Reader Comments:

Posted By: Thomas L. Knapp
Date: 2008-10-24 16:57:22

George,

 Thanks for a reasonably balanced article (albeit one that I disagree with on several issues which are purely a matter of opinion).

 Two corrections of fact:

- Jim Davidson was not elected chair earlier this year. I appointed him as interim chair when the previous national committee became moribund.

 Whatever his faults, Jim has done amazing work at getting the party active.  The BTP has more members today than the LP did for its first presidential election. The BTP's presidential slate is on more state ballots than the LP's was in its first presidential election. I expect that the BTP's ticket will receive more votes than the LP's first presidential ticket did -- and this in spite of the fact that in its first presidential election, the LP had no competition in the "libertarian market niche," while in this election the BTP is competing with an LP that has a 36-year head start on us. Jim deserves a great deal of credit for these facts.

- Neither the BTP nor George Phillies bear any responsibility for the fact that the Barr campaign had to petition in New Hampshire. It was known going into this election cycle that New Hampshire does not allow "substitution," and therefore Barr would have had to petition whether Phillies was on the ballot or not. The fact that the Barr campaign has chosen to waste its donors' money to deny New Hampshire voters the opportunity to vote for George Phillies even after putting Barr on the ballot is the Barr campaign's responsibility alone.

 Best regards,

Tom Knapp

Report violation

Posted By: Jake, the champion of the constitution
Date: 2008-10-25 23:31:32

George -

geez man....  I am staying inside my impervious turtle shell (ITS) at campaign for liberty.   great work digging up these facts!

Jake

Report violation

Posted By: Todd Andrew Barnett
Date: 2008-10-28 16:17:50

Mr. Dance:

I realize that, as a collectivist, you have nothing better to do than to engage in character assassination and smear pieces to attack me on a personal and political level.

Conflating my convention speech comments with what I said about Bob Barr in a comment I wrote in a post made on the Independent Political Report and a blog post I wrote on Dagny Kira Barnes and the recent events that transpired in the Boston Tea Party was downright vicious, tasteless, tacky, tactless, and truely uncalled for. I don\'t know what your true motivation is for doing this, and I don\'t know what you have against me, but you could have asked for my side of the story on the John Wayne Smith-Dagny Kira Barnes matter before you published that piece of garbage that was truly biased in nature. Furthermore, you neglected to mention a few crucial details that were also pointed out on the BTP website a week prior to the convention and leading up to the convention.

Your article contains a good chunk of truth regarding the events that happened, but it also painted me in an unfair light because of my difficult decisions I made while serving as the Vice Chair of the Boston Tea National Committee.

Unless you have served on a national committee of a political party and unless you have first-hand knowledge of the events and what happened prior, during, and after the incident, your article shaping me as the villain in the matter was out of line, unethical, and unprofessional.

As for your comments on what I said about Bob Barr, I stand by them all the way. Unless you\'re not a Barr supporter (and I suspect that you are and that you\'re also a hatchet man hell-bent on smearing the BTP and me personally for reasons unknown to me and not for reasons to get to the truth of what happened at that point), I have no reason to trust anything you say.

That\'s all I have to say to you.

Yours Truly,

Todd Andrew Barnett

Internet Columnist, Talk Radio Show Host, and Former Vice Chair of the Boston Tea Party

P.S. I never claimed to be not fair game in the BTP, in the world of politics, and online discussions, but you are fair game as well, sir. Deal with it.

Report violation

Posted By: Jim Davidson
Date: 2008-12-03 00:21:55

The Boston Tea Party's commitment to openness and transparency is a principled one. It is based on the essential principle that the members of our party run the party. In order for the members to have the effective power to over-rule any action of the national committee (which requires only that five members agree to have the matter reconsidered by the party as a whole), the members have to know what goes on.

I recognise that my commitment to openness was being tested by Charles Jay, and others, in the recent controversy. I understand that in the name of perceived competence and perceived professionalism (or, really, just in the name of looking good) George Dance would not have done any of the things I did. George would prefer that the LP continue to hide facts from its members and abuse their trust, because George fundamentally believes in a hierarchy where most blindly follow, and a few lead.

My personal goals as chair of the Boston Tea Party were to increase the membership past 500 before the October convention of the party, to endorse at least 28 LP candidates before the election, and to create 50 state affiliates. I was able to reach my first goal shortly before the convention. The party membership now stands beyond 715.

I was not quite able to reach my second goal, but we did endorse about 22 LP candidates, I think - since some were for non-partisan races, I'm not entirely sure. (At the time I announced that goal, the LP.org web site only identified 28 candidates for political office - that is, only 28 of several hundred LP candidates were listed on the LP's own national site.)

Of course, our endorsement for LP candidates was quite good for them. It came with press releases, several campaign contributions resulting directly from our endorsement, and other support. One of our endorsed LP candidates won his race in Florida. I find it bizarre that you think that our only purpose was to detract from the LP, when we gave so much effort to endorsing and supporting LP candidates. Our purpose was to identify those who were consistently for smaller government, and support them. I think we did that work pretty well.

I'm still working on the fifty state affiliates project, with help from the new national committee, at the request of the current national chair (acting chair Douglass Gaking).

You do an elaborate job of selective editing to remove the concerns expressed by three members of the national committee (Chris Bennett, Todd Barnett, and myself) in bringing our concerns about the endorsement of Hogarth to the attention of the party. My main concern was the way in which she was persistently attacking one of the other endorsed candidates, which I found bizarre given that she wasn't resident in Tennessee. I also found her unwillingness to credit how she said things to be of concern to the success of the party quite unnerving - and I'm someone who knows quite a lot about how things one says affects what other people think and do. When she admitted that this matter was significant, I declared victory and took down the poll.

Obviously, how we do things in the Boston Tea Party are going to be different from how you do things in the LP. We have open deliberations so that all our members can know what is happening at the national committee if they wish. We have no national funds, so there can be no national staff, and no corrupt allocation of funds. We have rules for the members to over-rule the actions of the national committee - or confirm those actions - in place to enhance oversight. You guys have none of those features.

Equally, how I chose to do things during my appointment as interim chair are going to be very different from how the current acting chair does things, and from how the new chair to be chosen in the special election now taking place would do things. I'm a very weird guy. I'm obnoxious and disliked, I know it's true.

But, I stand by my commitment to the success of the Boston Tea Party. It was the right choice to take in April, and it was the right choice to follow up on in May, and it has been the right choice to continue working for party growth and development. When it seems like the wrong thing to do, I'll stop doing it.

I stand by my choice to have the national committee endorse George Phillies and Chris Bennett in New Hampshire and Massachusetts, though, sadly, they were removed from the ballot in the latter state. I think Bob Barr is an incredibly evil man, demonstrably racist, someone who extolled the entire career of a segregationist (Jesse Helms) and has recently endorsed another racist, Saxby Chambliss. I think Bob Barr's position on continuing to fight the drug war, including intervention in Colombia, is completely at odds with the LP party platform. I have recently reviewed half a dozen places where his campaign statements are completely at odds with the LP platform, as well as with the recent LNC resolution to get the USA out of Afghanistan.

I stand by my choice to confront Charles Jay on his determination to sweep the Dagny Barnes accusation under the rug, and to publish his comments to the national discussion list so that the members could deliberate for themselves. Evidently, my actions did not cause the national committee to remove me from office, nor did my actions cause the members of the party to move to reconsider my actions. In fact, several members of the national committee wrote to support my actions.  I think openness was much, much more important than looking good. And I still think so.

Anyone who has seen the videos I contributed to the Boston Tea Party site must be aware that I set very little store in looking good. I don't think shallow and vain considerations like hair style or choice of clothing are nearly as important as what goes on in a person's mind. I realise, George, that you are deeply concerned about whether Sarah Palin spent enough money at Nieman Marcus to outfit her wardrobe for the recent campaign.

I am, of course, appalled at your view that every libertarian should be fully committed to supporting a Republican who voted for the Iraq war, for the USAPATRIOT act, and for other demolition of freedom, even if we choose individually not to be a part of your hierarchical political party. I'm not sure what your claim is to the loyalty of libertarians who have abandoned the LP, but there you are, demanding that we all vote for Barr.

Oddly, I don't see you expressing any concern anywhere for Barr's actions as a member of the LNC, and as the LP's nominee for president, in providing financial support for GOP candidates through Barr's political action committee. I note that many of the GOP candidates who were provided direct monetary support, often thousands of dollars, by Barr's PAC included many who were running against LP candidates. I don't understand, George, why you are such a hypocrite. The mote in my eye? What about the beam of lumber in Barr's eye?

To each his own. I like the Boston Tea Party. And for all his foibles and obvious faults, I admire and respect Charles Jay for his principled stand for liberty in his conduct of nearly every aspect of his campaign. Charles Jay is a thousand times the man, and a billion times the libertarian, that Bob Barr ever could be.

Finally, let me be very clear. I'm Jim Davidson. I'm just this guy. I am not the Boston Tea Party. I chose to have something to do with it because a friend of mine asked for my help. I choose to have something to do with it, still, because I've been very impressed with the design work that Tom did in putting the party together, and much more impressed with the volunteers, enthusiasts, and activists who have made the party successful.

And do you know what, George? I really don't care what you think.

Report violation

Posted By: anon
Date: 2009-05-03 10:00:22

hahaha... right.  "Let me write a novel about what you think, but I don't care what you think!" 

have fun playing in your sandbox kids...

Report violation