Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘George Phillies’ Category

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 »

The Libertarian Party has started a new fundraising campaign called “Liberty Decides ‘08“. Basically, all Libertarian presidential candidates who have met certain guidelines (age-qualified, member of the LP, filed with the FEC, and raise at least $5000 for ballot access) are listed for competition (with one exception, since Dr. George Phillies chose to decline participation). People then “vote” for those candidates by making a donation in that candidate’s name. Each vote equals $1, so the more you contribute, the more votes you get to cast.There is no requirement that the donations/votes come from a registered member of the LP, or even that the voters claim to be a libertarian (many libertarians are not registered with the Libertarian Party, since that would remove their right to vote in many state primaries). The Libertarian Party will keep 60% of the money collected, while the eventual presidential nominee will get the remaining 40%, to be used in promoting the Libertarian Party.

There are a number of glaringly obvious problems with this competition.

Right off the bat, I can tell you that there are candidates listed there who have not raised $5000, period. However, if they left out candidates who hadn’t accomplished that yet, there would only be three candidates listed. I’ll get to those candidates in a moment.

There is no indication how many individual contributions each candidate received, and the competition is not set up to gauge support in that manner. This is important for several reasons, not the least of which is that there is no way to tell if the candidates received contributions from others, or if all their funds came from them. While at first glance it would seem unethical for the candidates to contribute to themselves in a competition, since that normally would be viewed as rigging the results, there is in fact nothing stopping the candidates from using their own funds. The rules quite specifically state, “Donations from the candidates will be counted towards funds raised”.

Given that three of the candidates have a great deal of money (specifically the ones sitting in the top three right now) there is absolutely no way for anyone to tell if those candidates simply contributed to themselves, though it definitely appears that they have done exactly that. Furthermore, allowing candidates to contribute to themselves places the wealthy candidates at an unfair advantage, and explains the current results.

The current frontrunners are Wayne Allyn Root, Mike Jingozian, and Daniel Imperato. However, I have seen no indication whatsoever that those three have any significant following. Quite the contrary, since all three have been subjected to a great deal of negative opinion from libertarians.

Imperato in particular is a candidate who has no discernible support, and his “press releases” are met with a great deal of laughter and derision, including from Yours Truly. Many others across the blogosphere have voiced their concern that Imperato may not be completely sane, though he does have enough money to rig the competition with ease. He is now in third place, undoubtedly due to contributing to himself.

Root is new to the LP, and even still has a website called “Millionaire Republican”; as a result he is viewed with suspicion, and is considered to be a Republican by most. Furthermore, Root is running on what is primarily a pro-gambling platform, since he is a Vegas oddsmaker. While libertarians believe gambling should not be illegal, one cannot run a presidential campaign on that stance alone, and some of his other ideas are hardly libertarian. For example, he is pro-war (and as a matter of fact, regularly uses his initials, which spell “WAR”, in place of his name), whereas libertarians adopt a strict non-interventionist policy. Root is currently in first place, also undoubtedly due to contributing to himself.

Jingozian is simply not very well known. I recall reading his site back when his candidacy first came to my attention, and I got the distinct impression that his views are a cross between the Greens and the Libertarians. Few libertarians will support a fusion candidate. By necessity Green goals require governmental intrusion upon our property rights, whereas libertarians believe the government’s only proper activity is to protect our rights. A successful businessman, Jingozian is in second place, also undoubtedly because he contributed to himself.

That the three wealthiest candidates – who have no chance of actually gaining widespread support among LP members – would appear to be winning was a completely foreseeable situation, given how the competition is designed; and it is inevitable that those candidates will contribute to themselves, then use that poll to falsely state they are a “frontrunner” in the race for the LP nomination. It is equally strange that, based on my own estimate of those candidates’ personal wealth, they are in exactly the order I would expect.

That’s a very serious problem, not only because misrepresentations about their own support among LP members might mislead people who are not already familiar with the candidates, but also because as discussed, those candidates who are winning have some decidedly un-libertarian ideas which will undoubtedly reflect very poorly on the LP as a whole.

This poll may also have a very strange effect on the Libertarian Convention. If delegates vote pursuant to what their constituents want, they cannot in good conscience ignore an official LP poll, especially since they may not realize that the wealthy candidates are contributing to themselves, as that information is not available on the same page as the competition. The actual rules are contained in a PDF file.

As much as I disapprove of the LP keeping the majority of the contributions for itself, and stipulating that the other 40% must be used to the LP’s advantage, that does explain why they are allowing candidates to contribute to themselves since there are three wealthy candidates who would get little if any support otherwise.

Another matter of concern is that, according to the rules, the poll counts funds raised since each candidate announced their campaign, including any funds raised by an exploratory committee. That gives an advantage to candidates who announced early, though as it is that early advantage is canceled out by the wealthier candidates who contribute to themselves. Again, it is impossible to ascertain the amount of actual support each candidate has during the course of the competition, which negates any possible usefulness the competition might otherwise have.

Last but not least, even in a poll where actual money is involved, “None Of The Above” rated fourth (for those of you not familiar with the Libertarian Party, delegates can actually vote for NOTA rather than to nominate a candidate). Quite honestly, I think it’s a very popular choice in this presidential election, and if not for the three wealthy candidates contributing to themselves, it would be ranked firmly in first place. NOTA is almost $2000 ahead of the next most popular candidate, which is “Future candidate”; in other words, those contributing to this competition (not counting the first three who are obviously contributing to themselves) by far prefer none of the candidates. NOTA and FC, if placed into one category as it should be, would be roughly equivalent to the current third-place competitor who contributed to himself, and firmly in first place if the three wealthy candidates were discounted due to contributing to themselves.

That says a lot.

Can the serious LP candidates overcome this negativity, based in a lack of excitement about the announced candidates, and a great deal of excitement about Ron Paul, who is running as a Republican? I honestly don’t know, but I somehow doubt it. The LP may end up not nominating a presidential candidate for 2008.

_______________________

Sources:
Last Free Voice
Libertarian Party
Originally posted on Adventures In Frickintardistan

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 »

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 »

 

 

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 »

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 »

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: