Topic: Presidential Campaign 2008
Can't We All Just Get Along?? Political infighting may just rob the Libertarian Party of it's greatest opportunity.by RS Davis
(libertarian)
Friday, August 29, 2008
Hello Freedomphiles! Do you remember the exclusive piece I wrote for The Nolan Chart about the schism in the Libertarian Party between the pragmatists and the purists? Here's a refresher:
If you are ideologically pure, it's really quite easy. You get to sit on the sidelines and bemusedly shake your head at all the people arguing over what flavor of evil they want.
You get to take the high road and make bold pronouncements - while people argue over the best way to save Social Security, you can stand back and proclaim, "End Social Security altogether!"
As the problem gets worse, you get to then go and say "I told you so!" to all the idiots who didn't listen to you in the first place.
The only problem is, they're still not listening...
...But for the political pragmatists, this situation is untenable. For them, it isn't enough to be right - they want success for the party, to gain a larger voice, and to move the country incrementally back toward a more libertarian society.
And they have a point. Last time around, the Libertarian Candidate was the ideologically pure Michael Badnarik (right), and the resultswere dismal, the fallout being that "an estimated 2,000 people left the LP then, and activism dropped off substantially."
Running a largely purist campaign for thirty years has left the Libertarian Party with underwhelming results, with no candidate ever getting more than 2% of the popular vote.
It's an interesting dilemma within the party. Now that we have nominated Bob Barr, a former anti-gay rights drug warrior and signer of The Patriot Act, the party is in a shambles.
Thomas Knapp, libertarian activist and founder of Rational Review, has launched Boston Tea Party, a libertarian alternative that is helping George Phillies, who failed to garner the LP nomination, in states where he was used as a placeholder on the ballot. You see, the national party didn't file in time in New Hampshire and Massachusetts, so Phillies is the de facto candidate.
All this is infuriating to KD Tunstall, author of The Constitutional Militant, who shared with me an advanced look at his article, which will hit the street tomorrow. Here is a relevant excerpt:
I hear those who profess that "the media" blacks us out, or that our candidates couldn't convey "the message" to the electorate, as a reason for electoral losses. Another excuse is that "the playing field isn't level." These are poor excuses at best and completely off target in reality. Though inequality certainly exists in election codes that protect the incumbent political parties, this myopic view of reality fails to grasp the fundamental issues that plague the libertarian movement...
...Now we find ourselves amidst an election for the President of the United States once more. In typical fashion, the caterwauling from the purity police has begun. The candidate "isn't a true libertarian" is their battle cry. I find myself dismayed once more. One candidate who failed to garner the nomination has decided to run an insurgent' campaign in an attempt to deny the rightful nominee his place on the ballot. Let us call the kettle black shall we? This is political cannibalism.
Instead of setting aside our differences and uniting behind a common cause, this faction of ideologues work in an effort to discredit not only the party's nominee, but the party itself. They demand purity while castigating and denigrating those with which they disagree, no matter how small the degree.
I have to say, he makes a pretty compelling case. I am far from sold on Barr's libertarian bone fides, but we have a unique opportunity here to get some big exposure. Bob Barr is a name. People recognize him. George Phillies is...well, George Who?
I'm a realist, and I know that neither man stands a snowball's chance in Hell of winning the presidency - especially when the two monopoly parties are offering a choice between two historical options, one of which gave us the very law (McCain-Feingold) that makes it so hard for us to compete nationally.
But a big turnout can really help the exposure of the Libertarian Party. If we can pull enough disaffected Republicans and Hillary supporters, we could really make a mark. We could be laying the groundwork for inclusion in the process, access to debates, universal ballot access.
This is not the time for division.
There is a place in this party for pragmatists and purists. The pragmatists are the ones who are going to get us election victories. The purists are the ones that will keep the pragmatists honest. We need to realize and embrace these unique and vital roles, forming a coalition that could secure the future of the Libertarian Party.
__________________________ reprinted from The Freedom Files blog.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 15 thumbs so far
The views expressed in this
article are those of RS Davis only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. RS Davis 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.
I find it sick that you title this "Can't We All Just Get Along??" and then go on to highlight a piece of propaganda that is slamming another member and branch of the party.
Lets be very clear that Tunstal, is calling for a purge of the MA branch of the LP. Tunstal's main reason for doing so is because the MA LP hasn't gotton behind Barr's campeight od so Tunstal claims. Tunstal takes exception to George Phillies statement that the Party running Barr is similar to the grand wizard of the KKK being the candidate for an African American party. Why would Gorge make this type of statement? Could it be that when Barr was a congressman he actively sought to not allow memebers of the Wiccan religion in the US military practice their religion. Could it be that the MA party has a large number of Wiccan members? Here we are in a time of war and members of the Wiccan faith killed in action had to fight to have their tomb stones engraved with a symbol of their religion.
Yes what Barr did in the past is very offensive to a number of groups. I myself hope that he has indeed found the light in terms of religious and sexual tolerence.
But to call for a purge of the party of the same members of the faith that Barr so actively tried to discriminate against in the past is not only extreamy offensive but STUPID!. If the practical libertarians really want to get along with the purest libertarians then stop this behavior!
I find it sick that you title this "Can't We All Just Get Along??" and then go on to highlight a piece of propaganda that is slamming another member and branch of the party.
Sick? Really? Isn't that a bit of an over-reaction? Did I highlight the part where he calls for a purge?
No, I highlighted the part where he said we needed to be unified.
No i think calling it sick is the correct reaction!
For example. The title of Tunstal's trash is "They Eat Their Own". It has a definition of Canablism followed by 18 paragraphs that you find persuasive. That I find to be insulting rubish. Of those 18 paragraphs, 13 are basically a call for a purge and a banning of Phillies.
The over reaction is the calling for the purge. I am making my own call. If you want party unity don't do it this way!
I agree. That's why I didn't highlight that part. The LP would be well within its rights to do so, though, as Barr is the man chosen according to party rules, and they are undermining that.
But I only took that part of it for a reason (we writers try to pare it down to the main point with which we agree, after all), and that was to illustrate a point I have been making for some time.
You focus so much on the controvercial nature of his piece that you cannot see any truth in it, nor can you see that what you have focused on is in no way my point.
Starting with the title 75% of his piece is not only controversial but bigoted. The fact that you left his title off of your bit leaves me to conclude that you knew his KD's title was controversial. I am sure that if we look hard and fast we can probably find a paragraph or two in Mein Kampf that isn't controversial.But I would never wnat my named liked with it.
1) it calls for a purge of the MA party which is made up heavily of Wiccans.
2) it uses the rational that the leader of the MA party said that because of Bob Barr's past history of persecuting Wiccans in the military that there is a similarity to having the Grand Wizard of the KKK be the leader of an African American Party.
3) Essentially what "They Eat Their Own" calls for is a continuation of that persecution.
Its not bigoted against the Wiccan faith. There may be a correllation there, but I saw nothing in his article against the Wiccan faith, so I have to assume it is purely coincidental.
Your logic is very unlibertarian - its like those that say that just because there aren't a lot of black people in a certain industry, it is the product of racism, rather than other factors.
It is the kind of hyperbolic vitriol I thought contained to the left/right political spectrum - but I don't usually write about politics, prefering policy, so I guess I was naiive.
It still completely detracts from and actually reinforces my larger point - that we better snap out of it, stop all this stupid in-fighting, and get behind our candidate before it is too late.
Let me set the record straight for you 'Steve' You see, I don't treat members of racial or ethnic groups with 'intolerance.' It would be quite self-defeating as half my family is Hispanic and my 'running mate' last year was black. Your 'ethnicity' and 'racial' makeup is of no concern in my eyes. If you are worried about my views on gays.....I fought, and lost a battle against the constitutional amendment that banned such 'contracts.'
But this isn't about race, sexual preference or any such topic. This is about a party officer who stated to me that he would NOT seek to fulfill his obligation pursuant to our statement of purpose. Nothing else....nothing more.
Tell me, if you were a 'stockholder' of a 'corporation' and you had a 'manager' that openly stated that your 'product sucked' and that the CEO was 'Hitler' would you not move to replace this manager? Of course you would.
In the end, you must make a decision whether or not you wish to have a 'political party' or a 'debating society.' If you desire the latter.....head on over to the BTP. I for one want a relevant political party to turn back the tide of tyranny.
What is quite disingenious is to think you have to be of european decent in order to hold and advocate bigoted ideas. You attack on the MA party your unwillingness to look at the issue from their perspective defines you. Not me. I am just holding the light up and letting others see what you are really up to.
KD suppose in your example the CEO was Hitler? Would I move to replace that manager for telling the truth? Now I am not calling Bob Barr hitler he isn't. But he has problems with his past record that are offensive to groups within the party. And to have any chance of success you don't solve a short term infection with Amputation.
My attitude is unlibertarian? I am not the one advocating a purge of the MA branch for one member utilizing his first amendment rights to explain why Bob Barr is so offensive to that regional group. RS, I suggest you go back and think about who in this discussion is trying to surpress fundamental rights.
A skilled politician, would upon finding out that there is deep division within the ranks would attempt to make peace between the groups. To pull the party together. KD's garbage is the exact opposet. Rather then trying to make peace within the party it is a blatent attack on one wing of the party an intention attempt to break the party up. So I leave it up to you KD, Ether you did not bother to find out what Phillies was refering too which would be poor if not stupid journalism or you did know which would be bigotry. What I suggest is you retract your piece.
One more thing, you don't build as in make larger by telling others to get out. Which is what KD has done not only to the MA lp but now also to me.
So my other response KD is grow up, become a smarter politcian. learn a little tolerence for the view point of others and stop inciting purges!
You said "No, your logic is unlibertarian." I didn't expect to convince you. I will leave the judgement about my logic up to people who are less emotionally attached to your drivel.
You said "No, your logic is unlibertarian." I didn't expect to convince you. I will leave the judgement about my logic up to people who are less emotionally attached to your drivel.
I believe you are the one who is getting emotional here. All I said was, "There is a place in this party for pragmatists and purists. The pragmatists are the ones who are going to get us election victories. The purists are the ones that will keep the pragmatists honest. We need to realize and embrace these unique and vital roles, forming a coalition that could secure the future of the Libertarian Party."
I think it is obvious who is being reasonable, here.
Thanks for helping to drive traffic to my article.
"All I said was, There..." and linked to an article that you quote and call compelling that upon examination comes is reavel for calling for a purge within the party for a certain group of people that Bob Barr has intentionaly hurt in the past. In case we once again for get the article that you have yet to cite by name is entitled "They Eat There Own". Again I leave the judgement at this point to others.
First...Steve..I did look at the issue from 'their' perspective. However, 'the body' (the LP...delegates) have SPOKEN. This debate is over (for the nomination).
Yes, I am of European decent, so what? I am English, Irish, Scottish, African and Aboriginal. You have a problem with my 'ethnicity?' Seems you are the bigot in this discussion my friend. You are the one who is bandying about the term 'bigot'...not me. I would venture to guess that my 'lineage' is rather more diverse than your own.
No...you aren't calling Barr Hitler...but Phillies is suggesting that Barr 'the grand wizard of the KKK. That is the 'perception' from the press and 'perception becomes reality' in politics. As usual, the ideologues pick at the splinter in others eyes while ignoring the log in their own.
Sure his 'past record' is 'offensive' for which he has apologized. It is unfortunate the 'forgiveness' is not part of the lexicon of your faction. Whatever your 'theological' mindset, forgiveness is a cornerstone to peace.
I 'solve' the problem by codifying in our bylaws the ability of the Judiciary Committee to handle "officers" that refuse to advance 'the cause' of the 'party' (delegation). You have a different view obviously and I would contend that it is due to the fact that you are an armchair general who has never walked a block for a candidate.
I never suggested your 'attitude' was 'unlibertarian.' I suggested that you are being hypocritical. Get it right please and do not put words in my mouth.
No one is 'suggesting' the suppression of anyones 'fundamental rights.' You simply wish to grow government because you perceive that it advances your agenda. Government should not be involved in marriage....you wish to make it so.
Phillies was explaining the problem that the MA lp has with Barr. Phillies never said Barr was a KKK grand Wizard. He said that because Barr had as a congressman had attempted to deprive members of the military equal rights to religious services that the group Barr had deprived was very hoostile to Barr. Then like you he drew an analogy. For Phillies telling the world what the problem wa in MA you think he should be kicked out of the party including the rest of the MA members and further Phillies should be baned from party leadership.
Why is it that the victums of Barr should have to forgive but you shouldn't?
As to if I want to grow government or not? Where is your evidence? This is a red hearing! Nor do you have any knowledge of my faction.
As to my accusations, that you are acting as a bigot 1) your call for a purge of the MA Party knowing that it has a large number of Wiccans. You could withdraw this idea and you choose knowing the history to continue.
Where I accuse you of hypocracy is that you want to advance freedom unless that meens where members of your own party use their first amendment rights to explain the problems of the current leaders. When that happens you then want to impose the most tyrannical action you can take and you call for them to be purged for not being willing to subgegate themselves to your ideas.
KD, Where did I say that Government should be involved in marriage? You are making up lies. Is this the best your limited intelect can produce?
I appoligize, but I have to make one more comment.
I have to look at Bob Barr and his position and what he may or may not be trying to accomplish.
Bob Barr may have joined the Libertarian Party Because:
1) He has really made a change in his view of the political situation here in the US and he wants to be part of correction.
If I was religious I would say bless him. Since, I am not, but I do have hope for my fellow hummans, I am willing to give Bob the benefit of my doubt and more then likely I will vote for him. I have already made a donation and if he gets on the New Hampshire ballot I have made a promise to Eric Dondero (sp? my strength ;)) that I will make another donation.
2) That Bob Barr is just using the Libertarian Party to advance his name and maybe makes a couple of million selling a book about this campeign season.
Ok if that is what Bob ends up with and he benefits the core libertarian phylosphy. I will say that Congressman Barr seems to be running a very active campaign.
3) That Bob Barr is part of some conspiracy to destroy the LP. Well I think that is just silly. I think that we will be vistited by space aliens first.
So what would I like to see.
Well you know, Bob isn't bad at handling the media. I think give Congressman Barr a chance and he will advance the libertarian ideas (ok not all of his ideas match mine but I am all right with that).
Am I going to vote for Bob Barr? He actions have made that much more likely. And even if I don't I might provide his campaign more of my cash because I think he is working for it and I think that it might have some effect (also the irs just sent me a letter teling me I owe another 29 bucks and some change from a couple of years ago). Bob we are going to fire those sob's asap?
Whether I believe in the Bob Barr reformation or not, he won't be president, so it's all upside where the party is concerned. If he had a chance, I'd have more worries.
Relevant to the quote from George in your article provided below, could you please provide a link or reference to your source, including the date. If the quote was prior to the Convention, that's one thing; if the quote came from George after the Convention ... that's another. For starters, George rose several notches in my eyes when he made the gracious remarks in Convention that "The enemy is not in this room." If the quote below was *post* convention, then George has flipped-flopped against his own convention remarks.
{I have asked Mr. Phillies if he would set his differences aside and work in unison with other party members. He refused. He has likened Barr, as a Libertarian candidate, to the “Imperial Wizard of the KKK” being nominated “to lead a party of African Americans.” This comment, quoted often in the press, from a sitting party officer I find repugnant.}
Posted By: Thomas L. Knapp
Date: 2008-08-29 23:02:10
Can we all get along? Probably not.
There are damn near as many definitions of "libertarian" as there are people applying the label to themselves. The bigger the tent gets, the more conflicts are going to take place under it, and when one crowd with similar values begins to become dominant within the tent, smaller crowds with differing values are more prone to go shopping for tents of their own.
That's not necessarily a bad thing. When two crowds that aren't getting along well decide to take up different tents, hopefully both tents will be less prone to internal conflict, more able to pursue doing the things they got together to do ... and room is made for new people in both tents. Different tents also allow for different approaches, giving us all a laboratory environment in which to compare such approaches (and people in one tent might decide to adopt an approach first tried in a different tent if they see that that approach works).
Look: A person's vote, a person's choice to be politically active, etc., belong to that person, not to a particular party. If one party's decisions (for example, choices of candidates) don't satisfy that person, he or she is -- and should be -- free to take his or her vote and activism somewhere else.
The votes of libertarians don't just magically "belong" to the Libertarian Party, and if Rasmussen, the Pew Research Center and the Cato Institute are right, the LP has never even been particularly good at getting them -- those organizations show double-digit percentages of, by one definition or another, libertarian voters, and the LP has never polled better than 1.1% in a presidential election.
The votes of libertarians have to be earned, not just expected -- and if the LP isn't willing and able to earn them, blaming the Boston Tea Party for the fact that it didn't get them is just sour grapes.
I will be surprised -- as a matter of fact, I'll probably have a coronary -- if the Boston Tea Party's presidential slate receives more votes than the Libertarian Party's presidential slate in any state this year. Not because we're not willing to earn those votes, but because we're not yet able to. We're a new party and we have a lot of work to do to be able to get about that business effectively.
I will be even more surprised if I hear a single voter say "well, I had really planned to vote for Bob Barr, but the BTP convinced me otherwise." The voters we reach will be voters who were undecided and made a comparison and a choice on their own, or who came to the BTP because they rejected Barr rather than vice versa, or whom we reached, on our own initiative, before the LP did ... which, given the LP's 32-year head start, is hardly grounds for a complaint of unfairness.
As far as the BTP "helping" George Phillies, I'm not aware of any material assistance. The BTP's national committee (on which I do not sit, and to which I recommended otherwise) to endorse the Phillies/Bennett ticket in Massachusetts and New Hampshire, just like it decided to endorse other Libertarian Party candidates in other states where the BTP doesn't have its own ballot access yet.
Eloquent as usual. I definitely don't think that the LP needs to be taking action againt Phillies or anything, but I do think it is inappropriate for an active party officer to be undermining his party's candidate for president.
Most importantly, though, I think it is vital that we all stick together right now, because we have a unique opportunity to make some great advances for the LP for future ballot access and visibility of libertarian ideas.
To anyone else reading this, I highly recommend you put Mr Knapp's Rational Review in your bookmarks and visit it daily:
Posted By: Walt Thiessen
Date: 2008-08-30 06:13:49
Excuse me if I avoid the thrust of all this point and counterpoint. I want to take a moment to emphasize a key point that the author made. He wrote, "The pragmatists are the ones who are going to get us election victories."
Really? If that's true, then what does Bob Barr have to worry about?
Excuse me if I avoid the thrust of all this point and counterpoint. I want to take a moment to emphasize a key point that the author made. He wrote, "The pragmatists are the ones who are going to get us election victories."
Really? If that's true, then what does Bob Barr have to worry about?
Thanks for stopping by, Walt!
They are only going to be able to do it with the help of party purists. That is why it is essential for both camps to coexist peacefully in the party and work together.
Neither can accomplish anything significant without the other.
Posted By: Walt Thiessen
Date: 2008-08-30 07:04:17
"They are only going to be able to do it with the help of party purists"
Thanks. You're the first one arguing for the Barr side who has acknowledged that blatantly obvious fact. In politics, when you want someone to work on your behalf, you reach out to them and make accommodations with them. You try to win them over to your side. You don't ridicule them for having objections.
So here's my next question. Why hasn't Barr done that???? What haven't his supporters done that? Instead of asking their candidate to come clean on the issues the purists are concerned about in order to make peace with the purists, the pragmatists have criticized the purists for their failure to walk in lockstep. They've criticized the very people they want to win over.
I'm glad you admit that in fact, the pragmatists CAN'T win without the purists. Why, then, do the so-called "pragmatists" insist on treating the purists as pariahs? What, exactly, is "pragmatic" about that?
It just doesn't make sense...unless Barr doesn't really think that the purists matter, which has been my argument all along. He doesn't really care about them or their concerns. And if that's the case, why should they be concerned about his needs as a candidate?
All this sounds very much like the internal politics of another political party we're all familiar with...the Republicans. They give their verbal appreciation for the "purity" of the Ron Paul supporters who are trying to refocus them on values that Republicans claim to have (but don't really subscribe to, in that they don't "walk the walkt"), but when Ron Paul supporters have the temerity to refuse to support McCain, the McCainites jump all over the Paulites.
I don't really see how either the McCainites or the Barrites can win with that strategy.
Thanks. You're the first one arguing for the Barr side who has acknowledged that blatantly obvious fact. In politics, when you want someone to work on your behalf, you reach out to them and make accommodations with them. You try to win them over to your side. You don't ridicule them for having objections.
So here's my next question. Why hasn't Barr done that???? What haven't his supporters done that? Instead of asking their candidate to come clean on the issues the purists are concerned about in order to make peace with the purists, the pragmatists have criticized the purists for their failure to walk in lockstep. They've criticized the very people they want to win over.
I'm glad you admit that in fact, the pragmatists CAN'T win without the purists. Why, then, do the so-called "pragmatists" insist on treating the purists as pariahs? What, exactly, is "pragmatic" about that?
Let me preface my response by saying that I am not a Barr supporter - I was pulling for Ron Paul, and when he failed, for Mary Ruwart. I've never really been very enamoured of Barr, and I am skeptical about his libertarian conversion.
That said, I have no idea what's going on in the Barr camp. I'm really kind of arguing from the outside position, as I've never been that intimately involved in party politics. I just look at all this fighting, and I realize the monopoly parties love it - they know that as long as we don't have our house in order, we are absolutely no threat to them at all.
I do know from my reading that he has completely disavowed his unlibertarian positions from his days in the GOP, and even apologized for them at the LP convention. (I just don't know if I believe him.) Is there something more that you would like to see him do?
PS: Regarding " Excuse me if I avoid the thrust of all this point and counterpoint."
No excuse needed - more appropriate is a thank you. You're one of the only people who didn't miss the point of what I wrote. You saw a bunch of trees and realized it was a forest.
Posted By: Walt Thiessen
Date: 2008-08-30 07:32:46
"I do know from my reading that he has completely disavowed his unlibertarian positions from his days in the GOP, and even apologized for them at the LP convention. (I just don't know if I believe him.) Is there something more that you would like to see him do?"
Sure, that's easy to answer. I'd like to see him actually reach out to those who don't support him within the party, for the exact reasons you described in your comment. Because ultimately, mere disavowal and apology is good, but it's not enough. If it were enough, you wouldn't doubt his "conversion" Rick! Most of us want to know all the details as to WHY he changed his mind, and WHY he's apologizing. What does he see now as wrong about his earlier decisions? What changed his mind? How did his horrible decisions in Congress come back to haunt his dreams at night? What were the exact terrible consequences he saw from those decisions he made? What are the details that would tell us why we should believe that his conversion is genuine and not merely a dog-and-pony show designed to con his critics?
It's all in the details, in the attitude, and in the effort, all of which are lacking from Barr. Instead, his comments in these regards have been extremely limited and perfunctory. They demonstrate no real desire to make peace. Instead, they demonstrate the desire to benefit from peace within the party without actually having to make it.
I haven't seen any publicity from the Barr campaign about, for instance, reaching out and making peace with Ruwart or any of the others who were candidates and were disturbed by his nomination. That's Politics 101. The Democrats got Hillary to speak in Barrack's behalf at their convention. Barr couldn't be bothered to get Mary to speak in his behalf even after the convention!
This is evidence once again that Barr really doesn't care.
It's really too late for Barr at this point. He should have been spending the end of May and all of June to make these overtures. But if we could somehow turn back the clock, I'd have recommended that an honest video interview between, say, Ruwart and Barr be made to give Ruwart the chance to really grill him on the issues that many of us find are lacking. That's the only way to erase the doubts that you, yourself, admit to still having.
I totally get what you are saying, and I cannot argue the points you make. The purist in me completely agrees.
The pragmatist in me, though, realizes that all of that is moot because he is not going to be our next president. The pragmatist says we should swallow our doubt and vote for him, because of what it could accomplish for the next LP candidate - who we may like better, and who can benefit from our support for Barr right now.
Rick, why should we behave as pragmastists when the so-called "pragmatists" refuse to behave as pragmatists???
I guess it is like the difference between "Big L" Libertarians and "small l" libertarians. I'm not asking people to fall in line with the Pragmatists, but to just think about this pragmatically.
We have a lot to gain by supporting Barr, and so much to lose by not.
Posted By: Thomas L. Knapp
Date: 2008-08-30 08:01:33
RS,
A couple of things. You write:
"I do know from my reading that he has completely disavowed his unlibertarian positions from his days in the GOP, and even apologized for them at the LP convention."
Things would be much easier for him if that was the case. However, it's not.
For example, he did issue a partial apology for the Defense of Marriage Act at the convention. Two days after the convention, he was arguing on national television that DOMA is really libertarian if we just look at it the right way, because "libertarianism" really means "states rights." Ditto for the Patriot Act. Sometimes he apologizes for supporting it. Other times he tries to paint support for it as an act of libertarian defense of freedom, saying that he had to vote for it in order to get limitations on it.
"The pragmatist says we should swallow our doubt and vote for him, because of what it could accomplish for the next LP candidate - who we may like better, and who can benefit from our support for Barr right now."
There are two sides to that. The side you mention is one. The other side is that support for Barr will encourage the LP to nominate more candidates like Barr, while non-support for Barr will encourage Libertarians to say to themselves, "well, guess we'd better not try to pull that kind of bullshit on our members, activists and voters ever again."
Posted By: Walt Thiessen
Date: 2008-08-30 08:47:49
"We have a lot to gain by supporting Barr, and so much to lose by not."
I couldn't disagree more. That's the rationale that gave us George W. Bush. Without libertarian/patriot support, the Republicans can't win. So long as they refuse to honor our principles once elected, we should stop supporting them, because to do anything else is to LOSE. The same thing now holds true for the Libertarian Party, which is attempting to emulate the Republican Party's example.
At the end of the first Harry Potter movie, Professor Dumbledore had some "last minute points" to award before deciding which of the four student houses had won the house cup. After giving points to Hermione, Ron, and Harry which tied Gryffindor with Slytherin, Dumbledore finally turned to Neville Longbottom and said, "And finally, it takes a great deal of courage to stand up to your enemies, but it takes a great deal more to stand up to your friends." And he awarded the last 10 points to Neville, thus winning the house cup for Gryffindor.
This is about standing up to one's friends. If we don't do it, we'll end up voting once again for the lesser of two, three, four, or perhaps five evils, and when that happens the result is always evil.
But if we who are the true patriots, the true libertarians, the true defenders of liberty, refuse to throw our support behind people who only give lip-service to what we believe in, then they will finally learn the hard way that they can't win without us. Then, and only then, will we be taken seriously by our "friends."
"Almost immediately after Barr secured the nomination, Phillies told Reason magazine that the Massachusetts Libertarians might hold a state convention to nominate a separate candidate. "Nominating this man," he is quoted as saying of Barr, "is the equivalent of nominating an Imperial Wizard of the KKK to lead a party of African-Americans." He repeated a variation of this statement on the state party's website shortly afterward."
My point Mr Knapp is that had Mary, or George (or any other candidate for that matter) secured the nomination, I would have performed my duty as a member and done my job of getting them votes. I respect 'the will of the body.' It is unfortunate that Phillies et al can not.
There are two sides to that. The side you mention is one. The other side is that support for Barr will encourage the LP to nominate more candidates like Barr, while non-support for Barr will encourage Libertarians to say to themselves, "well, guess we'd better not try to pull that kind of bullshit on our members, activists and voters everagain."
But who pulled what on whom, here? These members, activists, and voters that you mention are the people that voted for him. And if other people sat on the sidelines while a few got Barr in, perhaps that will encourage them to get off their asses and get involved next time, yes?
But if we who are the true patriots, the true libertarians, the true defenders of liberty, refuse to throw our support behind people who only give lip-service to what we believe in, then they will finally learn the hard way that they can't win without us. Then, and only then, will we be taken seriously by our "friends."
First of all, kudos on the Harry Potter reference - I'm a fan, read every book.
The problem I see in your analysis is that they haven't been winning with us. If we stomp our feet and hold our breath and they pull even the 5% that he is polling at now, what they'll learn is maybe they don't even need us at all.
They can completely sell out and do well without us, but without us there, they won't even resemble libertarians.
As you know, there are many libertarian arguments on both sides of many issues. But what the purists can do is make sure that framework of liberty for arguing positions doesn't go away.
We can keep the party honest. But that is not going to happen if we simply wash our hands of it and go away. If we do that, we'll end up back where we started - a handful of smug intellectuals who know what's right, but are impotent to do anything about it.
I see it as an organizational issue. Officers should not disparage their own organization, or candidates.....AFTER they have been nominated. Prior to nomination is a different story. Neutrality would be in order. Obviously this does not apply to activist and campaign workers.....strictly party officers.
It is a sad day when a libertarian is threatened for speaking the truth by another libertarian. I can not believe that we would even discous throwing a state chapter out of the party for one of its members just speaking honestly!
What George said as divisive as it is is the truth with respect to his state party. Since when is the truth repugnant?
http://www.religioustolerance.org/burn_aw2.htm
On or near May 31st George Phillies wrote
"As state chair of LP of Massachusetts, I am now in a rather difficult position. Not ten years ago, Bob Barr tried to persuade the army to ban Wicca services from fields near Fort Hood. He also, I am told by Arthur Torrey, referred to Arthur’s religion as ‘bogus’.
I am in the same position as a State Chair who has a majority-African-American State Committee, and whose Presidential candidate was, ten years ago, a Grand Dragon of the KKK who spent his time trying to persuade storeowners not to rent out their storefronts to African-American churches."
On July 30th it was reported that Bob Barr reversed his position on the Wiccan religion
Posted By: Walt Thiessen
Date: 2008-08-30 12:46:34
"The problem I see in your analysis is that they haven't been winning with us."
This stands in stark contrast to your earlier claim, "Running a largely purist campaign for thirty years has left the Libertarian Party with underwhelming results, with no candidate ever getting more than 2% of the popular vote."
So make up your mind...have all the candidates been purist, or have there been pragmatist candidates who couldn't win with or without purist support?
There really isn't any reason to believe Barr will get 5%, you know, but let's suppose for a mintue that the miracle happens. Even if he does, and if he does it without purists, I'll gladly say goodbye to the LP, because it's no big feat to build a third version of the Republicrats, and I have no desire to be a part of such a feat. Do you?
You said previously that the pragmatists can't win without the purists. Now, you're claiming that it doesn't make any difference, saying, "what they'll learn is maybe they don't even need us at all."
Once again, make up your mind. Which is it?
The bottom line is that the pragmatists are counting on the purists to buckle and collapse out of fear that they'll be left behind at the station. Similarly, the Republican pragmatists are playing the same fear game, hoping that the Ron Paul supporters will fear that they'll be left behind too.
At least the Ron Paul supporters who have joined the Campaign for Liberty haven't fallen for that trap.
So why do you insist on falling into it? Not only isn't your fear real (FEAR - False Evidence Appearing Real), it's an argument for political codependence. Get the news, Rick. Codependence is unhealthy.
It's time for the real advocates of liberty to grow a backbone.
Posted By: Thomas L. Knapp
Date: 2008-08-30 12:51:47
KD, You write:
"My point Mr Knapp is that had Mary, or George (or any other candidate for that matter) secured the nomination, I would have performed my duty as a member and done my job of getting them votes. I respect 'the will of the body.' It is unfortunate that Phillies et al can not."
I hate to split hairs here, but there's no such thing as "your duty as a member," other to certify that you do not support the initiation of force to achieve social or political goals. The party is not entitled to the support of its members -- it has to earn that support (in the eyes of those it's trying to earn it from), and if it doesn't it shouldn't expect that support.
However, you do have a valid point insofar as Mr. Phillies is more than just a "member" of the LP -- he's the chair of one of its state affiliates, and was a delegate to the national convention. These two roles entail additional obligations.
As I understand it, Mr. Phillies judged his obligations as a delegate and candidate as conflicting with his obligations as chair of a state party which seems to have rejected the convention's outcome. I understand your holding that the former obligations trump the latter; but as far as I can tell the conflict is genuine.
I'm in no position to claim non-hypocrisy myself here, but neither do I see the situation as being as uncomplicated as you seem to think it is. And insofar as hypocrisy is concerned, I recall that some of the same people screeching for "party loyalty" to Barr for President pooh-poohed the "party loyalty" argument when they were supporting Republican Tom McClintock, rather than the LP's duly selected nominee, for governor of California in 2003, or when they were fronting a "Libertarians for Bush" effort in 2004, or when they were yelling for Libertarians to support Ron Paul's Republican presidential candidacy earlier this year.
The answer to the question "can we all get along?" is probably "no, except in the short term and on certain issues." Personally, I wish all of the putatively libertarian candidates for public office this year, under any party label, luck -- some more so than others -- and hope that their campaigns produce useful lessons (on strategy, on what libertarianism is, on whatever) learned. That's probably the best we can hope for.
Read my article at this site, HOW LIBERTARIANS CAN WIN. It's too late this year, but we should start planning for 2012 today. It's not a choice of purity or electability. The right candidate can sell the public on our pure principles by telling them what's in it for them. The right candidate can get more media attention than Bob Barr. The right candidate can attract big money. We don't have to chose purity or incrementalism. We can have purity and success if done correctly. In fact, that's the only way we succeed.
Steve....I misunderstood your position regarding the bigot quote.... and am still trying to figure out how you think that I am a 'bigot.'
If the apoligy was directed to me for that comment, it is accepted. Regardless, you still need to clue me in what and why you felt this way.
Additionally, I see that on Aug 14, George has decided that Wes Benedict is 'totally unfit' to be the LP Exec Director
[link edited for length]
Yep...he sure knows how to make friends with us Texans don't you think? The 'resources' he speaks of is 'ballot base' which carried NO COST to utilize.
So George is pissed because Wes gave money to Ron Paul? Too damn bad. Wes, as an individual, is free to give money to whoever he wishes. And....let us be quite honest. Ron Paul is a far better 'public' example of 'libertarian' than George Phillies could ever hope to be.
I know Wes personally and he is a fine individual and a very dedicated employee of the party as well as having a proven track record of success.
"The problem I see in your analysis is that they haven't been winning with us."
This stands in stark contrast to your earlier claim, "Running a largely purist campaign for thirty years has left the Libertarian Party with underwhelming results, with no candidate ever getting more than 2% of the popular vote."
So make up your mind...have all the candidates been purist, or have there been pragmatist candidates who couldn't win with or without purist support?
I'm confused by this. When I say us, I mean purists. You know, I really think most of us are purists at heart - after all, why would we even be Libertarians otherwise?
You said previously that the pragmatists can't win without the purists. Now, you're claiming that it doesn't make any difference, saying, "what they'll learn is maybe they don't even need us at all."Once again, make up your mind. Which is it?
They can win without us, sure, but they won't be libertarians anymore, most likely. They'll be more like the Reform Party or the Constitution Party, or even the GOP. What our function - besides being a helpful voting block - is in keeping them honest. We don't want to lose them, halve our already small number, and start over from scratch.
It's a symbiotic relationship. The pragmatists get things done. Without them, we may as well be working at some think tank, casually removed from it all. But we want progress, yes?
There really isn't any reason to believe Barr will get 5%, you know, but let's suppose for a mintue that the miracle happens. Even if he does, and if he does it without purists, I'll gladly say goodbye to the LP, because it's no big feat to build a third version of the Republicrats, and I have no desire to be a part of such a feat. Do you?
No, but I also have no desire to abandon all the gains we've made through stupid in-fighting, and start all over with the same irrellevance. It's taken us 30 years to get what little credibility we have.
Beside that, all we'd be doing with a move like that is, as I said before, is become again "a handful of smug intellectuals who know what's right, but are impotent to do anything about it."
We have great principles, and we have right on our side, but the history of human civilization has not been a march toward liberty, but precisely the opposite.
We lost our freedoms a little at a time, and we're not going to be able to get it back all at once. We need the pragmatists if we are going to get anything done. The question is - do you want to be right, or do you want to accomplish something good?
Posted By: Walt Thiessen
Date: 2008-08-30 15:50:59
"It's a symbiotic relationship. The pragmatists get things done."
This is a truism that has no basis in reality that I've ever seen. Pragmatists talk about getting things done, but it's activists who actually get things done, and most of the best activists I've ever met are much closer to purists than they are to pragmatists.
The sum total of your argument is that we should be the bastions of principles by caving in on principle for the mirage of short-term gain. One day, I hope you'll learn that that simply doesn't work, and in fact it never has worked. It has always worked to our disadvantage...without exception.
If I was a pragmatist and I knew that my Candidate had a few skeletons in his closset, I would let the heat about them simmer down and not be out blogging, picking fights with the people those skeletons had effected.
The people repeating George Phillie's words are supposed to be Barr supporters but every time they bring the subject more people get informed as to how anti-libertarian Barr was in the past and how slow and almost non-commental he was at changing his intolerent position.
No the appology was directed to the readers I specifically am not appoligizing to you. I ment every word about how bad and destructive your diatribe was. I stand behind, thinking you ether were ignorant about the back ground behind Phillie's statement or you didn't care and where just using it as a means to attack Phillies and the MALP. If the later that is where the bigot statement comes from (attacking the victims of persecution for political gain). If the former then you work was lazy journalism at best.
This is a truism that has no basis in reality that I've ever seen. Pragmatists talk about getting things done, but it's activists who actually get things done, and most of the best activists I've ever met are much closer to purists than they are to pragmatists.
Activists are very pragmatic - they tend to compartmentalize and take things one at a time. The best activists have always been single-issue activists. Pro choice activists don't try to get people to swallow the entire Democratic platform - they'd be ignored. Instead, they form coalitions from many ideologies and work one issue at a time.
Think about our losses of liberty. The Great Society wasn't the Great Socialist Movement - it was a War on Poverty. The Drug War wasn't the Great Fascist Movement. These things were singled out and made palatable by not forcing everyone to change their entire world view.
Even positive change - the slaves weren't freed and made equal citizens overnight. It was necessarily an incremental process. No one at the time would have accepted the whole ball of wax at once.
The same holds true right now with advances in gay rights and drug war victories. We win one battle at a time, and we don't force our Democratic brothers to accept a Libertarian ideology simply because we might agree on marraige rights or personal freedom.
So you agree with Phillies that the 'national party is in the grip of southern white bigots'? Is that where you get your view to accuse me of being a bigot? If so....kiss my white southern a$$
It isn't the national party that is controlled by bigots. It is people like YOU Steve who are bigoted against anyone other than those who agree with you completely
And for what it is worth, I believe that a 'just' conclusion of this problem is to yank the charter of the LPMA. Yes...this IS the only solution to set an example of those who exhibit 'conduct injurious to the purpose' of the party.
If that includes yourself...so be it. Have fun playing in the BTP sandbox. I am sure you will finally figure out how many anarchist can dance on the head of a pin.
RS...you will NEVER be able to reason with the 'radical' faction. They DO NOT understand politics.
I could care less at this point if they all left.
Oh...and BTW .... I am free to say what I please because I AM NO LONGER AN OFFICER OF THE PARTY.
The peanut gallary does not understand this simply point. The perfidious actions by this faction is not to be admired, it is to be admonished. And Phillies? .... He is a sore loser and a joke.
During the LP National Convention, George Phillies gave a very gracious concession speech ... pointing out "The enemy is not in this room." With that concession speech, my respect for George rose tremendously. Despite the emotion in Mr. Tunstall's remarks, his link below does appear to provide some hard evidence: very soon after giving that gracious speech, Mr. Phillies apparently stomped right out, and gave a statement to Reason magazine. That statement appears to have denigrated the decision of the National LP Body, and appears to have libeled the newly nominated LP candidate for President. Apparently, George changed his mind, or maybe he didn't believe his own words ... since he apparently considers Bob Barr to be his mortal enemy.
George, if you're monitoring this chain and these assertions are true, please note you lost the high ground and my respect by comparing the candidate selected by the National Delegates to be similar to a KKK Imperial Wizard. Subversion of the will of the National Delegates is a pretty serious offense to the body.
When Mr. Barr made the very difficult personal decision to abandon the "dark side" and join the LP, he was making a serious personal sacrifice. He burned his bridges to the Establishment ... costing him financially. Also, unlike George & most of the other candidates, a Barr candidacy has/had the potential to elicit blowback from the Establishment. If Barr had actually come close to getting in the debates, and actually winning the Presidency, he probably would have been risking his very life ... and, I don't mean his political life.
I am appalled at so many LP members' lack of appreciation to Mr. Barr for being willing to make such a profound personal sacrific. Since the "first stone" has already been cast, I guess it's moot to recite the Christian story about Jesus, the prostitute ... and, asking he without sin to cast the first stone.
"Almost immediately after Barr secured the nomination, Phillies told Reason magazine that the Massachusetts Libertarians might hold a state convention to nominate a separate candidate. "Nominating this man," he is quoted as saying of Barr, "is the equivalent of nominating an Imperial Wizard of the KKK to lead a party of African-Americans." He repeated a variation of this statement on the state party's website shortly afterward."
There you go again. I don't know enough of the current leadership to say if the party is in the hands of this group or that. If I made blanket statements about groups of people I would be sinking to your level.
Guy,
Did you even bother to figure out the sequence of events. 1) 1999 Congressman Barr in a display of religious intollerence tries to get the Military to ban the religious practices of members of the Wiccan faith. 2) In the reported quotes George Phillies didn't called Bob Barr a Grand Wizzard of the KKK he drew analogy to the situation that he George Phillies was in with his Branch of the Libertarian Party haveing a lot of members of the Wiccan faith. 3) Only after that did Bob Barr in one interview back off from his attacks on the Wiccans.
If this were ever to be brought up before any kind of reasonable jury it would be laughed out of the court.
Every time this comes up it puts Bob Barr in a bad light. It shows how intolerent he has been in the past of others.
Posted By: Chris D. Calvin, Ph.D.
Date: 2008-08-31 12:25:24
Because I'm an independent chiming in, I will with-hold comment on the individuals and internal strife obviously playing out here. I speak as an outsider who watched a noble effort in our local community by KD Tunstall to defeat the very special interests in our region of Texas that would destroy your party by whatever means available. He did this through coalition building, not personal attacks and division. He drew support across demographics and several parties. He faced off against a heavily backed thug political machine here that still runs our area and is very much known by the star neocon pupil they produced in Tom Delay.
Tunstall has stood up against corruption here locally and doesn't deserve some of the comments I have read in this thread. His interests are those of your party and many of us former republicans (still practicing conservatives) believe in what you all are trying to do. You have much to be proud of, but IMO, you need to stand together at this time in the election process. Continue to debate, but do it from a collegial perspective and one that productively builds your community. Your enemy is not each other, but the broader national attack on individual liberties and the constitution. Seek and build on your commonalities and use this moment in history, because that is all that it really is, and get your message out to as many as possible.
Now is the time! Sorry if this was so preachy, but Kevin is a sincere and honest party member who cares about the citizens of our region and the broader country, unlike many caught up in the political gaming...
Posted By: David F. Nolan
Date: 2008-08-31 22:45:28
As someone who is often identified with the “radical” or “purist” faction, yet is now supporting Bob Barr, I’ll offer a couple of observations.
A lot of the ill will between the “pragmatist” and “purist” elements stems from the behavior of individuals in both groups, and not from an inherently irreconcilable conflict over goals or strategies. Bob Barr missed a golden opportunity to unite the party in Denver, when he chose Wayne Root as his running mate. Root, like Barr, was perceived as far too close to being a Republican by many of the delegates, and he failed to win the VP slot on the first ballot despite Barr’s endorsement.
If Barr and his campaign staffers had been a bit smarter, Barr would have endorsed Kubby, not Root. This would have been a powerful unity move, but Barr & Co. muffed it. And they’ve been doing a terrible job of unifying and motivating most of the LP’s best activists ever since. The Barr ’08 website features a banner at the top with the middle portion completely empty, when it would be so easy to put the word LIBERTARIAN there, perhaps in shining gold letters. No wonder they’ve raised only $812,500 by the end of August!
All this notwithstanding, I support Bob Barr because he’s head-and-shoulders above McLame and Obama, and the message he’s delivering to the American people is generally sound, albeit a bit tepid.
As for bad behavior or “sore loser” tendencies among the “Radicals” – most notably George Phillies and the Massachusetts LP – I have no respect or sympathy whatever for that sort of behavior. I myself was listed on the ballot petitions circulated earlier this year in Virginia, and when the time came to ask the VA State Board of Elections to remove my name and substitute Bob Barr’s, I did it. Barr was not my first choice for our nomination, but he’s our candidate now, and any attempt to undercut him as the Massachusetts party is allegedly doing is contemptible.
Posted By: George Phillies
Date: 2008-09-01 03:59:57
Of course, the people who accuse me of being a purist tend to bring the real purists to laughter, most of them.
Of our prior candidates, Browne in 1996 was opposed by the purists, and Browne in 2000 had opposition from people who thought his campaign was a financial sham I am not here saying that they were right or wrong, but that was the core opposition issue. People who paid attention to Mike Badnarik noted that he was a right-wing constitutionalist of a particular stripe (he wanted to blow up the UN Building and, as it turned out, he said he did not file his tax returns, but that was not generally known when he was nominated), not a purist.
It is certainly the case that, which I confirmed when asked, that at the time fo the National Covention I had people in my state party who would want a special state convention over the Barr nomination. They have not yet made the request, and our regular convention will happen before a special convention could be requested.
If the delegates do not want it pointed out that they nominated for our Presidential candidate the author of DOMA, the 20th century's leaing American witch-burner, an ardent drug warrior, and an advocate of the racist Jim Crow States Rightrs doctrine that States have the power to take away your rights, then perhaps they should have nominated someone else. As I said after my nominating speech to my state chair--you can see it on the CNN tape--we now have a train wreck.
Incidentally, the accusations that Badnarik damaged party memership badly are untrue. Badnarik won, and the Russo campaign staff largely went over to suppport him. Gordon was his press manager. I ran his national volunteer effort. The Nolan supporters were a bit less visible, but I have no idea what if anything the Badnarik campaign managers asked them to do. We did not get a sizeable increase in membership, but Badnarik raised more money for the general election campaign than Harry Browne did, and, based on month-by-month post-nomination numbersabout as much money as Barr is raising post-nomination.
With respect to Massachusetts, where I agreed to be the standin, I am have beem a lead figure in trying to get Barr onto the ballot. That includes spending over $4000 of my own money, mostly post-nomination, in the effort. If I had wanted to ensure that Barr was not on the ballot, it would have been trivial to do so. We still do not know if he was on the ballot.
In New Hampshire, I am not a standin, I agreed to be the candidate chosen by the State Convention. It was known at the time that NH does not have substitution, and no one brought suit in a timely way to change matters. The State Convention, which has met since, has not yet changed its mind. Large numbers of Libertariansworked very hard to put me on the ballot, and as recently as last week expressed gratitude for being there. If Barr's New Hampshire supporters had started petitioning promptly, after the national convention, rather than waiting until early July, there would be no question that he would also be on the New Hampshire ballot.
Mr. Nolan, your assertion that I am a radical, and that LPMass is working to undercut the Barr campaign in Massachusetts, shows largely that you are a liar. You should try telling the likes of Susan Hogarth that I am a radical and see what response you get. For starters, the decision to continue petitioning in Massachusetts for Phillies/Bennett, rather than to restart petitioning for Barr/Root when we learned that we would not automatically have substitution, was made by Sean Haugh and the National Party.
Posted By: George Phillies
Date: 2008-09-01 04:15:41
RS David writes "...You see, the national party didn't file in time in New Hampshire and Massachusetts, so Phillies is the de facto candidate..."
That's inaccurate.
For starters, the New Hampshire filing deadline is still in the future. In New Hampshire, people file, unless they are major parties, and in New Hampshire the LP is not a major party. Signatures were collected for Barr; their validity is being checked and counted.
Furthermore, for Massachusetts it was *Sean Haugh at National* who decided to continue to petition for Phillies/Bennett, rather than switching gears and petitioning for Barr/Root, when we learned that contrary to prior statements from the Secretary of State we did not have substitution. LPMass simply agreed with his position, which was that litigating for the change would be "a slam dunk". Actually, I am not sure what he meant by that, but he asked that we continue petitioning rather than find new electors, and restart, and that is what we did.
Mr. Tunstall, Ron Paul is a homophobic bigot who said that Don't Ask, Don't Tell is all right with him, and who was publisher of the racist "Ron Paul Survival Report", as he admitted in 1996. He is, hwoever, a highly honest man who always says he is a conservative and a Republican, and who said that he ws a Libertarian for one year.
Posted By: George Phillies
Date: 2008-09-01 04:17:50
Finaly, in Massachusetts we did file in time, and I am the fellow who pushed the dolly full of nominating papers from the parking garage to the Secretary of the Commonwealth's Office.
For starters, the New Hampshire filing deadline is still in the future. In New Hampshire, people file, unless they are major parties, and in New Hampshire the LP is not a major party. Signatures were collected for Barr; their validity is being checked and counted.
Furthermore, for Massachusetts it was *Sean Haugh at National* who decided to continue to petition for Phillies/Bennett, rather than switching gears and petitioning for Barr/Root, when we learned that contrary to prior statements from the Secretary of State we did not have substitution. LPMass simply agreed with his position, which was that litigating for the change would be "a slam dunk". Actually, I am not sure what he meant by that, but he asked that we continue petitioning rather than find new electors, and restart, and that is what we did.
Sorry for the error, but with all due respect, Mr Phillies, I think what is raising the hairy eyeball in this situation is not the ballots, but your own words, the flamethrowing rhetoric you've employed even in these very pages - loaded phrases like "witchburner," "Jim Crow," "KKK," and "national party is in the grip of southern white bigots." These are not words that should be coming out the mouth of a party officer about its duly elected candidate.
You have every right to these opinions, and every right to share them as a libertarian, but as an officer of the party, it is irresponsible and counterproductive. You are undermining the success of the party. If you want to say and do these things, you should first resign your post.
At that point, you may even find some support from me, as I am not 100% sold on Barr's conversion, either. You highlight some important questions, but to do so from your post is highly inappropriate.
Mr. Nolan, I agree with you in all with exception to Mr. Kubby. I believe, from a political perspective, that Mr. Kubby was far more a liability than an asset. Having selected Mr. Kubby would have been fodder for the media to further marginalize our organization. I would not have been disappointed had Mary garnered the position and feel it unfortunate that she declined to seek the nomination. Either way, it is water under the bridge and as such I'll perform my duty to garner votes.
Mr. Phillies, you as a state chair and a national party member knew that NHLP had 'no authority' to nominate ANYONE as a presidential candidate. As it is CLEARLY stated in the bylaws under Articles 3 and 12, the one of the 'purposes' of the national party is to select the presidential and vice-presidential nominees at regular convention. Furthermore the bylaws state that 'affiliates' may not take actions 'inconsistent to' said bylaws. You knew this. You ignored this. And you have relished in the outcome.
Regarding your remarks about Dr. Paul, I supposed you did not listen to him when he denied 'writing' such things. Everyone down here knows (or has a presumptive idea) who did it. Why this individual is not 'man enough' to accept responsibility, or why Dr. Paul is protecting said individual is beyond me. That said, Dr. Paul is a far better man and a far better public example of a libertarian than you could ever hope to be. Stating that he is a homophobic bigot only proves that you don't know him and that you are of little character.
Lastly, I would like to see the LP continue to mature into a viable alternative at the national level. Alas, I can only doubt this will happen as long as we have people that act in their own self interests as opposed to acting in the interests of the 'the body.' Then again, what do I know? According to you, people like me, McLendon, Benidict and Dixon are all 'white southern bigots.' I will remember that statement, and I assure you that I will remind you of it as well should you ever seek a higher office.
Since you live in Texas, any chance you can (or you know someone who can) get over to
Texas State Law Library | 205 West 14th Street | Austin, Texas 78701-1614 (512) 463-1722 | Fax (512) 463-1728 |
And get a copy of the Taxes Supreme Court Rulling on Bird v. Rothstein case number 96-0910. It is one of the two cases the Texas Secretary of States office is claiming as grounds for allowing McClain and Obama onto the ballot? The publication date of the decsision was October 2nd, 1996 and Texas doesn't have electronic records available on line before i think September of 1997.
I'll email Roland and ask. I'll email it to you if successful. I believe that he was looking into the matter.
However, what it boils down to is that 'they' (the ruling duopoly) believe that they are above the law. Nothing new from my perspective. You'll find no 'equality under the law' in the Texas courts.
Posted By: Arthur Torrey
Date: 2008-09-03 00:40:25
As one of the members of the LPMA delegation in question, and a member of the LPMA State Committee (and a two term elected officeholder) - I should point out that I've been far from thrilled by most of our previous LP nominees, BUT I SUPPORTED THEM! Barr is the FIRST that I can't support in any way... AND I SAID THIS AS LOUDLY AND AS OFTEN AS I COULD DURING THE CONVENTION!!!
I told this to Barr personally - and he essentially told me he didn't care... So don't complain about the "purists" refusing to support Barr being a surprise.
I am an LPMA Presidential Elector - I publically stated BEFORE Barr was nominated that I would not cast an electoral vote for him, and why....
1. Barr's support for Republicans w/ Libertarian opponents as a sitting LNC member, plus his pre-convention claim to be running in order to help down-ticket REPUBLICANS.
2. His enthusiastic support of DOMA - IN DENVER - I don't buy his half-assed "apology" for just part of it...
3. Post-Denver, His obvious love for the racist policies of Jesse Helms, coupled with earlier less blatant hints of racism.
4. His support for Lautenburg, coupled with his active membership in the world's largest gun-control organization
5. His (written while an LNC member)article urging US military invasion of Columbia, in order to promote the war on some drugs... (WOW, does he get a discount for two anti-freedom positions in one paper?)
6. The Patriot Act vote, with weak apology to follow...
7. I'm Pagan, (not Wiccan!) - Barr chose to NOT apologize to me for his religious bigotry IN DENVER... (I have no problem w/ Christians as long as they respect my religion as much as I respect theirs...)
Gee, seems like EVERY issue I looked at Barr is on the anti-freedom side...
I along with a bunch of other "purists" tried to keep the party honest in Denver - we were told our support wasn't needed - so deal with not having it...
I'm strongly in favor of not replacing Barr, and was one of those calling for LPMA to nominate an alternative candidate (again something I made well known in Denver) I'd still like to, but was unable to get enough votes on the SC meeting to do so.
Since I was outvoted, I have supported the efforts to substitute Barr for George on the MA ballot - but have insisted that the lawyers know IN ADVANCE that while I will cooperate w/ substitution, I will NOT pledge to vote for Barr...
No surprises, I let people know where I stood, and have KEPT my promises...
I guess that makes me a purist - my ethics aren't for sale.
ART
LPMA Presidential Elector, NOT voting for Barr
Speaking for myself
I don't think your position, Mr. Torrey, is the issue. While you may serve on your state committee, you are not the chief officer nor the spokesperson for the party. I have not seen any comments made by you in the press. Feel free to think how you wish.
Since you were unsuccessful in your quest to deny the will of the body by holding another convention, I can only presume that more rational heads prevailed.
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.
