LPNY chair to BTP: Drop dead

In this essay, LP radical and LPNY state chair Eric Sundwall advocates that radical libertarians avoid the BTP and stay in the LP. It is entitled Party Like It’s 1973, an apparent ironic reference to Party like it’s 1773 by BTP interim chair Jim Davidson.

I was somewhat intrigued when popular Libertarian blogger Tom Knapp started the Boston Tea Party soon after the 2006 Portland massacre. An online political party that hearkened to the radical sensibility with a savvy for the political seemed an interesting notion without any real threat to LP work and activities. A place where members could vent and fume within their own diaries and entries and perhaps still effect meaningful activism within the libertarian community in general. Fine. Sometimes a great notion . . .

In my estimation the BTP became untenable, less credible and utterly ridiculous when the New York affiliate formed without my knowledge or possible input. I expressed my discontent about this to founder Tom Knapp and got a reply that membership wasn’t tracked on geographical basis and thus any notification about formation of an affiliate wouldn’t be forthcoming to members unless they kept abreast of the website and those postings. At the time I thought I had kept a current feed from BTP in my aggregator (Bloglines) and it was only another entry at the time that serendipitously showed up that brought me back to the site for a quick re-reference. It was at that time that I became knowledgeable of the NY affiliate startup.

Of course the elements forming that start up were no more radical in spirit than in truth ambitious for titles and accolades. In fact some of the players were in dispute with the LPNY about one of their affiliates and a factional shoot off from it in another arena wasn’t all that surprising. Having also expressed some insider concern to Knapp about this, he just shrugged it off and said something about long ropes and the like.

In the course of 2007 one saw a gradual decline of the website and eventually spam took it over and the case for neglect made itself very obvious if one visited the site. Again Knapp was shrugging it off as not his baby anymore since the formation of a national committee and control being handed over to the new principles. Any other misgivings about Knapp and his organizational abilities were already being sent to me through my association of other notable activists and to some extent LNC connections. After he was almost completely rejected for the Platform Committee in Pittsburgh that summer I figured any possible radical ally in this figure was improbable. At the time he was flailing for Kubby as the official or non-official this or that and it was obvious where his pre-occupation was at. Once he started running Ron Paul up the racist flagpole based on a Suicide Girls post, I was done. After the Sean Haugh attack after Vegas, I was disgusted, despite reassurances from Angela Keaton and Paulie that he wasn’t the drama queen I might have marked him as.

Enter the Independent Political Report. They started covering the mini-convention of the BTP in Denver and it seems like new life was born from it. Apparently that long rope came back to bite BTP and Knapp put the kibosh on any usurpation of his baby. Utilizing an administrative override on the former national vice-chair and asserting a violation of by-laws and original intent, he summarily dismissed the usurpers and rallied his original cabal and pressed ahead with their own convention online. I’m sure if I’m wrong about this and on any radar as such, I’ll be corrected on a dozen counts by TK or the like.

But my general point is this. The BTP is an operational and philosophical mess. Great, a one line platform states that they want to reduce government on all counts. So what?! While it’s not the contorted twistings of the Reformista’s tired ruminations and redefinitions, its just annoying at this point. When some kiddie script hacker represents some percentage of the actual vote of their convention and all former users are told to sign up again because their database got trashed, you don’t have to wonder. You just don’t take it seriously. Radicals ought to stay in the LP and exert what influence they can in a franchise which has stood the test of time for at least thirty years. Getting all huffy over one candidate in an impossible race to win is not the solution. There is plenty of room for spirited protest candidacies and meaningful activism.

The current self-flagellation from its members and current standard bearers for office is a greater reflection of petty narcissistic traits and ambitions that one finds within splinters of a small movement, than any real grassroots or political effort. To be sure, most of the current brouhaha is based on the success of reform elements within the LP and the eventual nomination of Bob Barr. But there has also been a disproportionate coverage of their activities within the small third party blogosphere and even some mention in the higher echelons of typical political coverage. I’m beginning to think about getting sixteen of my buddies together to form the American Anarchist Party so as not to be left out. At least there would be no compromise on real principles.

So don’t get your panties in a wad because Brian Holtz won the platform or that Bob Barr said something about Fannie Mae on TV. Easy ballot access in Colorado and Louisiana may get you on the ballot there and might put you on a temporary pedestal amongst chortling colleagues, but seriously, get a life (or a sound card). Do what you can, where you can. Stop fantasizing about a greater liberty movement or party. Stay real. Stay radical. Stay LP.

48 thoughts on “LPNY chair to BTP: Drop dead

  1. Thomas L. Knapp

    I doubt that anyone assumed the BTP would be welcomed by all LP members. I know I sure as hell didn’t.

    However, Sundwall sums it up well himself:

    “There is plenty of room for spirited protest candidacies and meaningful activism.”

    With the BTP, now there’s more room for both.

    On balance, I suspect that the BTP has not yet been, at any point, the “operational mess” that the LP frequently is. Part of the reason for that is age/size — we haven’t become large enough to get very unwieldy yet. Another part is that we don’t manage (or plan to manage) a large budget through a central planning board.

    The proof’s in the pudding. Last month, the BTP successfully fought a hostile takeover attempt, while the month before that the LP fell to one.

  2. G.E.

    As for the disproportionate coverage: They’re an Internet-based party. It should not be surprising that they get disproportionate coverage on the Internet.

  3. Mike Gillis

    “Last month, the BTP successfully fought a hostile takeover attempt”

    Are we talking about Milnes?

  4. paulie cannoli Post author

    George,

    I clearly credited him as the author. Not at all the same thing Turd Potty Watch is doing.

  5. paulie cannoli Post author

    Robert,

    I’m not really into attacking you. It’s unsporting, and besides, why beat a dead horse?

  6. paulie cannoli Post author

    George,

    I did fix it, at your urging.

    BTW, what’s up with getting a page up on your site with LP candidates?

  7. George Donnelly

    Paulie 🙂

    Sorry I have been busy.

    I’m planning to start work on the website tomorrow and/or Monday. I was hoping to hear back from you guys on ideas for the domain name before committing.

  8. G.E.

    George – Paulie omitted the link but did not portray Eric’s words as his own. There’s no comparison. Paulie was not stealing.

  9. JimDavidson

    I’m glad to see the link, though, as Eric was kind enough to publish both Tom’s and my responses to his essay. In general, I like Eric, and what he has to say. He seems like a decent guy with a sincere interest in freedom.

    Tom, above, writes, “The proof’s in the pudding.” I am not in agreement. I tasted the pudding and found it to be entirely non-alcoholic. No proof there.

    In fact, the old saying is, “The proof of the pudding is in the tasting.” And I like the results we’re getting with the Boston Tea Party, at least over the last 45 days.

    Tom mentions that we aren’t managing a big budget with a central committee. Indeed, no politburo here! There are two other features of the Boston Tea Party that I think give good results.

    1. We are deliberating in the open. People have the opportunity to comment on the national committee’s actions before we take them. This factor influenced my choice in having the office of chair vote to endorse Susan Hogarth in spite of my personal misgivings. I think a key advantage to being an Internet based party is we don’t have secret phone calls and back room meetings. Everybody knows where the skeletons are – they aren’t buried.

    2. The members have a process to over-rule the national committee. Tom Knapp used that to contest the voting-by-state-affiliate approach to our convention in June, which enraged Stevens, who deleted the poll, as Tom reviews on his reply on Sundwall’s site. No such mechanism for member rule exists in the LP.

    Indeed, Jake Witmer and I spoke on the phone in June and he told me that the owners of the LP should run things, or words to that effect. As if the insider clique were the owners and the mere members of the LP were suckers being bled for their annual dues. I got an extremely creepy vibe from Witmer.

  10. George Phillies

    “In my estimation the BTP became untenable, less credible and utterly ridiculous when the New York affiliate formed without my knowledge or possible input.”

    Nothing like a bit of confidence in one’s own self-worth.

  11. G.E.

    IPR has made mistakes and will continue to make them — bigger ones that Paulie’s minor faux pas, I can assure you.

  12. Lance Brown

    Tom,

    The LP did not fall to a hostile takeover attempt.

    Someone should start compiling the hundreds of different forms of hyperbole that have been used to describe the impact of the thunderously earth-shatteringly planet-eating powerdozer that is the Bob Barr political machine on the delicate pussy flower that is the LP.

    The whole point of why the LP is the best political bet for liberty is because it is big enough, strong enough, old enough, tested enough, and principled enough to withstand the storms that take down lesser third parties. The Reform Party was co-opted by personalities from the start. The Natural Law Party meditated its way off the political landscape. The Constitution Party is up for grabs to whoever can reach the most ears with the the words “God” and “illegal immigration”. The Green Party has yet to recover from the Nader 2000 campaign, and will likely have a similar period of malaise post-McKinney.

    The LP will be fine. Not as fine as it would be if the faint-of-heart weren’t so faint, but fine nonetheless. In a real political party, one candidate does not a party make–or break. Barr couldn’t kill the LP if he tried.

  13. Lance Brown

    I do have one positive thing to say about the “tea party”: it’s a great name for a party comprised of take-their-toys-and-go-home activists.

    Tom, is the tea party in need of a donated little plastic house to put out in the backyard? Or a little plastic tea set?

  14. darolew

    I really don’t see the Boston Tea Party ever amounting to anything. At best, if the BTP does well at all (low standards here) it’ll prove that there’s a significant number of libertarians discontented with the Libertarian Party.

    I’m not unsympathetic to the BTP; Barr and the LP aren’t as pro-liberty as I’d like. However, the LP has been building for 37 years. That’s a lot of work to do over again — the BTP has very little ballot access, little membership, little fundraising, and far less name recognition than the humble LP.

    As I see it, it’d be far easier to reassert control of the LP than it would be to found a new libertarian party. The BTP, by encouraging people to split off from the LP, is taking away exactly the sorts of people who need to remain.

  15. Eric Sundwall

    George,

    That point was not made based on self-estimation so much as common sense when building an organization. Why wouldn’t members be contacted about an affiliate start up in one’s own state ?

    I wouldn’t even call a musing reluctantly posted during coffee the other morning an ‘essay’. The consternation that follows is somewhat bemusing however.

  16. Steve LaBianca

    Let’s see, some quotes from above . . . “Barr couldn’t kill the LP if he tried.”

    The problem is, it isn’t just Barr. It’s the reformers; Brian Holtz, Bob Capozzi, Alicia Mattson and company behind the takeover. Barr was just one cog in the wheel of the takeover.

    Or this one; “it’d be far easier to reassert control of the LP than it would be to found a new libertarian party. ”

    Tell that to David Nolan and the other founders of the LP, when they realized that a new political party was needed to combat the Republicans mostly, but the Democrats as well. Well now, it may be time to combat the LP as well.

    I for one, am willing to give the LP more time and effort to get the LP back on the right tracks, you know the one headed toward liberty and not conservatism.

    Regarding Tom Knapp. He is, just like every other human being I know, imperfect. However, even though I disagree with Tom on some relatively minor points, I think his idea to have another party is a good strategy. Every enterprise, movement, etc survives because there is a “Plan B”. If the BTP serves this purpose alone, and it may be needed to serve many others as well, it is a success.

  17. Steve Perkins

    The BTP, by encouraging people to split off from the LP, is taking away exactly the sorts of people who need to remain.

    This theoretical risk would require the majority of BTP members to actually LEAVE the LP, rather than maintain dual-membership. I have no problem with the BTP, but let’s not kid ourselves about what it is… an online “safety valve” to let off steam and bitch about the LP.

  18. Thomas L. Knapp

    Lance,

    You write:

    “The LP did not fall to a hostile takeover attempt.”

    You may be right … but I believe that it did.

    Based on the conduct of the Barr campaign since the nomination, I believe that there was a pre-existing intent on that campaign’s part to seize control of the LP’s presidential nomination for purposes other than the purposes of the LP itself.

    I’m no longer as certain as I once was about what those other purposes were. At first I thought it was an attempt to create a permanent new alternative home for social conservatives to move into. Now it’s looking more and more like a temporary “stalking horse” operation — i.e. once these guys have torpedoed McCain, they expect to have the GOP back in harness and no longer need the LP.

    I do agree that Barr won’t kill the LP. But I believe he’s doing significant damage to it in the short term and that much of that damage will likely carry over into the long term.

    “I do have one positive thing to say about the ‘tea party’: it’s a great name for a party comprised of take-their-toys-and-go-home activists.”

    In my experience, BTP members remain some of the most “keep my toys here and play hard” activists in the LP — myself included. I haven’t kept track of the hours, but offhand I suspect I’ve put in close to a 40-hour work week in meatspace LP activism in the last month, incidentally including distributing hundreds of LP brochures and fliers that feature the party’s presidential ticket.

    Then again, like you, I’m probably prone to see what I want to see.

  19. Jeff Wartman

    As for the disproportionate coverage: They’re an Internet-based party. It should not be surprising that they get disproportionate coverage on the Internet.

    LOL. This is one of the more unintelligent things I’ve seen said on this blog.

    If you believe what you just said, you’d have to say it’s normal for Al Gore to get more coverage in newspapers because he got his start writing for newspapers. Making the statement you made shows a complete lack of understanding of anything remotely political.

  20. M. D.

    You’d think that the LPNY would be in a better position due to fusion. The only time they got .5% in a gubernatorial race was 1990. (although they’ve gotten .5% in downballot statewide races)

  21. darren

    Tom – if Barr took over the LP, why didn’t he tell them what to say on Fannie Mae? The LPHQ sent out a contradictory press release on the same day.

  22. darren

    M. D. – LPNY never cross-nominated to my knowledge like the Conservative and now defunct Liberal party. Kind of defeats the purpose of campaigning and getting a distinct message out.

  23. paulie cannoli Post author

    G.E. Perhaps, yes, it is not as bad as what TPW did, yet it’s close.

    Huh? Quoting someone accurately without saying exactly where they said it, while making it very easy for anyone who knows how to use a search engine to verify the source, is perfectly fine.

    Not in any way analogous to copying material from a competing blog without any credit to the source.

  24. Lance Brown

    I do agree that Barr won’t kill the LP. But I believe he’s doing significant damage to it in the short term and that much of that damage will likely carry over into the long term.

    One of the major faults I see among the Barr-spooked “Chicken Little” crowd is that they refuse to notice or least acknowledge that while Bob Barr is saying and doing things that can be considered setbacks for the LP/liberty movement, his candidacy is doing a lot of good for the LP and liberty movement in other ways. I check the “Bob Barr” news alert regularly, and I’ve watched most of his mainstream TV news appearances, and there is a lot of good going on there among the notable cringe-worthy moments. And there are a lot more good moments than cringe-worthy ones, on the whole. And, perhaps most importantly, the media is taking the LP candidate (and therefore the LP) more seriously than they have in a long time. That is a benefit that will accrue to subsequent Libertarians down the line (not to mention to worthy candidates in this cycle).

    I could go on. Barr’s “state’s rights” drug war stance is uncool, but his “the federal drug war has failed, and I should know because I was a major proponent of it” stance is GREAT for liberty and for the LP. His stance that he used to think medical marijuana was bunk and now he doesn’t think that is also great. If he achieved his stated goal on the drug war, it would be the biggest step in the right direction since the drug war began. If, as is more likely, he persuades other formerly-fervent drug war supporters to rethink their views, that would be a huge victory for the LP – something that the LP prez candidate has not been able to accomplish for who knows how long.

    I could go on. Have you heard how Barr talks about the Bush administration? He is (surprisingly, to me) scathing. For all that folks say Barr is a GOP stooge of some sort, he has pounded McCain harder than Obama at almost every turn, and has pounded Bush twice as hard as either of them. He even said he’d prefer Bill Clinton over Bush.

    BTW, voters aren’t all that dumb. They understand the difference between a nominee and a party, and that there are often differences between the two. And almost every interview I’ve seen with Barr has highlighted the places where he strays or has strayed from libertarianism. Which means that future LP candidates will get mostly the beneficial baggage (pro-liberty, anti-status quo two party system, pro-privacy/4th amendment, anti-war) and little of the Barr-specific baggage.

    In my experience, BTP members remain some of the most “keep my toys here and play hard” activists in the LP — myself included. I haven’t kept track of the hours, but offhand I suspect I’ve put in close to a 40-hour work week in meatspace LP activism in the last month, incidentally including distributing hundreds of LP brochures and fliers that feature the party’s presidential ticket.

    Then again, like you, I’m probably prone to see what I want to see.

    I guess so, because you apparently don’t see how you are damaging your own party, and setting back the freedom movement, by further splintering us when we need to be getting more united. When presented with a problem (the perceived rot or takeover of the LP), you chose the path of sour grapes and division. And now you have to spin the narrative of the LP’s downfall, even while still a part of it, because it’s the whole reason for the BTP. Which is why you’re starting to sound a bit schizophrenic when you try and explain how you’re not anti-LP, etc.

    You are anti-LP, whether you realize it or not. And accusing the Barr campaign of doing long-term or short-term damage to the LP and freedom movement amounts to the pot calling the kettle black.

    You could have taken a much more positive approach, is all I’m saying. If you can’t see that, I can’t make you see it.

  25. Lance Brown

    A small fix to what I just posted (new stuff in bold):

    Which means that future LP candidates will get mostly the beneficial baggage (pro-liberty, anti-status quo two party system, pro-privacy/4th amendment, anti-war) and little of the Barr-specific negative baggage. Meaning, voters aren’t going to come away thinking, “Libertarians are people who support the Patriot Act, and supported a vote for the Iraq War. Libertarians are drug warriors.” I can’t think of a single interview or legitimate news piece so far that has left that impression.

  26. Lance Brown

    and actually, I’m not done with this bit of Tom’s:

    In my experience, BTP members remain some of the most “keep my toys here and play hard” activists in the LP — myself included.

    But isn’t it proper to judge a party by its presidential candidate? Good for the goose…, right? Charles Jay hasn’t been doing much keeping his toys here and playing hard. He ditched the LP in 2004 for the sweet meat that is the Personal Choice Party’s one-state presidential nomination, and the 946 votes that came with it.

    I haven’t kept track of the hours, but offhand I suspect I’ve put in close to a 40-hour work week in meatspace LP activism in the last month, incidentally including distributing hundreds of LP brochures and fliers that feature the party’s presidential ticket.

    Bob Barr is putting way more hours in than that for the LP. I’m just sayin’.

    BTW, Tom, what do you make of this statement of yours from your original pout-off in 2006?:

    “Since I am not a national officer, I have no obligation to belong to only one national political party; and since the Boston Tea Party has, as yet, no state affiliate in my state, I am free to support and serve my state LP until such time as that changes and/or until the LP and the Boston Tea Party nominate opposing presidential slates which I’d have to decide between. “

    It seems like you were saying that if the BTP and LP nominated opposing presidential slates, you would no longer “be free to serve and support my state LP”. It’s not totally clear why you felt that was the case, but it seems like the time has come to revisit this statement, no? Because “in the heat of the moment” party-inventing 2006 Tom seems to be implying that on-the-opposing-party’s-presidential-slate Tom of 2008 might have a conflict of interest on his hands.

  27. George Donnelly

    Ok you guys are holier than thou and just because you

    – copied in whole from another blog
    – did not link back

    but did not

    – fail to mention the author’s name

    what you did has ZERO resemblance whatsoever to what you reamed TPW for doing.

    Is that what you want to hear?

    You got 2/3. That’s pretty close. In any case, what distinguishes you is you made it right.

    So relax.

    I’m on your side, generally speaking, so no reason to get your dander up.

  28. paulie cannoli Post author

    I’m pretty relaxed about it. I added a headline and a description, and cited the author.

    If TPW did the same for the articles it copies, I don’t think we would have much of a problem. Even if all they did was credit us, with or without a link, that would be a major improvement.

  29. Thomas L. Knapp

    Lance,

    Nice catch, but look a little more carefully. You write:

    “It seems like you were saying that if the BTP and LP nominated opposing presidential slates, you would no longer ‘be free to serve and support my state LP’.”

    Only if you leave out an entire, very specific, clause. What I wrote was:

    “I am free to support and serve my state LP until such time as … the LP and the Boston Tea Party nominate opposing presidential slates which I’d have to decide between. [emphasis mine]

    I don’t have to choose between the Boston Tea Party’s presidential slate and the Libertarian Party’s presidential slate. The Boston Tea Party’s 2008 presidential slate is not on the ballot in Missouri. The Boston Tea Party’s 2008 presidential slate is not going to be on the ballot in Missouri.

    When the Boston Tea Party forms an affiliate in Missouri, I will of course join it (I may even help organize it). When and if the Missouri BTP affiliate enters into competition with the Missouri LP (by, for example, seeking ballot access for its own slate of candidates), I will resign any offices of trust I hold in the Missouri LP. At this time, I am reconsidering my previously stated intention to seek such an office of trust next month with precisely that potential conflict in mind.

  30. inDglass

    Since the BTP allows its members to vote “none of the above” for a nomination and since it regularly endorses candidates who are running for the LP and other parties, if the LP or any other party is running an exceptable candidate, the BTP could choose to not run against them and endorse them instead.

    NOTA finished quite well in the presidential nomination vote this year. I would bet that if the LP nominated a more acceptable candidate, NOTA would have won the BTP nomination, and the BTP’s National Committee might be debating the nomination of the LP’s presidential nominee.

  31. Lance Brown

    Tom, I didn’t miss or exclude that clause, it’s just that you didn’t define “decide between” until I guess just now. And your schizophrenia continues to show through in your answer…(emphasis mine)

    I don’t have to choose between the Boston Tea Party’s presidential slate and the Libertarian Party’s presidential slate. The Boston Tea Party’s 2008 presidential slate is not on the ballot in Missouri. The Boston Tea Party’s 2008 presidential slate is not going to be on the ballot in Missouri. ”

    Tom, you already have chosen between the two slates. You’ve disavowed one, and you’re on the other one. You are actively promoting another party’s presidential slate (from the LP perspective). I realize that you haven’t necessarily yet bumped into an official, rules-based conflict between your two conflicting sides, but you yourself acknowledge that it’s just a matter of time. The conflict is already there, whether it manifests in something that makes you resign a position or not.

    Pretending to be an LP loyalist while also being the guy who started the anti-LP sour grapes party is not something you are going to be able to maintain very well, I suspect. I find most of what you have to say on the subject very hard to swallow.

  32. Lance Brown

    I did find one point on which you’ve shown some consistency:

    “At this time, I am reconsidering my previously stated intention…”

  33. G.E.

    Donelly – Holier than TPW which steals and cheats. Paulie was posting a letter and didn’t provide a link. That’s not exactly something worthy of having a hissy fit over.

  34. G.E.

    Jeff – What a dickhead statement. I have a “complete lack of understanding of anything remotely political”?

    WTF?

    An internet-based political party is naturally going to get more coverage on the Internet than in print media.

    Saying otherwise shows a complete lack of common sense on your part.

    We cover news that’s sent to us, almost without fail. If some other central-planning Nazi would like to “correctly” proportion coverage, they can start their own sites.

  35. G.E.

    Question for Eric Sundwall to settle the ridiculous charges by George Donnelly — Do you feel you were abused by paulie forgetting to link to your article, or are you glad that he posted it?

  36. paulie cannoli Post author

    At this point, I’m letting this one go. Not worth arguing about. I think citing the author was sufficient to avoid charges of plagiarism and hypocrisy. Since others felt otherwise, I also went back and cited the original place of publication. As a result, it got read and discussed a lot more than it would have been otherwise.

    On the other hand, turd potty watch copies other people’s work without citing the author, doesn’t fix it when the problem is pointed out to them,
    censors links to IPR in the comments, falsely attributes articles to people who did not write them (separate problem from the plagiarism), and otherwise continues to be a continuing textbook example of disgraceful perfidy in action.

  37. darolew

    “Tell that to David Nolan and the other founders of the LP, when they realized that a new political party was needed to combat the Republicans mostly, but the Democrats as well. Well now, it may be time to combat the LP as well.”

    The situation is hardly comparable.

    To reform the GOP or DP in 1971 would have been an impossible task. Both parties were massive, had thousands of anti-liberty elected officials, and had a message which was anti-liberty at the core.

    To reform the LP of 2008 seems easy by comparison. The core message of the LP, even if it has become less pure over the years, is still a lot closer to pure libertarian than the GOP/DP of 1971. The party is smaller and less entrenched in politics than the GOP/DP. It doesn’t have thousands of elected officials who are — at their core — the anti-theses of liberty. The LP — unlike the GOP/DP of 1971 — has a significant proportion of the party that adheres to pure libertarianism.

    If pure libertarianism is to have a home anywhere, it’ll be the LP.

  38. cbennett

    This is the same Lance Brown who hollered, ranted and threw a big ol hissy fit on his personal blog back in 2004 about how unfairly he was treated by Aaron Russo and supposedly was promised that he would get paid for the website work he did for the campaign. You know what Lancey boy, I put in hundreds of hours into that campaign as Aaron’s scheduling coordinator and wasn’t paid a dime outside of Aaron and Steve Gordon paying for our hotel room in Atlanta. The BTP, you jackass, is an alternative to the fakes who have hijacked the party, platform and turned it into a Republican-lite, more conservative party than before thanks to your buddies on the “Retard, Reckless, Repugnant, Rude, Repulsive Caucus”. Go back in your little hole in California and don’t come back for another 4 years or so. Just remember: The LP left me, I am being purged from the only party I have supported for 16 years and I’m leaving in November. So go ahead and support the racist, homophobic, big government, warmongering conservative……

  39. JimDavidson

    Good news, everybody, I have been contacted about forming a Missouri affiliate for the Boston Tea Party. So we can push this nonsense along a little further.

    Lance Brown, why was former executive directrix Shane Cory forced to resign? I believe it was because he encouraged staff of the LP to show bias against one of the candidates prior to the nominating convention. Why was Cory paid $17,870.97 after leaving his job? Do you even care?

    You have no problem with Bob Barr because everything he says is perfect. But, many people do. Many members of the LP aren’t leaving the LP, and are not supporting Bob Barr. Are they also cowards, deserters, and traitors, in your view? You’ve said despicable, disgusting, hateful things about me and the members of the Boston Tea Party.

    I think you are a disgusting worm. What have you ever done for freedom that I should care?

  40. Eric Sundwall

    Answer to comment 42 by GE;

    I have no problem with how this article was referenced or handled by Paulie.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *