Topic: Libertarianism
New Hampshire Libertarians passivity towards Bob Barr insures their continued irrelevency The party's political operatives decided to gather those signatures prior to the Libertarian Party convention. They gathered signatures for George Phillies...not Barrby Tully
(libertarian)
Saturday, June 14, 2008
It could have been a great year for Libertarians in New Hampshire.
Independents now outnumber both Republicans and Democrats. Many voters are unhappy with Obama and McCain. The state has strong libertarian leanings. And the national Libertarian ticket is being headed up by Bob Barr, a legitimate candidate with access to funding and media. What better combination in one of the nation's "swing states."
Except Barr is not leading the ticket here in NH.
Since the Libertarian Party hasn't won 4% of the vote statewide in NH, members must gather signatures to get their candidates on the ballot. The party's political operatives decided to gather those signatures prior to the Libertarian Party convention. They gathered signatures for George Phillies...with the result that Phillies will appear as the Presidential candidate for the Libertarian Party in NH.
Phillies? Now's there's a name that the average voter will recognize....NOT.
It is possible that the Barr campaign could still gather the signatures they need, and TWO Libertarians would appear on the ballot. But in speaking with NH Libertarian operatives, you get the idea that they really dont see the need to get signatures for Barr. In fact, you get the distinct impression that they have no desire to be integrated with the national Libertarian Party at all. There is no consideration of the "coattail effect" that a Barr candidacy could have.
They argue that in NH, you need to get your ballot signatures early...but that argument falls flat. 49 states appear able to get the required signatures after the national convention, there's no reason NH couldnt do the same.
And so, they have followed a path of guarenteeing themselves a small percentage of the vote, of not reaching the 4% mark needed for ballot status, and of insuring that the Party remains a small, inconsequential footnote.
No wonder so many "Free State Project" members are running for office this year - as Democrats and Republicans. How one of the most "l"ibertarian states in the country can have such an ineffectual "L"ibertarian strategy is mind-boggling.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 8 thumbs so far
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.
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....
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
