RJ Harris: Ballot Access in Oklahoma, Adam Kokesh endorsement

Recent updates from RJ Harris, a candidate for the LP presidential nomination:

* RJ Harris Liberty Team collected nearly 400 signatures on an afternoon at a Oklahoma Sooner football game. RJ Harris and his team had a great time tailgating with fans of the #1 Ranked NCAA Football Team in the Nation.

* Recent donors include Adam Kokesh, who called Harris “the most presidential candidate the LP has had in years.”

68 thoughts on “RJ Harris: Ballot Access in Oklahoma, Adam Kokesh endorsement

  1. Jeremy C. Young

    If Harris can get the LP ballot access in OK, that in and of itself makes his campaign a positive development. The LP hasn’t had ballot access in this most difficult state in years.

  2. paulie Post author

    Actually, as far as I know no alt party or independent made it in Oklahoma since the LP did it in 2000. Write-ins are not permitted either, and several other parties tried when I was there in 2000 and failed.

    The difficulty of that drive caused me to become a life member of the LP.

    I’m not there this time, since that would not make the fundraiser happy. (Long story….don’t ask).

  3. Glenn Nielsen

    I heard Adam Kokesh speak in 2010 and had a chance to talk with him. He is very principled in his libertarian views regardless of what political party he strategically aligned himself with in his run for Congress.

  4. Darryl W. Perry

    Since we all know how accurate Wikipedia is, I checked Adam’s facebook page – he lists his political view as “Voluntarist”

    I could be mistaken, however, I believe Adam was only a Republican during his 2010 Congressional campaign.

  5. Questions Man

    Do any of Professor Phillies’ stances vary with the LP Platform? If so, which ones and why?

  6. Questions Man

    You run as a Republican, you are a Republican.

    Does that Republican taint ever wear off? And if it ever does, how long does it take?

  7. George Phillies

    How long does it take?

    More than ten months, for sure.

    Harris’s bizarre claim that abortion is unconstitutional…That’s simply unreal, not to mention his proposal that we need a Constitutional Convention of women only that would agree with his plans to take away a woman’s ownership of her body.

    There is also the matter of his participation in the war on Afghanistan, which has now assuredly totally ceased to involve a pursuit of Mr. Bin Ladin.

  8. George Phillies

    The taint of supporting the Republican war crimes party, the party of torture, wars of aggression, homophobic bigotry, etc etc etc takes a fair time to wash off. A long period of service in support of the real Libertarian Party comes to mind.

  9. Questions Man

    More than ten months, for sure.

    So….five years? Ten?

    Is there a firm cutoff, or a matter of community standards?

  10. George Phillies

    I am a firm believer in letting the details vary from case to case.

    We ran Barr in 2008, rather briefly (<5 years) after he joined our party, and his money mostly went out to right-wing cronies and publicists, organizations run by his family, etc.

    He also ran up a huge debt — a fine Republican habit — and was successfully sued by his ghostwriter.

    Barr was a bad deal.

  11. paulie Post author

    He also ran up a huge debt — a fine Republican habit — and was successfully sued by his ghostwriter.

    Bovard got his money?

  12. Andy

    George Phillies said: “We ran Barr in 2008, rather briefly (<5 years) after he joined our party,"

    Bob Barr joined the Libertarian Party in December of 2006 (and was immediately handed a spot on the Libertarian National Committee), so he'd been in the party a lot less than that before he got the Presidential nomination.

    While it is nice if a potential candidate has been a long time member of the Libertarian Party i don't necessarily have a problem with somebody being a candidate for the Libertarian Party if they have not been a long time member of the party, but only if they have a long record of being a small "l" libertarian activist.

    I don't think that Bob Barr really had any record of being a libertarian activist before joining the Libertarian Party, and he wasn't in the party that long before he got the nomination, and while he was in the party he continued to support big government Republican Party candidates and he continued to espouse some non-libertarian issue stances such as supporting US intervention into the drug war in Columbia. These are some of the reasons why I did not support Barr for the nomination.

  13. Dave

    I don’t see why Harris’s past party affiliation should matter. The only reason he ran as a Republican was because it would have been difficult if not impossible for him to be on the ballot otherwise. By running in the GOP, he gave voters a chance to vote for an actual “libertarian” or at least more libertarian candidate when they’d have had no chance otherwise.

    Frankly I welcome the development, and think Greens and Socialists should do it as well with the Democrats. See Brian Moore, who in the Democratic primary for Florida Governor got something like a quarter of the vote. Likely that much of that was just protest, but how many new voters were exposed to Mr. Moore’s ideology( which, I think we can all agree, was diametrically opposed to the Democratic establishment) for the first time in his run? He did not even endorse Sink after she got the nomination, so in my books his hands were kept clean. If Harris did not endorse his Republican opponent after his defeat I’d not be inclined to hold it against him. He made the best of a bad situation, and good for him.

  14. Andy

    George Phillies said: “Harris’s bizarre claim that abortion is unconstitutional…”

    The 5th amendment says, “nor shall any person….be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…”

    If one believes that life begins at conception and that a fetus is a person then it is not a stretch to say that abortion is unconstitutional.

    RJ Harris believes that life begins at conception. You may disagree with him about when life begins, but this is another issue.

    “That’s simply unreal, not to mention his proposal that we need a Constitutional Convention of women only that would agree with his plans to take away a woman’s ownership of her body.”

    OK, the Constitutional Convention of just women is a little weird. I think that men should have a say in this as well. I can see where he’s coming from but I don’t necessarily agree with him here, but it’s not a “deal breaker” for me so I’d still consider supporting RJ Harris in spite of this.

  15. George Phillies

    “The only reason he ran as a Republican was because it would have been difficult if not impossible for him to be on the ballot otherwise. ”

    Except at the Presidential level, you can get on the ballot in Oklahoma by paying a fairly modest filing fee. There was a choice. With respect to Party line, as Joe Kennedy and many others have demonstrated, the press neither understands nor cares about what it may say on the ballot after your name, they will refer to the candidate by the party he ties to his name.

  16. Michael H. Wilson

    I think you’ll find that abortion was legal when the 5th amendment was written. And historically I think you’ll find that abortion was made illegal in an effort to reduce the procedures midwives were allowed to do in an effort to run them out of business.

  17. paulie Post author

    The positions of both George Phillies and RJ Harris differ at least somewhat from the current LP platform on abortion:

    “Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.

    RJ Harris believes that abortion should be illegal and thus it can not be said that he believes government should be kept out of the matter.

    George Phillies believes that abortion should be legal, and therefore enjoy the same legal protections from government as any other legal business or practice.

    Neither Phillies nor Harris is an anarchist, so neither of them wants government kept out of the matter in a full sense.

    Luckily for both of them the plank also provides that people can hold good-faith views on all sides,

    Presumably, these people can include LP members; otherwise the statement is a truism that by definition applies to all issues that are in any way debated in the public square.

  18. paulie Post author

    Except at the Presidential level, you can get on the ballot in Oklahoma by paying a fairly modest filing fee. There was a choice.

    How modest, and was Harris aware of this at the time?

  19. paulie Post author

    With respect to Party line, as Joe Kennedy and many others have demonstrated, the press neither understands nor cares about what it may say on the ballot after your name, they will refer to the candidate by the party he ties to his name

    It’s somewhat more complicate than that. For example, the media frequently calls Ron Paul a Libertarian, even though he has been elected as a Republican many times, only ran as a Libertarian once over 20 years ago and was never elected to anything as a Libertarian, and is currently elected as a Republican and seeking higher office as a Republican.

    They also frequently call Gary Johnson a Libertarian, although he has never been elected or sought office as a Libertarian, has been elected and is currently seeking office as a Republican, and only paid his LP dues once, almost 20 years ago.

    Finally, they also frequently call Rand Paul a Libertarian, although he has as far as I know never been one and never called himself one or even claimed to adhere to a libertarian ideology himself, and has denied that he is a Libertarian or a libertarian – as did the LP in his state.

  20. paulie Post author

    An interpretation almost as bizarre as Harris’s.

    How so?

    If one believes that abortion is murder (as a person can in good faith, according to the current LP plank), lives in a society where government disagrees, and takes action based on one’s beliefs as one might in a situation where government legalizes mass murder, the government will not be kept out of the matter.

    It will put that person in prison, or possibly stop him or her with an execution on the spot to prevent that person’s preferred action from taking place, just as non-anarchists who do not believe that abortion is murder believe government should.

    The current LP plank has to either be interpreted non-literally, or it implicitly assumes anarchy.

  21. Questions Man

    “The taint of supporting the Republican war crimes party, the party of torture, wars of aggression, homophobic bigotry, etc etc etc takes a fair time to wash off. A long period of service in support of the real Libertarian Party comes to mind.”

    Does the same hold true of previous support for the Democratic Party as a candidate for office or elected official? To an equal extent? If not, to what extent, relatively to ex-Republicans?

  22. Questions Man

    @9 “Do any of Professor Phillies’ stances vary with the LP Platform? If so, which ones and why?”

    Will Professor Phillies answer this question? If so, when? If not, why not?

  23. Questions Man

    Would this be equally true of someone who ran for the Democratic Presidential nomination in 2008, and switched to the quest for the Libertarian Presidential nomination some time in the spring of that same year?

  24. Questions Man

    Another question: would someone who did not run for office as a Republican since some time in the 1980s, but who did promote himself heavily and constantly as a “millionaire Republican” in 2006 (and possibly later), be more or less qualified for the Libertarian nomination than someone who last ran for office as a Republican in 2002, endorsed the Libertarian candidate for President in 2004, and served on the LNC from 2006-2008 — if they both ran for the nomination in 2008?

    Would either gentleman in the question posed above in this same comment, or the former Senator referred to in comment 32, be more or less qualified for the 2008 nomination than someone who has been an active Libertarian Party member (and officer and candidate for office at various levels) since at least 1983, in the estimation of Prof. Phillies?

  25. George Phillies

    Do I think Root or Barr is suitable as a Presidential candidate, or better or worse than God Knows Who?

    Barr was a disaster. Root would be a disaster, only a different one. What did they do since 1983? The last choice might be very good. Or perhaps not.

  26. paulie Post author

    Let me see if I can unencrypt this conversation:

    On a recent thread you mentioned that either Root or Gravel would have been preferable to either Barr or Ruwart.

    Gravel “ran for the Democratic Presidential nomination in 2008, and switched to the quest for the Libertarian Presidential nomination some time in the spring of that same year.” Wouldn’t your criteria here mean he would be severely disqualified for the LP nomination? If not, why not?

    In 2008 Root was “someone who did not run for office as a Republican since some time in the 1980s, but who did promote himself heavily and constantly as a “millionaire Republican” in 2006.” If he was less disqualified from the LP nomination than Barr, is it because party identification only matters if/when someone runs for office?

    After all Barr was “someone who last ran for office as a Republican in 2002, endorsed the Libertarian candidate for President in 2004, and served on the LNC from 2006-2008” — IE, he switched to the LP well before Root did.

    Ruwart was “someone who has been an active Libertarian Party member (and officer and candidate for office at various levels) since at least 1983,” so wouldn’t she be less disqualified than Gravel, who switched parties a couple of months before the LP national convention, or Root, who switched parties around 2006-7?

    How’d I do?

  27. George Phillies

    “Root or Gravel would have been preferable to either Barr or Ruwart. ”

    They had run for the nomination for some time and had built up whatever campaign organization they were going to have. Barr and Ruwart jumped in at the last minute.

  28. paulie Post author

    They had run for the nomination for some time and had built up whatever campaign organization they were going to have. Barr and Ruwart jumped in at the last minute.

    This is true. However, Root and Gravel had both switched to the LP less than two years earlier — Gravel, only months earlier, and directly from a Democratic run for office that year.

    Gravel also disagreed with Libertarian stances on a wide variety of economic issues, while Root at that point was rather strongly at odds with Libertarians on foreign policy, IIRC.

    If Root and Gravel were not thoroughly disqualified for the 2008 nomination, why is Harris more disqualified for the 2012 nomination now than they were then?

    Harris is running many months ahead of the nomination. How could Gravel, who spent relatively less time running for the nomination, and had more numerous issue differences with Libertarians, have been more qualified then than Harris is now?

  29. George Phillies

    @37 I am looking at their campaign as well as their positions, and folks who jump in at the last minute, two months or six weeks ahead, are in my opinion completely unacceptable.

    Root’s far right Republican issues were a much softer theme in 2008 than they are now.

  30. paulie Post author

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Gravel#2008_presidential_campaign

    Tell me which parts of this if any are inaccurate:

    On April 17, 2006,[134] Gravel became the first candidate for the Democratic nomination for President of the United States in the 2008 election, […] Other principal Gravel positions were the FairTax, withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq within 120 days, a single payer national health care system, and term limits.

    […]Because of his time in the Senate, Gravel was invited to many of the early Democratic presidential debates. During the initial one at South Carolina State University on April 26, 2007,[..]

    a May 2007 CNN poll showed him with less than 0.5 percent support among Democrats.[145] Gravel was in the next several debates, in one case after CNN reversed a decision to exclude him.[146] Gravel, as with some of the other second-tier candidates, did not get as much time as the leaders; during the June 2, 2007, New Hampshire debate, which lasted two hours, he was asked 10 questions and allowed to speak for five minutes and 37 seconds.

    During the July 23, 2007, CNN-YouTube presidential debate, Gravel responded to audience applause when he had complained of a lack of airtime and said: “Thank you. Has it been fair thus far?”[…]

    in the ABC News Des Moines, Iowa, debate of August 19, 2007, moderator George Stephanopoulos noted that Gravel polled a statistical zero percent support in the state, meaning less than 0.5% support, and then directed roughly five percent of his questions to Gravel;[151] in a poll asking who did the best in the debate, Gravel placed seventh among the eight candidates.[152] National opinion polls of contenders for the Democratic nomination continued to show Gravel with one percent or zero percent numbers.

    [..]

    Beginning with the October 30, 2007, Philadelphia event, Gravel was excluded from most of the debates, with the debate sponsors or the Democratic National Committee saying Gravel’s campaign had not met fund-raising, polling, or local campaign organizational thresholds.

    [‘..]

    Gravel did not compete in the initial 2008 vote, the Iowa caucuses,[161] but was still subjected to a false report from MSNBC that he had pulled out of the race afterward.[162] Gravel did focus his attention on the second 2008 vote, the New Hampshire primary. There he received about 400 votes out of some 280,000 cast, or 0.14 percent,

    [..]

    By the end of January 2008, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and Gravel were the only remaining Democrats from the initial debates still running;

    [..]

    On March 11, 2008, Gravel continued to remain in the Democratic race but additionally endorsed a Green Party candidate for president, Jesse Johnson

    […]

    On March 25, 2008, Gravel announced that he would leave the Democrats and join the Libertarian Party,

    […]
    Gravel also indicated that he might run for president again and possibly challenge President Obama for the Democratic nomination for the 2012 presidential election.[181]

  31. paulie Post author

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Ruwart#2008_presidential_campaign

    “In March 2008, in response to an informal draft effort by a group of Libertarian Party activists, Ruwart announced her candidacy for the Libertarian presidential nomination in the 2008 election.[9][10]”

    If the Wikipedia articles on Ruwart and Gravel are correct, both of them entered the LP race in March 2008 — only two months before the nomination.

    Difference being that Ruwart had been in the LP since at least 1983, with a number of past runs for external office as well as runs for LP internal office – successful and otherwise – over the course of a quarter century by 2008. On the other hand, Gravel had been a Democrat and a candidate for the Democratic nomination up until the very time he jumped into the LP race, and as far as I know has remained a progressive on economic issues before, during and since his LP run.

  32. George Phillies

    Gravel had been around very considerably earlier than March 2008. IIRC he was interested in both nominations, but at the time we met in 2006 or 2007 he was trying to get a delegate vote for the LP convention from New Hampshire. We debated. I won.

    I did not track what he might have been doing to get the Democratic nomination.

  33. paulie Post author

    Other than that one debate I do not recall him pursuing the LP nomination until March 2008. For example, I don’t think he was one of the candidates in the LP debate in Vegas at LSLA/LNC 2008. I don’t remember seeing him at LP state conventions before then either.

    It seems somewhat difficult to deny that he was pursuing the Democratic nomination up until March 2008; wikipedia cites numerous sources to back that up, and it matches my recollection as well.

    It also seems difficult to me to argue that he did not have a variety of stances strongly at odds with the LP platform – even the abbreviated platform of 2006-2008, much less LP platforms before and since.

    If you or anyone else would like to argue otherwise, I’d love to hear the evidence.

  34. Darryl W. Perry

    @Paulie, the fee for independent candidates in OK is the same as the fee for major party nominees (for office other than president) – I can provide links to this info on OK SOS website tomorrow from my laptop.

  35. paulie Post author

    George, I realize you were kinda busy at the time.

    On the other hand, I also recall you had some people helping with your campaign, and that they were not terrible at opposition research.

    Did it really escape your attention completely that one of your opponents for the nomination had been active in the Democratic contest all throughout 2007 and well into 2008?

    Like me, you were going to quite a few state conventions at the time, and I’m sure you were going to quite a few more than I was. I also was keeping up with blogs such as LFV and TPW at that time, and I seem to recall that you were commenting on those quite a bit.

    Was Mike Gravel showing up at any LP state conventions or debates during 2007 or the first 2-3 months of 2008? My recollection is no. You can tell me if you remember otherwise. At that time it was you, Root, Steve, Jingo, Imperato, sometimes Christine Smith. No Mike Gravel … not til March 2008, other than your one debate in NH.

    What I think that was about, was that Mike Gravel was busy running around all over NH speaking in front of any and every crowd that would have him.

    I also don’t see how both you and your staff would have missed that Senator Gravel disagreed with a wide variety of LP positions on economic issues, then same as now.

  36. history ----- on the current system .... Lake

    As a former mid westerner

    ………… just weeks [days] after my last class, I roamed around the chain link surrounding the American Siberia. I found a tear in the fence. I climed under. Got stuck half way thru. Chewed off my arm. Ran fast. Ran far ………….

    I can tell you that out side of Minni Soda, there ain’t much room for non Democans and non Republicrats! MSM, the toys of the establishment, has much to be ashamed about.

    The up start Libertarian movement [that faulty ‘No Free Lunch ………..’ push and propaganda era] was COMPLETELY ignored by the Wichita Eagle and Kansas City Star.

    No so in Tucson [Arid Zona], where they are MUCH MORE contrarian than Phoenix and had TWO competing dailies!

  37. paulie Post author

    Root’s far right Republican issues were a much softer theme in 2008 than they are now.

    That is not how I recall it. Back then he was saying the LP and Ron Paul were dead wrong on foreign policy. He sounds much better on that issue or set of issues now, even if still not as dovish as most of us are.

  38. JT

    Paulie: “It seems somewhat difficult to deny that he was pursuing the Democratic nomination up until March 2008; wikipedia cites numerous sources to back that up, and it matches my recollection as well.”

    You’re absolutely correct, Paulie. In fact, Gravel didn’t announce he was seeking the Libertarian nomination until issuing a press release at the end of March 2008. I remember it, and it was reported in numerous places, including the Huffington Post here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/26/mike-gravel-drops-out-of-_n_93458.html
    Anyone who says he was pursuing the Libertarian nomination prior to that doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

    Paulie: “I also don’t see how both you and your staff would have missed that Senator Gravel disagreed with a wide variety of LP positions on economic issues, then same as now.”

    It’s impossible for any honest person not to realize that. In fact, I clearly remember in a late debate that Gravel said Libertarians shouldn’t talk about Social Security because it scares old people, and Phillies, who was seated by him, nodded his head in approval. However, Phillies isn’t really bothered by a candidate’s less-than-libertarian economic views as he is about a candidate’s view on, say, man-made global warming.

    Paulie: “Harris is running many months ahead of the nomination. How could Gravel, who spent relatively less time running for the nomination, and had more numerous issue differences with Libertarians, have been more qualified then than Harris is now?”

    Easy for Phillies–Gravel was a Democrat and Harris was a Republican. Case closed.

  39. paulie Post author

    JT,

    It’s somewhat more complicated than that.

    Two years before the 2008 presidential nomination, Wayne Root was heavily promoting himself as a hawkish Republican. Granted, he was not then running for office as a Republican, but he spoke in glowing terms about the prospect of a McCain-Lieberman Republican ticket. On the other hand, he may have been pro-choice on abortion and not necessarily opposed to gay marriage; I honestly don’t know.

    Two years before the 2012 presidential nomination, Harris and Kokesh were antiwar Republican candidates whose positions on issues were libertarian – in the case of Harris he is pro-life (haven’t checked about that on Kokesh), but then so are some LP candidates and party members.

    If Root’s saving grace, as someone who had very recently been a Republican at that time, was that he had been campaigning for the LP nomination well ahead of time, wouldn’t the same apply to Harris, who is now running for the LP nomination well ahead of time?

    Furthermore, I seem to recall that GP has softened his stance on the possibility of Gary Johnson running for the LP nomination more recently. I could be wrong, but it seems that at some point not too long ago George said Johnson would not be so terrible a choice. Yet Johnson is still active in the Republican race as we speak.

    If there’s a Republican taint on Kokesh and Harris, there must certainly be a Republican taint on Johnson now, and logically it seems there would have been one on Root in 2008.

    And, to say that there was no Democratic taint on Gravel in 2008 just makes the whole issue of party loyalty and faithfulness to the LP platform seem….well, I’ll leave that up to the readers.

  40. Questions Man

    Is anyone aware of issues on which Prof. Phillies is at variance with the LP platform to an equal or greater extent than Harris’s variance with the LP platform on abortion?

    Are there other issues where Harris is known to disagree with the LP platform?

  41. JT

    I think you were responding to the last comment I made in my post, Paulie. But I was just responding to your question, which I thought was addressed to Phillies, asking how someone could say Gravel “who spent relatively less time running for the nomination, and had more numerous issue differences with Libertarians, have been more qualified then than Harris is now?” My response was that’s easy for Phillies because Gravel was a Democrat and Harris was a Republican, and Phillies hates all things Republican.

    He even said on this thread “You run as a Republican, you are a Republican. This principle also described Harris” as well as “The taint of supporting the Republican war crimes party, the party of torture, wars of aggression, homophobic bigotry, etc etc etc takes a fair time to wash off. A long period of service in support of the real Libertarian Party comes to mind.”

    That’s all I was responding to. I’m not sure how Root relates to that, unless Phillies supported Root, which he didn’t and doesn’t. If he thinks Johnson would be an acceptable Libertarian candidate, then he’s contradicting what he said previously.

  42. JT

    Paulie: “And, to say that there was no Democratic taint on Gravel in 2008 just makes the whole issue of party loyalty and faithfulness to the LP platform seem….well, I’ll leave that up to the readers.”

    Again, I don’t see the connection to what I said specifically about Phillies. A “Democratic taint” isn’t nearly as bad as a Republican taint in the view of Phillies. I was only talking about him.

    After all, a person who thinks abortion should be illegal in most or all cases–a position shared by a large minority of Libertarians as well as Americans at large (but not me)–is abhorent. Meanwhile, a “Libertarian” who favors the continuation of federal government welfare, which makes up the majority of the federal budget and is driving the U.S. toward economic disaster, isn’t so bad.

  43. paulie Post author

    My response was that’s easy for Phillies because Gravel was a Democrat and Harris was a Republican, and Phillies hates all things Republican.

    Somewhere further up in this thread he clarified that his objection also applied to Democrats, not just Republicans. I was just checking that against available data.

    I’m not sure how Root relates to that, unless Phillies supported Root, which he didn’t and doesn’t.

    He has said that, once he was out of the race, he found Root and Gravel to be relatively less bad than either Barr or Ruwart.

  44. paulie Post author

    If he thinks Johnson would be an acceptable Libertarian candidate, then he’s contradicting what he said previously.

    True, he seemed adamantly opposed to Johnson at one point. But more recent comments by Phillies on the Johnson prospect have seemed to have a more positive tone as far as I can tell.

    Again, I don’t see the connection to what I said specifically about Phillies. A “Democratic taint” isn’t nearly as bad as a Republican taint in the view of Phillies. I was only talking about him.

    See this exchange above, in this thread:

    Questions Man // Oct 2, 2011 at 8:11 pm

    “The taint of supporting the Republican war crimes party, the party of torture, wars of aggression, homophobic bigotry, etc etc etc takes a fair time to wash off. A long period of service in support of the real Libertarian Party comes to mind.”

    Does the same hold true of previous support for the Democratic Party as a candidate for office or elected official? To an equal extent? If not, to what extent, relatively to ex-Republicans?

    30 Questions Man // Oct 2, 2011 at 8:13 pm

    @9 “Do any of Professor Phillies’ stances vary with the LP Platform? If so, which ones and why?”

    Will Professor Phillies answer this question? If so, when? If not, why not?

    31 George Phillies // Oct 2, 2011 at 8:36 pm

    In my opinion, someone who ran as a Democrat in 2010 would be equally disqualified from running as our Presidential candidate in 2012.

    Bolding added for emphasis by me.

  45. paulie Post author

    JT,

    My responses to you also take into account statements made by George Phillies on this thread and to a lesser extent some other threads. If you find the time, you may wish to read or re-read this thread and perhaps then my replies would make more sense to you.

  46. JT

    Okay, I understand now, Paulie.

    Paulie: “Somewhere further up in this thread he clarified that his objection also applied to Democrats, not just Republicans. I was just checking that against available data.”

    He said that, but I have yet to hear him criticize Gravel for his clearly un-libertarian economic views or to say that he would have been an unacceptable candidate. I’ve heard him criticize former Republicans for their clearly un-libertarian social views and say they’re unacceptable candidates. There seems to be a clear double-standard there.

    Paulie: “True, he seemed adamantly opposed to Johnson at one point. But more recent comments by Phillies on the Johnson prospect have seemed to have a more positive tone as far as I can tell.”

    Yes, that’s also what I mean by him being inconsistent. For him to be consistent, the comments I quoted in post 53 would apply to Johnson as well. If he thinks Johnson’s social views make him acceptable as a candidate, then he shouldn’t paint all recent Republicans with a broad brush.

    Personally, I couldn’t care less if someone was a Republican or Democratic candidate a year ago if they have views I consider sufficiently libertarian.

  47. Trent Hill

    “RJ Harris Liberty Team collected nearly 400 signatures on an afternoon at a Oklahoma Sooner football game. RJ Harris and his team had a great time tailgating with fans of the #1 Ranked NCAA Football Team in the Nation.”

    LSU is the #1 ranked NCAA football team in the nation :D.

    AP>Coaches.

  48. George Whitfield

    I am encouraged to see RJ Harris and other Oklahoma Libertarians working to gain ballot status.

  49. John Jackson

    Who is RJ Harris, and what makes him “presidential”? Seriously, I know nothing about the guy.. and nothing rings a bell from a short search.

  50. Darryl W. Perry

    I found my comments on the ballot access issue from another thread about Mr. Harris.
    http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2011/08/r-j-harris-for-president-in-2012/#comment-560817

    Harris could have run as an independent candidate by paying a filing fee of $750 – likely the same fee he paid to run in the GOP Primary
    http://www.ok.gov/elections/documents/Guide10.pdf

    Oklahoma’s ballot access is extremely difficult for Presidential candidates and new parties…

    page 10
    PETITIONS AND FILING FEES
    At the time the Declaration of Candidacy is resented, it must be accompanied by either a supporting petition or a filing fee… A filing fee may be submitted in lieu of a petition. Most candidates for office submit a filing fee instead of a petition. A filing fee must be in the form of either a cashier’s check or a certified check.

  51. George Phillies

    Gravel’s pursuit of the Democratic nomination was like the Libertarian’s pursuit of the Presidential election; it afforded a platform. His issue was his national referendum idea, which if emplaced would have overridden whatever the President etc thought we should so.

  52. Steve Waters

    Geoge Phillies it would only be fair to state that you have donated to another Libertarian candidate. So even though that candidate does not have a chance for the LP Ticket Nomination you should not sling mud at RJ Harris. Don’t act like you care since your loyalty is for someone else. I think that is very deceiving of you George Phillies.You are another one of those… that bashes everyone that tries to come near the LP Party and you wonder why people leave… I guess growth is not in your future… and if that is the a very sad future…

Leave a Reply

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