©2008 Tully, all rights reserved. You must have written permission from the author in order to republish this work.
Published: Saturday, June 14, 2008
Last modified: Saturday, June 14, 2008
The views expressed in this article are those of Tully only and do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Tully is solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Report violation by Tully of Nolan Chart LLC's terms of use policy.
| More Articles By Tully |
Reader Comments:
Posted By: Chuck
Date: 2008-06-14 07:57:48
I thought it was allowable to have a placeholder name on the petitions and then change it later. That's the way it's done in other states.
Posted By: Tully
Date: 2008-06-14 08:15:17
Not in New Hampshire. There is no legal provision for "Place-holding" and switching names later like most states.
In New York, in addition to petitioning for offices, you also circulate petitions for a 'vacancy committee' to fill vacancies if a candidate does not accept a nomination. Efficient and simple. Bu not in NH....Phillies is on the ballot....
Posted By: Mike Stahl
Date: 2008-06-14 09:47:49
But, Tully, don't you get it? They are "real" Libertarians.....none of that watered down stuff for them-No Sir. They have their little club, and no new members allowed.
One must admire the groundless arrogance, if nothing else. That sort of obtusity is truly epic, but seldom encountered in such a pitifully small group.
Posted By: rtbohan
Date: 2008-06-14 10:01:26
I am not certain that I agree with this article (although I do agree with your other article today. Phillies is not a name which many people will recognize or respond to, but (I hate to tell you this) neither is Bob Barr. Phillies obviously has support among the Libertarians of New Hampshire and it would be a mistake to run a second Libertarian candidate. On the other hand, if the object of the campaign is to promote the ideas of the party and possibly to influence the electoral vote, then this not be the wrong strategy. In 1836, the Whig party made themselves a national party by nominating four candidates for President--it was done through the state parties. The idea of the Whigs was to throw the election into the House of Representatives, and it failed (although it did throw the election of Vice President into the Senate. As a one election ploy having retgional candidates for President might allow the party to at least run second in some states.
Posted By: Joe Lawson
Date: 2008-06-14 11:37:51
Not really seeing a problem with this, although I have seen several times where Phillies is the stand-in for the party, but even if he is not, they have until late August to get the signatures for an Indpendent and its not that many.
By the way Barr, Baldwin, Nader and McKinney all have filed to be on the ballot
Posted By: Mike Stahl
Date: 2008-06-14 21:16:57
rtbohan,
Are you here on Earth with the rest of us? No offense, honestly, but the only reason that I've a clue who George Phillies is is due to my being one of a few hundred thousand people who waste their time with Libertarian politics.
I've heard the name Bob Barr on the news most of my adult life, and recently have seen him on national TV, and heard him on national and local radio. Phillies, not so much. Limbaugh mentioned Barr(and Ron Paul-who he never trashed so far as I know)Friday for crying out loud. Your drawing a popular relativism between the two of them is a stretch, to be generous.
That being said your allusion to the early Whig party is trenchant, and indeed, I've no real problem with the folks in NH doing what ever the hell they want...in everything, not just elections-my goal is to, first, send the GOP the way of the Whigs....Barr helps in that-plus I agree with him. For my part, my concern is with the cultist, and extreme, libertarians who seem more interested in maintaining self-righteous indignation, rather than at least trying to turn the tide....even if it is hopeless, we need to try.
Posted By: James Maynard
Date: 2008-06-15 13:23:11
A) It could be changed in the court - ALL the precedent is on the side of substitutions being allowed.
B) "in both [link edited for length] and New Hampshire, the LP is in negotiations with the Secretary of State to have the “place-holder” candidate removed from the ballot so that Bob Barr’s can be added in." [link edited for length]
C) If you look at the list of declarions of intent filed in time for the dealine, there's a familiar name right at the top: [link edited for length] .
Ergo, in the unlikely event Barr's name can't be substituted for Phillies, Barr's name can still be added by petition.
Don't sweat it, kids.
JM
Posted By: Tully
Date: 2008-06-15 14:31:40
Argh... Wrote a response and lost it.
In any event, Jim, it is precisely that non-chalance and ennui towards the national libertarian party that is unnerving. Especially since your comments above are on shaky grounds.
a) There is no court precedent for thsi in NH. Further, Phillies is legitimately on the ballot - would he support a substitution effort? Cant do this without him. Is the LPNH *planning* this?
b) In Mass we have been definitely turned down AGAIN by the SoS (since the time your referenced article was posted). The law is stricter here in NH, so I'm not optimistic.
c) As for Declarations of Intent, you've run enough times to know that all that is a signature and a check, not ballot access. Who gets the signatures now..is that something we leave to the Barr Campaign, as oposed to the LPNH?
The LPNH should have a Proactive, forward Plan to make this happen and attract new blood. Instead, the usual approach (The Usual 20 activists in NH, versus the National Party) is pretty evident.
We must STOP thinking SMALL. We must STOP running the same candidates or assuming there is some sort of 'birthright.' (btw, I see that opening now, thank God!) We must open this party up so wide THAT NUMERICALLY, WE LOSE CONTROL OF IT.
THAT is our only hope, Obi-Wan Kenobi......