985. I actually read “The Age of Surveillance” in prison! Eventually I got “maxed out” on mandatory parole in 1989

The 1 count I pleaded guilty to was 18 USC Section 876. Later I filed a pro se motion to withdraw guilty plea pursuant to 28 USC Section 2255 and Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 32 (d). The federal defender was not authorized to assist me after probation violation & was ineffective anyway. This was denied through the US Supreme Court. My petitions for parole were all denied.

The crime with which he was charged, 18 USC 876, deals with threatening communications through the United States Mail. Here is the law, so you can read it for yourself:

Mailing threatening communications

(a) Whoever knowingly deposits in any post office or authorized
depository for mail matter, to be sent or delivered by the Postal
Service or knowingly causes to be delivered by the Postal Service
according to the direction thereon, any communication, with or
without a name or designating mark subscribed thereto, addressed to
any other person, and containing any demand or request for ransom
or reward for the release of any kidnapped person, shall be fined
under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

(b) Whoever, with intent to extort from any person any money or
other thing of value, so deposits, or causes to be delivered, as
aforesaid, any communication containing any threat to kidnap any
person or any threat to injure the person of the addressee or of
another, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more
than twenty years, or both.

(c) Whoever knowingly so deposits or causes to be delivered as
aforesaid, any communication with or without a name or designating
mark subscribed thereto, addressed to any other person and
containing any threat to kidnap any person or any threat to injure
the person of the addressee or of another, shall be fined under
this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. If such
a communication is addressed to a United States judge, a Federal
law enforcement officer, or an official who is covered by section
1114, the individual shall be fined under this title, imprisoned
not more than 10 years, or both.

(d) Whoever, with intent to extort from any person any money or
other thing of value, knowingly so deposits or causes to be
delivered, as aforesaid, any communication, with or without a name
or designating mark subscribed thereto, addressed to any other
person and containing any threat to injure the property or
reputation of the addressee or of another, or the reputation of a
deceased person, or any threat to accuse the addressee or any other
person of a crime, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned
not more than two years, or both. If such a communication is
addressed to a United States judge, a Federal law enforcement
officer, or an official who is covered by section 1114, the
individual shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more
than 10 years, or both.

Read Full Post »

Steve Kubby

All Together Now” — Kubby endorses Paul

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
07/19/07
POC Thomas L. Knapp
314-705-3042
kubby.communications@gmail.com

“ALL TOGETHER NOW” … LIBERTARIAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE ENDORSES PAUL

Fort Bragg, CA — Citing overwhelming support from his own party’s members and lackluster response to Libertarian presidential campaigns, Steve Kubby today endorsed US Representative Ron Paul’s campaign for the Republican Party’s 2008 presidential nomination. Kubby, a candidate in his own party’s presidential contest, made the endorsement in an interview from his home in Mendocino County, California.

“I am not, and have never been, a Republican,” says Kubby, 60, best known for his work for cannabis legalization and on behalf of medical marijuana patients. “For me, the Libertarian Party has always been, and remains, our last best hope for achieving freedom through the American political process. And until recently my position was that the Libertarian Party needed to stick to its own guns, stake out its own territory. But sometimes a special situation comes along.”

Recent polling shows Paul garnering the support of about 70% of LP members — and the LP’s front-runners, including Kubby, clustered together in the 2-3% range among those same members. That polling, Paul’s much higher media profile, and fundraising reports showing that Paul has raised nearly 100 times as much money as any of his Libertarian competitors, convinced Kubby that this is just such a situation.

“I’m still running for president,” says Kubby. “My campaign’s first television commercial will debut shortly. I’m continuing to debate my opponents, attend public events as a candidate, and appear on talk radio to make my case. There are important things that need to be said, and I’m saying them. Dr. Paul and I disagree on some issues that I want to skyline, and I firmly believe that I’m the best candidate to represent the party next November. But when 70% of your own party believes so strongly in a candidate that they’re willing to cross party lines to support him at least until he’s out of the running, you owe it to them to back their play.”

Kubby states that if his fellow freedom activists’ long-shot bet pays off and Ron Paul becomes the Republican nominee, he will withdraw, ask the party to nominate “None of the Above” at its national convention, and work as a volunteer on Paul’s general election campaign. “And I’m urging my fellow Libertarians to approach this in the same way,” he says. “But at the same time, I’ll continue preparing to give the LP the best presidential campaign I can give it if that doesn’t work out.”

Read Full Post »

What follows is an excerpt from Jingozian’s extensive website.

Mike JingozianObservations on the Campaign Trail – Libertarians can be Environmentalists Too

The very first Libertarian event at which I spoke was at the Oregon State Convention in early March 2007. I spoke about the six areas of sustainability. Following my speech, a group of people formed around me, and through the crowd, a man approached. When he made his way to the front, I noticed that veins were pulsating in his forehead. He pointed right at me and said, “YOU SOUND LIKE A GREEN!”

I believe global warming is occurring. I know that this opinion is out of favor with some Libertarians. During the candidates’ forum at the Libertarian Party California Convention, held in April 2007, I was the only candidate (out of five) who publicly recognized that global warming exists. (Although to his defense, Steve Kubby did acknowledge that “something is going on with the environment.”)

However, far more Libertarians are concerned with Environmental Sustainability than those who are not. In fact, between 77 and 83% of Americans believe global warming poses a serious problem. The majority of Libertarians are no different. Certainly, there are some who question the data. If that is how you feel, so be it – we don’t harbor any hard feelings. We still live in a free country (that is, unless that Bush Administration gets its way).

Nevertheless, we find that most Libertarians embrace our principles. Regularly, I am approached at events, receive emails and phone calls from Libertarians who support our message. Even many “Purists” like our message as it reminds them of Harry Browns’ position on compromising to achieve political ends. These comments may not be from the more vocal segment of the party, but they are, nevertheless, the majority.

However – and I say this with the utmost respect and sincerity – I will not represent a party where the majority does not believe that global warming exists or who are not willing to compromise on this issue for the greater good.

Building the Libertarian and Green Parties Together

If we have any chance to even start addressing these issues, then we must destroy the 2-parties as quickly as possible. Viable solutions to solve these problems exist today. But, frightfully, these solutions will not be viable for much longer and these problems are growing in money and getting worse.

As a people, we must support only Independent and 3rd party candidates. We must band together during this next election and say: “Enough is enough!” We must elect an Independent Congress and an Independent President and we must do it in 2008! The two political parties that I support are the Libertarians and the Greens.

I am attracted to the Libertarians for its positions on personal accountability, small government, and maintaining and even bolstering freedom and democracy.

I am attracted to the Greens for its concern for the environment and our health and well-being.

The Libertarians and Greens are not in competition; rather, they complement each other in many areas.

Sharing Common Goals… What the 3rd parties have in Common

Each election brings forth Independent and 3rd party candidates. Many of these candidates promote their own agendas or those of their respective parties. The chart depicts our view on the areas of interest among the four major 3rd parties and Independent candidates.

As shown, the Libertarian Party generally addresses issues regarding the Economy, International Diplomacy, and Democracy & Freedom while the Green Party tends to focus more on Environmental, Health & Well-being, and Societal issues. The Reform Party, Working Families Party, and Independents vary in their focuses.

We admit this is a major simplification of the policy issues important to each party. Furthermore, we are not suggesting that Libertarians are not concerned with well-being or that the Green Party is not concerned with economic issues. The chart merely shows how the major 3rd parties relate to the six areas of Sustainability. (more…)

Read Full Post »

You can read more details about Mr. Hollist’s ideas on his website.

Dave HollistTHANKS FOR LISTENING TO ME

I’ll try not to waste your time. Instead of being a candidate, I prefer to vote for someone–in fact–my wife and I have a ten-year-old who likes to play baseball and I much prefer running around with them than running for office. But unfortunately, I disagree with those on the ballot. I think it is wrong to take money from people.

There is a small group who thinks it’s all right to rob people: Criminals. And this is the reason government was invented–to hunt these people down and put them in jail. Surprisingly, there is another group who feels this same way: Non-Libertarian candidates. Now these people believe they’re special–if they do all the hard work to get elected, they feel they are entitled to do special things. And they even have a special name for what they do: Tax. Well, they’re not that special and what they do is just as wrong even though it’s been done for thousands of years. But we don’t put these people in jail–we just vote for someone better. So, I thought the only alternative was to be on the ballot myself.

Admittedly we do have an obvious problem since taxation is wrong: What’s right? The answer is CONTRACT INSURANCE–an idea that I learned several years ago. Let me give you an example: Bill Gates is the wealthiest person in the world. He is an American businessman who signs billion-dollar contracts. And if anything goes wrong–if people don’t follow through with what they had promised–his attorneys just present the contract to our government, and the courts adjudicate it. While most people respect these judgements, if necessary, the police are sent out and might have to shoot people if they become threatening in order to get what is due Mr. Gates.

This is a very valuable service that is provided by our government, but there is one thing that is wrong: It’s free. I don’t understand–how can something of such great value be free? Well, you guessed it. I propose that we charge people one percent of the value of their contracts to insure them against any breach. Now in this example, one percent would be ten million dollars that would be voluntarily paid into the United States Treasury, and this is just one man and this is just one of his contracts, so you can see that with all the contracts that are signed each day, this would raise hundreds of billions of dollars each year–more than enough money to effectively run our government.

Now it’s insurance–no one has to buy it, but if something goes wrong with his contracts and he didn’t have insurance, Mr. Gates would have a big problem. If he went out and forcibly tried to take what he felt he deserved, the police would stop him for attempting to take something he didn’t legally own. If he went to the government, he would be told that he should have bought insurance, and he probably would the next time. You can see the great incentive. (more…)

Read Full Post »

While I couldn’t find anything written by Barry Hess about his Libertarian Presidential campaign (and in all honesty, I didn’t know he was running until I read it in one of Stephen Gordon’s articles here on LFV) I did find this autobiography, apparently written when he was running for a governorship.

Barry HessBarry Hess Biography

I graduated from Fordham University in New York City in 1978 and then spent a little time in Law School. It didn’t take too long for me to figure out that I really didn’t want to be a lawyer, I wanted to travel and see the world, and so I did.

I am sincerely grateful that a solid work ethic and the pursuit of excellence (not perfection) had been instilled in me by the examples I saw in my own family. I can’t say we were poor, because my family’s fortunes seemed to settle more to either extreme of being broke, or flush. I got to see both sides and the middle of the economic spectrum in detail. I know how the ‘other half’ lives.
I loved summers for as long as I can remember, its arrival meant that I could get out of Florida and go up North to Ohio to work
and play on my grandparent’s farm.

The first job I had that I actually got paid for, was when I was twelve years old. What started as a modest newspaper delivery route soon became the second-largest in the city of Springfield, Ohio. I just kept using my own earnings to buy out the other paper boys, and when we finally moved up to New Hampshire a couple of years later, I was able to sell my business for a handsome profit. I was hooked on self-reliance from that point on.

My Mom died after an extended and hard-fought bout with cancer. She was 48, I was a high school freshman of 14, and the loss exposed a profound realization of just how precious, fleeting and fragile our time here really is.

As I grew up I did the usual things like pumping gas, washing dishes and mowing lawns. One of the best jobs I had was as the host of my own radio program when I was a sophomore in high school. I had become entirely self-sufficient. If I couldn’t find a job I liked, I’d invent one. Pulling my own weight gave me dignity and self-respect. From my fourteenth birthday I felt the pangs of pride and from that time on I would refuse to accept even a single dime that I did not earn—from anyone.

In high school, I continued to involve myself in theatre and sports like skiing, track, football and baseball, as well as school politics where I served as class president and student representative. I didn’t graduate high school, in fact after 2 ½ years of it, I had had enough. I was bored, so I went to college at the University of New Hampshire, at Plymouth. My freshman year I was voted class president and played sports like soccer, skiing and lacrosse. My sophomore year through graduation was spent at Fordham University in the Bronx of New York City. In order to pay my own way, I scrubbed the school’s toilets, (calling myself “Commander Commodee”) and managed the campus center at night that gave me time to study. I started a travel business to provide low cost student vacations to Ft. Lauderdale for Spring Break.

In the summers, I worked interstate bridge construction as a laborer. For fun, it was the school’s theatre troupe, soccer, sky-diving and rugby that kept me busy.

After graduating in May of 1978 with a B.A. in English and indepth credits in History, Political Science and Philosophy, I moved into Manhattan and took a job as a legal hearing representative for fraud investigations for a major national insurance company. It wasn’t long before I was offered a promotion and a transfer to San Diego. My cross-country trek was interrupted with a visit to my sister, right here in Phoenix. I never made it to San Diego, it just felt ‘right’ to stay.

Today, I’m learning to invest as a currency speculator in the foreign exchange market.

Arizona is where I really grew up. I’ve tried a lot of things here, and a lot of different businesses, and I’ve made a lot of mistakes, just like people do. But you’ll not find an honest man who can say that I have ever cheated or stolen from them, even though I have managed to embarrass myself more times than I care to recount. (more…)

Read Full Post »

George Phillies At the South Carolina debate, Republican candidates were asked if they would torture prisoners. Some of them thought torture was just fine.

What is the libertarian answer to the torture question? It’s the American answer, the answer the American people have already given. Torture is a crime against civilization, reviled by all patriotic Americans.

Let’s take it from the top.

First, there is nothing for a President to decide.

Inside the United States, torture is a felony. If you are anywhere in the United States, and you torture someone, you are committing more crimes than I care to list. There is no exception in those laws for government officials.

If you are an American abroad and torture someone, it’s a felony. If your victim dies, you have earned the death penalty. There is no exception in those laws for government officials.

Second, those laws reflect the wisdom of the American people. Torturers are the filth of the earth, properly grouped with child molesters and mercenaries. We need not ask what the founding fathers and their fellows thought of mercenaries. Their position is enshrined in the third verse of The Star-Spangled Banner:

“And where is that band who so vauntingly swore
That the havoc of war and the battle’s confusion
A home and a country should leave us no more?
Their blood has washed out their foul footsteps’ pollution.
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave,”

Third, there are people who get their jollies from snatching people off the streets, hustling them off to remote places, and inflicting great pain and degradation on them. These people have their enablers: television producers and actors who portray torturers as heroes and patriots. Torturers and their advocates are perverts, shunned by decent human beings.

Finally, thoughtful Americans should find it hysterically funny to watch the same gaggle of Republican Presidential candidates first say they would torture a defenseless prisoner, and then pander to the Republican Christian Right. The required depth of hypocrisy surpasses all belief. (more…)

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: