Dr. Phillies, LPNH, and LPMA have some explaining to do for subverting the LP nominee. by Josh Koch
(libertarian)
Saturday, June 21, 2008
Tyranny is not the sole province of the majority, as we have seen since 9/11. There are times when a devoted minority can use manipulation to impose their will on the majority, and, as any imposition of will on another is tyrannical, such decisions are as evil coming from the minority as they are descending from a majority.
The Libertarian Party finds itself in just such a situation this year. The nominee of the party is Bob Barr. I was not a huge fan of this decision, but it was arrived at in a fair manner. Putting the needs of the movement ahead of our own, many of us who opposed Barr initially have thrown our support behind him. The New Hampshire LP, Massachusetts LP, and George Phillies, it seems, have other plans.
It has come out that the LPNH and the LPMA has decided to put Phillies on the ballot anyway. The silly ruse is this:
However, the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire did petition to put a Presidential candidate on the ballot. They did that petitioning last winter and spring using my name. Substitution of Presidential candidates, once the nominee's name is known, is not permitted in New Hampshire. Unless the people of New Hampshire relent and permit substitution using the national nominee, I will be on the ballot in New Hampshire. Also, the Libertarian Party of Massachusetts had begun petitioning, with the agreement that the named candidate would be replaced on the November ballot. The Secretary of the Commonwealth, who had last Fall said that the proposal was legal, has since changed his mind, and says that substitution is not allowed. Unless the people of Massachusetts relent and permit substitution using the national nominee, I will also be on the ballot in Massachusetts. (Source)
Even assuming this is the case, one must wonder how a state party can list a candidate as a nominee over five months before the national convention. No, wait, I'm not buying that. This is preposterous and a poor attempt at misleading the rank and file of the party. This was no accident, no cruel stroke of fate.
No, this decision was arrived at independent of any intention of honoring the nomination process. It is a meager excuse to blame the various secretaries of New Hampshire and Massachusetts, as such an evil could be easily righted in a courtroom and the court of public opinion. No, this is tyranny of the minority, the scheming imposition on the majority by the minority. This was a decision made with the intent to ignore the established process and the voice of the party's grassroots activists.
It is no coincidence that Dr. Phillies is the state chair of the Massachusetts, a fact that he trumpets on his website. This is a concerted effort driven by people who have no regard for the voice of their fellow freedom activists. This sentiment of "Phillies or Bust"is tyrannical and unfair to activists who have sacrificed their preferences for the good of the party and movement. Further, this singular use of one's state-party office for one's own aggrandizement is a most severe abuse of a conflict of interest.
I call on Dr. Phillies, the LPNH, and the LPMA to explain their actions. If they cannot produce the appropriate documentation and explanation, censure or de-affiliation is in order. A party cannot become viable on the national scene if it must constantly be battling itself internally when the nomination process is being hijacked by rogue elements in the party. Yet, this is precisely what George Phillies and the state parties have forced on the rest of us.
Libertarians are not, by nature, a "law and order" crowd. We shun the trappings of the wars, the nanny state, and the edicts of petty dictators. Among ourselves, though, we have allied all our diverse interests because strength comes with unity, and we accept the latter to obtain the former, as much as unity bothers us. The question, then, is whether we will allow this selfish element of the party to subvert our group efforts. I had to sacrifice my interests for the party, after all, so why shouldn't a man who wants to take over the party and lead the nation be called upon to sacrifice? Put another way, hesitancy to submit to the voice of one's fellows is not the mark of an unselfish advocate of freedom.
Kubby, Gravel, Ruwart, and others have shown the rest of us what it means to sacrifice one's own goals for the good of the movement. Many of us have had to swallow our pride, but we made the right decision. Hopefully, Dr. Phillies and the New England state parties will see their way to doing the right thing. If not, I call on LP national to deal directly and strongly with those who are subverting the movement to their own selfish ends. We have enough trouble fighting the tyranny of the duopoly without having to duke it out with petty tyrants among us.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 5
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of Josh Koch only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
Josh Koch 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.
Seems like Josh jumps to concl;ussions without even the journalistic integrity to talk to his subject (that he is meligning) before publishing. Ohh by the way Nice thumbs up button. Where the FUCK is the thumbs down?
I met Dr. Phillies before this whole escapade happened, but not since then. Do I need to talk to him before writing this? This was something that they're pushing, after all. I got an email from his campaign by way of a mailing list I am on, else I wouldn't even have heard of this.
If George Phillies wants to discuss this, he knows where to contact me. I emailed his campaign press coordinator and the LPNH on the subject. If I'm wrong, I'll retract this, but it seems to be a pretty fair assessment.
I'll up the ante. You show me what was wrong with what I wrote. I'm open-minded, even if this has all the appearance of sabotage. Tell me where I'm drawing all the wrong conclusions. If you can show me to be incorrect, I'll retract. Fair enough?
This article is right on the money, and echoes articles I myself have written on various sites. In NH, substitution has *never* been allowed, so there can be no surprise here.
The evidence can be seen in everything Phillies an the NHLP has written and said since the Barr nomination. There is a total ennui, if not disgust, about Barr's candidacy. There is a genuinely erroneous belief that the LP can run with Phillies at the top of the ticket and it wont hurt them. Phillies wrote recently on a NH libertarian yahoo group about how he couldnt ask gays to vote for Barr. (Funny, I run the largest Gay Mens organization in NH, The NH Bears, and I dont have a problem supporting Barr....)
Phillies has an arrogant, ego-centered approach to politics, and this 'rule or ruin' approach will probably result in an abysmal LPNH showing in November, and may well kill for a decade or more any hopes of getting permanent ballot status.
Journalisticly. You are the own who wrote and published this article it is your responsibility ethicaly to talk to your subject and get their comments befor you publish.
You are now asking me to prove a negative. To prove that you are wrong. All I can do is provide some evidence. That casts doubt on your CONCLUSIONS.
You emailed his campeign press coordinator and didn't bother to include phillies@4liberty.net? lazzy? or rude?
and Dr. Phillies own words. from off of his campeign website.
"However, the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire did petition to put a Presidential candidate on the ballot. They did that petitioning last winter and spring using my name. Substitution of Presidential candidates, once the nominee's name is known, is not permitted in New Hampshire. Unless the people of New Hampshire relent and permit substitution using the national nominee, I will be on the ballot in New Hampshire. Also, the Libertarian Party of Massachusetts had begun petitioning, with the agreement that the named candidate would be replaced on the November ballot. The Secretary of the Commonwealth, who had last Fall said that the proposal was legal, has since changed his mind, and says that substitution is not allowed. Unless the people of Massachusetts relent and permit substitution using the national nominee, I will also be on the ballot in Massachusetts."
The NH Lib Party is collecting signatures to put Barr on the Ballot as the Libertarian Party Candidate. The MA Lib Party is sueing the State of Massachusetts to replace Phillies with Barr. Reportedly if they win the MA case they will then sue NH to allow Phillies to be removed.
Slander articles like this are ment to drive people out of the party not to unite the party.
Did I mention I really really want to hit a thumbs down button for this article
Posted By: Walt Thiessen
Date: 2008-06-22 07:49:00
This is not the first time that Phillies has dissed the LP nominee. He previously wrote a book against former LP candidate Harry Browne, rehashing a long list of charges that were found to be false in all but one case after an in-depth investigation by the LP in response to those allegations. It turned out that the only one that was true was that Browne's campaign manager had accepted about $1800 in compensation from the LP while he was running the Browne campaign in violation of party rules, a piddlingly small charge.
The charges were originally raised during the 2000 campaign, led by Jacob Hornberger and Liberty Magazine when R.W. Bradford was its publisher and was still alive. It was part of a deliberate smear campaign on Browne, one of the most honest, intelligent, decent, and caring libertarians ever to grace the party's ticket.
Phillies came out with his book despite the official findings, in a deliberate attempt to muster attention for himself. He also was outspoken during the 2000 campaign in his support for the Hornberger/Liberty Mag mudslinging campaign.
I'm not sure that Barr is really reformed from what his Congressional record shows. I'm leaning toward writing-in Ron Paul instead. However, there is no doubt in my mind that Phillies has a definite, personal agenda, and that it has very little to do with liberty and much more to do with personal aggrandizement and an inability to work well with others who don't adhere 100% to his own political views. In this way, he reminds me of Ayn Rand. Rand was a philosophical genius in some ways, but in other ways she was the leader of a sick personality cult.
As a Libertarian candidate for statehouse in NH, I can assure you that there is NOT an oprganized effort by the LPNG to get Barr on the ballot. If it wasnt for the fact that they just 'discovered' that their gubernatorial candidate is short signatures, they wouldnt be collecting *at all.*
If Barr is to get on the ballot, it will be due to Barr's own operatives - or paid merceneries - not the LPNH.
Shall we be really clear about your standing on Phillies.
1) Nolanchart.com is your project
2) You are a long time fan of Harry browne
3) Harry Browne's run for president under the Libertarian Party had ethical issues (welcome to politics) Such as paying the political director of the party before the convention and having access to party resources that were denied to the other libertarian presidential candidates.
4) George Phillies documented these issues of which you claim have been refuted by an "Official Finding". Where are these official findings?
Walt, this is a smear piece and yes I am calling you on it. This hit piece also isn't good for creating a unified front for the party.
I have very certainly not made any statement to anyone about contingencies involving New Hampshire, other than my clear and unambiguous statement that I have accepted the LPNH nomination, I have filed the Declaration of Intent, the needed signatures were filed, and as a New Hampshire candidate I plan to campaign vigorously in New Hampshire, as I have already been doing for some time. I have personally spoken with the New Hampshire Secretary of State, and the representation I have is that if other Libertarian Presidential candidates have filed their declaration of intent and collect the needed signatures they will also be listed on the Libertarian line.
Rumors of a lawsuit in New Hampshire seem confused. The only people with obvious standing to sue would be me or the LPNH, because I by vote of their convention am their candidate. Rumors of “the party” suing without specifying which party is suing, state or national, are not obviously easy to understand
Once again, George Phillies' own words convict him. He isn't going to sue, nor is he going to push the issue. One must assume that, since he declared himself the candidate, this has been his plan all along.
Have fun in New England, George. You'll have a two-state campaign that is running in opposition to your national nominee. Congratulations.
I know that some of the buzz surrounding what would happen with the Mass. presidential ballot (some of which, I helped stir up) makes the possibility of giving Phillies the benefit of the doubt harder for many people.
Judging from recent statements, I've given him the benefit of the doubt, as it sounds like attempts to get Barr on the ballot in place of Phillies are moving forward, with the LPMA's participation.
Phillies being "on the ballot" in NH does nothing to prevent Barr from getting on via the same petitioning method. Phillies ought to remove himself from the NH ballot., but only once Barr has secured his spot on it. If for some reason, Barr on fails to get on the ballot, we'll still have a Libertarian on the ballot in NH.
YOU CAN NOT REMOVE YOUR NAME FROM THE BALLOT IN NH.
And even if you could, Philies would have no intention of stepping aside. He has already written the NH libertarian Yahoo group that he can not ask gays to vote for Barr...he is playing a passive-aggressive game. Might as well call him out on it: He's being ego-driven and bitchy,
If Phillies had no intention of stepping aside then why would he have asked the ACLU to help replace his name with Barr's for the MA ballot? Not being willing to endorse Barr is different then intending to compete with Barr.
My understanding is that for Barr to get onto the NH ballot he is going to have to do another petition drive. If he fails to gather the required number of signatures and Phillies drops out then their will be no Libertarian Candidate. Phillies had earlier approached the ACLU about challenging the NH law. The ACLU at that time suggested waiting until after the libertarian party convention.
Yes if Georges name remains on the ballot he claims he will actively campeign. November is still aways away. There is still time for the MA and NH issues to get settled. Engaging is mud slinging, written and verbal assults is likely to only harden every ones position.
My suggestion would be for Barr the party standard bearer to get up to the North East and meet with the folks up there. Time to build working relationships not engage in internal bickering. Barr has made mistakes in the past and he has some work to do before those whom he hurt will forgive.
A state chair picks himself as the nominee and convinces another state to do the same over five months before the national convention. They collect signatures and get him on the ballot in those two states.
Then, this chairman decides to disregard the decision of the National Convention. He tells the nominee, "Well, I already went to the trouble of getting myself on the ballot, and you can come here and get your own signatures if you want to be on the ballot."
I sure do see what the "problem is" Josh, you have declared your self judge, jury and executioner. You in your mind have convicted Dr Phillies and are ready to lynch him without giving him the chance to defend himself. You have publish an article filled with poor assumptions with out the courtisy of discussing the issues with your victum. You have labled him a petite tyrant with no evidence that he is dictating anything to his constiuency.
Throwing Mud hoping some of it will stick is pretty dispicable.
No offense, Steve, but did you read the article. I quoted Dr. Phillies. He explains exactly what he's doing. There's no lack of evidence.
If taking him at his word is lynching, the world has taken a bizarre turn for the surreal. I have no allegations to make. His words on various sites make it abundantly clear.
Personally, I don't have a problem with him, but this is something that bears bringing up. When two states are running in a different direction from the LP on a presidential race and tell the candidate to screw off, that's news.
4) Your facts are wrong. You do realize that in 2004 and in 2006 the NH Libertarian Party had issues with getting enough signatures to put candidates on the Ballot as Libertarians. This is probably why they started early and why they used a place holder.
My points are basically that this hit piece which trashes some one is not only poor viscious and lazzy journalism. It calls for a purge of two out of 50 of the state parties. This is not good for party unity or party growth.
Did I mention that I really want to hit a thumbs down on this article.
Which two parties are "running in a different direction from the LP on a presidential race and tell the candidate to screw off, that's news"?
The MA party is engaged with the National Comittee to switch from Phillies to Barr. In NH having been unsucessfull at getting the needed signatures in 2004 and 2006 starting this late is unlikely to be successfull.
News is compossed of facts. What you are publishing is fiction. It really is time for you to retract this article.
No, Steve, YOURE the one playing fast and loose with facts. For example, you wrote above,
"....If Phillies had no intention of stepping aside then why would he have asked the ACLU to help replace his name with Barr's for the MA ballot? Not being willing to endorse Barr is different then intending to compete with Barr. ..."
1) I was talking about New Hampshire. That he had no intenton of stepping aside in NH. What he does in MA with the ACLU is a red herring.
2) And you're right, running against Barr is even *worse,* and more divisive and destructive, than simply keeping hi smouth shut and not endorsing Barr.
3) As a Libertarian candidate, I *fear* having to explain myself everytime Phillies makes a grandiose, self-inflating, extremist comment. Even harder for me, I am a gay candidate, and Phillies puts himself forth as the Be All and End ALL on GLBT issues. His attitude will NOT fly in NH, and I dont want it to undo what we've already done here.
He Lost the Convention. He should end his campaign NOW.
It will be very difficult for Barr to get the signatures he needs to get his name on the ballot at this late date.
Until Barr does qualify Phillies isn't competing with him. For Phillies to pull his name (of which there are legal issues to do so) at least the libs will have one representative whom the NH party chose.
The only group that has any right to ask Phillies to stand aside is the NH Libertarian party. Tully, have they done so? DO you presume to speak for the NH Libertarian Party? Are you that egotistical?
Steve, an *amazing* number of 'mere assertions' pour off your keyboard, as you move left to right to protect your buddy's name....
For instance:
"...Reportedly if they win the MA case they will then sue NH to allow Phillies to be removed. .."
".. In NH having been unsucessfull at getting the needed signatures in 2004 and 2006 starting this late is unlikely to be successfull..."
You throw around these assertions, and then have the balls to write,
"News is compossed of facts. ..."
I guess *everyone* else has to stick to facts, but throwing around assertions just to score points is OK if your're a Philiesphiliac?
And no, I am not egotistical enough to presume to speak for the LPNH. But I *am* presumptive enough to criticize someone who's *attitudes* (MORE than actions) flouts the will of the National Convention.
Whom I suported for Presidential nomination is outside the scope of this discussion. Well I vote for Barr maybe but he has some work to do. Well I donate funds to Barr such as I did for Badnarik. Agine maybe but Bob has some work to do.
The quote was from a ballot access story, which in this area is ussualy presumbed to be of good quality. The data for NH 2004 and 2006 is public record look it up at the NH Secretary of States web site elections division. As such is definitly fact. Now can we use past performance as an indicator of future performance? I think we can.
And no not every one has to stick to facts but the author of a publication syuch as this ought to have their facts streight before they publish. Tends to be less embaressing.
How about, Tully, if you stop engaging and supprting public fights among Libertarians and just go talk to you NH Libertarian Executive committee. Or write Dr. Phillies and discuss your opnions with him.
My point about this article is it was ment to be a smear attack, a hit piece, and ok that would be fine but when examined its oppinions arn't based in fact and have no comprehension of the actions and realities within MA and NH.
I am glad to see you running for the NH State house you seem perfect for the job. Clueless about your own state and completely unwilling to let facts obscure a perfectly good argument.
Are you listed as one of the candidates in the NH Libertarian web site? Doesn't look like it. But since I am not sure of your name I could be wrong. I believe Dr. Phillies has had the courtisy to list you on his site and to ask people to vote for you.
By the way while we are discussing Dr Phillies and his anti-Barr actions Reason Magazine has an article containing this paragraph.
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/127124.html
" However, Phillies is actively trying to take his name off the ballot in Massachusetts, his home state; the ACLU is representing the LP in its effort to do just that. "I am the in-state champion of that effort," he told me. "I was the one who contacted the Secretary of the Commonwealth in the first place, the one who advised the ACLU and National that substitution was not being allowed, and the one who asked the ACLU if they would litigate. I also raised the in-state money that is supporting part of the petitioning for any Presidential candidate.""
That last statement about having "raised the in-state money that is supporting part of the petitioning"...
Tully, Josh, Time to drop this smelly drivel of yours.
I'm not letting you off the hook. You can't just throw a dramatic verbal fit and hope I walk away.
First of all, I actually HAVE been in touch with the LPNH Executive Committee, and have been in correspondence with Dr. Phillies. Dont be so presumptive. Hardy Macia of the NH Barr campaign has also been i ntouch with Dr. Phillies, including at the convention, and has received nothing but a cold shoulder.
Second, you claim that I am 'clueless' about my own state. I remind you, that if you peruse this thread, that *I* was the one who insisted from the start that there is no such thing as a placeholder in NH, that there was no proactive effort by the LPNH or Dr Phillies to change that, and that Dr. Phillies was not supporting the LP choice. You appear to woble all over the board, speaking of an ACLU suit (in Mass), the role of placeholders, the abiity to petiton for Barr, and then the improbablity of petitioning for Barr. I know far more about whats going on here in NH than you do, I assure you.
Lastly, are you blindly impassioned that you can not see the internal inconsistency when you wrote,
"Are you listed as one of the candidates in the NH Libertarian web site? Doesn't look like it. But since I am not sure of your name I could be wrong."
and
" I believe Dr. Phillies has had the courtisy to list you on his site and to ask people to vote for you. "
You say you don't know my name, and then make two incredible assertions: that I'm probably not listed on the LPNH site, but I probably am listed on Dr. Phillies site. If you dont know my name, how would you base a claim for either assertion?
Its simple: If it presents Dr. Phillies in a postive light, you'll make the assertion and rush to his defense. If it could work as an ad hominem against me ( or anyone 'attacking' Dr. Phillies), you'l make the opposite assertion at the same time.
This is tiring and sophomoric. I'm done, unless others wish to contribute to the thread,
I deleated the actual addresses but they are public record
goto LPNH web site and see who they list as Candidates (buy the way much much much better the the California LP) I can't find out who is running here and I was going to make some contributions.
http://www.lpnh.org/LPNH/Election_2008.html
No Thomas Simmons Listed
Now go visit http://phillies2008.org/newhampshire1
and if you are in their districts, please also remember these fine pro-liberty Libertarians and independents State Senate District 5 - Howard Wilson of Andover
State House
Cheshire Dist. 5 - Thomas Simmons
Hillsborough Dist. 7 - Lisa Wilbe
Hillsborough Dist. 11 - Morey L. Straus
Hillsborough Dist. 17 - "Rich" Tomasso
Hillsborough Dist. 27 - Matthew Kahn
Merrimack Dist.7 - Kevin Roll
Rockingham Dist. 12 - Philip Nazzaro
Rockingham Dist. 14 - Brendan Kelly
Tully, one subject you seem not to understand is that the resent historical record for New Hampshire Libertarians is that if you wait until after the convention to start your pettition drive you don't make onto the ballot! George and some of the NHLP realized this and they put in the hard work early. Bob Barr could have done this as well but he jumped into the race late. If you wait until after the convention you have about 8 weeks to raise the 3000 signatures... opps better add on a few extras because some of your signatures will be declaired invalid. My best guess is you need ~3500 signatures say 1750 from each of your congressional districts. To do this after the convention you are going to need payed staff again a guess say five dollars per signature works out toaround 20,000 usd.
Bob Barr might make it onto the ballot yet but as of today he only has 43 days left.
Posted By: George Phillies
Date: 2008-07-19 11:58:04
The Decision to continue petitioning for me, rather than restarting for Bob Barr, was made by Sean Haugh, LNC National Political Director, as I would have told you if you had bothered to contact me. LPMass would have been happy either way on this. Haugh made the decision after I presented him with 3 alternatives, namely restart, continue petitioning for me, and continue petitioning for me and litigate, the last being the LNC's decision.
It is noteworthy that Barr/LNC, having been warned that New Hampshire petitioning was highly problematic, appear to have waited from May 26 through to early July before starting to collect signatures, thus losing half of the peititoning period that they did have.
There is no possibility of successful litigation for substitution this year in New Hampshire.
Mr. Thiessen's claims about my book are incorrect. I urge you all to read Funding Liberty!, available at cmlc.org for free, to see the truth. For example, the claim that the LNC gave Harry Browne interest-free loans during his nominating campaign drive is confirmed by the FEC records, filed as true under penalty of perjury.
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.
