Northwest Florida Libertarian Party Disavows Augustus Sol Invictus as Libertarian Candidate for U.S. Senate

From Pete Blome at the Florida libertarians Facebook group:

Augustus Sol Invictus, a registered Libertarian from Orange County Florida, seeks to win the U.S. Senate seat from Florida in the 2016 election. Normally, the Northwest Florida Libertarian Party (NFLP) welcomes the real competition and real solutions that Libertarian candidates bring to Florida elections. However, in this case, the Executive Committee voted unanimously to neither condone nor support the candidacy of Mr. Invictus on the Libertarian Party Ticket.

Libertarians eschew the use of force to achieve social or political goals, and justify force only in defense of ones rights, property or person. Through his writings, video presentations and personal appearances, Mr. Invictus has advocated for a civil war in this nation, as well as advocating for a state run eugenics program that would weed out what he would consider the weakest, the mentally infirm and the most diseased. The NFLP echoes the popular sentiment from across the political spectrum that such attitudes are abhorrent. They are completely in opposition to what Libertarians stand for.

Unfortunately, the LPF is powerless to prevent Mr. Invictus being on the ballot. In 2007 the Florida Legislature removed provisions of FS 96.096 that allowed political parties to approve of who ran under their banners. The LPF officially opposes this law. Unless he is opposed by another candidate in a primary election, a matter that requires a great deal of money and an additional candidate, Mr. Invictus will bear the Libertarian name on the ballot before the voters. The law removed First Amendment protections from all political parties, major and minor alike, to decide who represents them, and invites political mischief from anyone with a checkbook that can pay the candidate filing fee. Libertarians would no more advocate that Republicans or Democrats be forced to accept candidates they do not want than we would have to accept such candidates ourselves.

The NFLP strongly urges Mr. Invictus to remove himself from the Libertarian Party of Florida and find a group more in line with his ideology.

Pete Blome
Chair, NFLP

70 thoughts on “Northwest Florida Libertarian Party Disavows Augustus Sol Invictus as Libertarian Candidate for U.S. Senate

  1. Vicki Kirkland

    Mr. Blome states that in 2007 the Florida Legislature removed provisions of FS 96.096, but he doesn’t give the background as to why this occurred. In 1998, Florida Constitutional Amendment 11 was passed which helped ease the horrendous ballot access restrictions suffered by minor parties in Florida. The LPF supported this Amendment. The Legislature took nearly 10 years to bring the law up to speed with Amendment 11.

  2. paulie

    Vicki – please forgive my ignorance, but why would allowing more parties on the ballot require the state to force those parties to accept anyone who wants to register with those parties and run in their primaries to be on the ballot as their candidate if they are the only one who can afford to pay the filing fee? Note that this is a general question, since at this time it is not clear whether Invictus or anyone else will be able to pay the filing fee in this particular case (I think it’s a pretty safe bet that no one will qualify by petition).

    The state could, I would think, have a law allowing for easy ballot access for political parties and at the same time allowing those parties to veto who can run for their nomination, or even choose to nominate by convention or privately run primary using their own rules as opposed to a state administered primary using the state’s rules.

  3. Pete Blome

    Vicki Kirkland, the current LPF Vice Chair, has never fully explained what is her rationale is for supporting the current State imposed restrictions on the LPF choosing its own candidates. She says things were bad 15 years ago, and that we have better ballot access now, but it is never clear from her explanations why is it the LPF must suffer with State law that now makes it impossible for us to prevent anyone with a checkbook from running as a libertarian without the approval of the Party. Are we supposed to accept the way things are now because they were worse in the past? Or is it Vicki’s personal idea that State intervention was good and forced libertarians to behave in a manner more to her liking? As I’ve written on the Libertarian Party of Florida Facebook Page addressing Vicki Kirkland …”You make me address four different issues here: a) You admit you advocated for the State of Florida, using the force of law, to make a private, voluntary association (the old LPF) to give up its choice of a state convention (as unjust to the members as that may have been) and instead use the same primary system as the big parties do. I see no force or fraud in the old system, although, internally, I would have advocated for the LPF to solve the problem and not make the State of Florida force us to adopt their solution. b) As usual, you aren’t talking about what is the current problem. The current problem is anyone can whip out a checkbook and be a libertarian candidate whether they are one or not, if they are not opposed in a primary. As you also know, coming up with multiple candidates for campaigns is difficult and expensive. Most races do not have LP candidates opposing each other. I can only conclude you would rather see someone who is not approved by the Party run, and accept the risks of doing that, than no one run at all. I don’t agree. c) Under the current law, the Libertarians are not voting their preference. If Invictus [Augustus Invictus…candidate for U.S. Senate..pjb note] is unopposed, where is the choice? We are forced by State law to have him on the ballot. Since when do Libertarians approve of such a thing? d) Does a private, voluntary organization, such as a political party, have the right to determine who represents it as a candidate under the First Amendment? I would say yes. Government intervention that makes it otherwise should be opposed, not applauded.

  4. Vicki Kirkland

    First of all, let me say that I wasn’t active in the LPF in 1998, when the LPF supported Constitutional Amendment 11. Therefore I can’t address all the questions posed by Mr..
    Blome. (I probably could if I had more time, but I’m busy with several other projects for the Party.)
    Constitutional Law Professor Tom Regnier, a Libertarian who was instrumental in getting this Amendment passed could address these questions far more comprehensively. I will say this though. I’ve never seen the Libertarian Party as a private club with a small group of delegates at a state convention deciding who can and can’t be a candidate, which was the system in place when I first got involved in the LPF in 2004. There are many reasons why Libertarians can’t get to a Convention. We have roughly 30,000 registered Libertarians in the State of Florida. Why should they be locked out of choosing candidates because they can’t gat to a state convention. The key is for the LPF leadership to reach out to those registered voters and inform them what the candidates stand for. As far as I’m concerned, anyone should have the right to run, and anyone has the right not to support them.

  5. paulie

    PJB

    Holy cow, that’s one long paragraph!

    Vicki is 100% correct that the prior rules were really, really bad. Getting enough signatures to be on the ballot was a huge challenge. But that doesn’t explain why parties have to be forced to accept candidates who are not in line with their views or are embarrassing. The previous rule, as I understand it, allowed major parties to veto candidates from their primaries. Couldn’t the signature requirement have been done away with while retaining the ability to veto candidates?

  6. Pete Blome

    So in order to solve the problems with Party member participation, Vicki Kirkland approves of the State of Florida intervening and imposing, by law, an involuntary solution, where there is no force or fraud involved. The LPF “private club” atmosphere of 1998 must be countered with the rule of law from the State, and she advocated for it. As wrong as the old system may have been, where was the force? Where was the fraud? It couldn’t have been changed by voluntary means? In addition, she thinks the First Amendment should not apply to the voluntary, private organization that is the LPF. If a candidate wants to run as a Libertarian, the Party should have no say over whether they can or not. None of this is Libertarian, and her ideas, quite frankly, seem more at home in the Republican or Democrat Parties who are always so ready to get the State to intervene.

  7. NewFederalist

    If this guy is such an embarrassment to the party just how difficult would it be to raise the ten grand necessary to run someone against him? Perhaps Tom Knapp could be persuaded if he didn’t have to come up with the cash. Just my $0.02 worth,

  8. paulie

    Constitutional Law Professor Tom Regnier, a Libertarian who was instrumental in getting this Amendment passed could address these questions far more comprehensively.

    Please invite him to the discussion.

    I will say this though. I’ve never seen the Libertarian Party as a private club with a small group of delegates at a state convention deciding who can and can’t be a candidate, which was the system in place when I first got involved in the LPF in 2004. There are many reasons why Libertarians can’t get to a Convention. We have roughly 30,000 registered Libertarians in the State of Florida. Why should they be locked out of choosing candidates because they can’t gat to a state convention.

    Wouldn’t this be even more true of the national convention?

    And it’s a separate question from whether a party can veto candidates from its primary. Prior to the change, my understanding is that the Democrats and Republicans held primaries, yet their central committees were able to veto candidates they did not approve from appearing in the primary. Is that not correct? Furthermore it is my understanding that from 1998 to 2007 the LP and other parties were added to the list of state recognized parties and were still able to choose to nominate by convention.

    Supposing you want to go to a system of nominating by government primaries, and allow lots of parties to be recognized and do so: what prevents the state from allowing those parties from vetoing candidates from the primary, just as the Ds and Rs did when they were the only recognized parties, and just as they continued to have the right to do for a number of years after the list of parties was expanded?

    The key is for the LPF leadership to reach out to those registered voters and inform them what the candidates stand for. As far as I’m concerned, anyone should have the right to run, and anyone has the right not to support them.

    Sounds good in principle, but the news coverage around Invictus amply demonstrates that the media picks up on embarrassing candidates and treats them like they are already nominated even if they haven’t even qualified for the primary and may not do so. Regardless of whether you agree that Invictus is embarrassing you should realize that this sort of thing can and does occur and that a party, any party, should have the basic freedom to not be associated with people that it clearly does not want to be associated with.

  9. paulie

    If this guy is such an embarrassment to the party just how difficult would it be to raise the ten grand necessary to run someone against him? Perhaps Tom Knapp could be persuaded if he didn’t have to come up with the cash. Just my $0.02 worth,

    Knapp said no. Mike Kane was still saying maybe last time I checked. Apparently it’s not as easy as it sounds to raise the ten grand.

  10. Matt Cholko

    I’d say that the news media has picked up on Invictus because LP groups throughout Florida have been sending them press releases asking them to cover him.

    Few people give a damn about minor party candidates during campaign season. Even fewer give a damn the year before the election. If the LPF and it’s affiliates would just stfu about Invictus, there would be far less coverage of the story.

  11. Joe Wendt

    So, the answer to not liking a candidate is to criticize and condemn that candidate instead of recruiting an alternative to primary Augustus. And people wonder why the LPF can’t find candidates for the various state & local offices up for election next year (why risk the backlash from these people?). I give Augustus credit for tolerating this behavior and not fleeing the party like a plague, he’s a far more patient man than I.

  12. Vicki Kirkland

    Let me say again that I could not have advocated for anything in 1998 as I wasn’t involved in the LPF until 2004. Also, people keep referring to “the party”. Who exactly is “the party”? What about the 30,000 registered Libertarians?. Until the Amendment was passed, minor parties did not have the option to pay a filing fee. As to my arguments applying to a National Convention,
    I don’t think they can. We have 50 diverse states and DC. some don’t have filing fees and some don’t have Party registration..

  13. paulie

    I’m all for recruiting a candidate to the primary, and have been trying to do so. It’s not easy, apparently. But see above:

    Sounds good in principle, but the news coverage around Invictus amply demonstrates that the media picks up on embarrassing candidates and treats them like they are already nominated even if they haven’t even qualified for the primary and may not do so. Regardless of whether you agree that Invictus is embarrassing you should realize that this sort of thing can and does occur and that a party, any party, should have the basic freedom to not be associated with people that it clearly does not want to be associated with.

  14. Joe Wendt

    Better yet, if Pete Blome were really offended by Augustus and really gave a crap, why doesn’t he primary him. A lot of people want to chastise Augustus, but won’t stand up and actually run in a primary or do something productive.

  15. paulie

    I give Augustus credit for tolerating this behavior and not fleeing the party like a plague, he’s a far more patient man than I.

    Hopefully his patience will run out very, very soon.

  16. paulie

    Also, people keep referring to “the party”. Who exactly is “the party”?

    In between conventions or primaries, the executive committee, in this context.

  17. Andy Craig

    “So, the answer to not liking a candidate is to criticize and condemn that candidate instead of recruiting an alternative to primary Augustus.”

    Those are two very strange things to portray as mutually exclusive either/or, since 1) of course people criticize candidates they oppose (duh, how is that wrong?) and 2) people are working to recruit an alternative– several, in fact. Wyllie attempted to do so before it all blew up, LPF members have coordinated with each to to do so since then. Of course, they don’t have whatever non-Libertarian financial backer is fronting Invictus his $10,000 filing fee and referring GOP campaign staffers to him.

    Good to know he has the pro-Santorum vote locked down, though.

  18. paulie

    “So, the answer to not liking a candidate is to criticize and condemn that candidate instead of recruiting an alternative to primary Augustus.”

    Those are two very strange things to portray as mutually exclusive either/or, since 1) of course people criticize candidates they oppose (duh, how is that wrong?) and 2) people are working to recruit an alternative– several, in fact. Wyllie attempted to do so before it all blew up, LPF members have coordinated with each to to do so since then.

    Excellent point.

    Of course, they don’t have whatever non-Libertarian financial backer is fronting Invictus his $10,000 filing fee and referring GOP campaign staffers to him.

    Thanks for the reminder. I need to compile the Okyay discussions still.

    However, as far as I know Invictus does not have the money raised yet either. At least that is what he said on the LPF EC call. People are just assuming he comes up with the 10k but to my knowledge there is no evidence that he can or will. All of this publicity and he hasn’t plunked down a penny.

    That gives me an idea. Maybe instead of raising 10k to see if they can primary Invictus some LPF member or members can announce they want to primary him and start issuing press releases and then see if the money comes in? How about that?

    Good to know he has the pro-Santorum vote locked down, though.

    Yep!

  19. Vicki Kirkland

    You are correct that “the party” is the LPFEC between Conventions, but we are primarily talking about how to choose candidates, and the LPFEC can’t decide who can run. Also, concerning National Conventions, ideally every state would have Libertarian registration and Presidential primaries.

  20. paulie

    I’d say that the news media has picked up on Invictus because LP groups throughout Florida have been sending them press releases asking them to cover him.

    You have a point, but mine still stands. Now that they have picked up on him they don’t really care that he had not been nominated, or in fact that he has not even qualified for the primary and may or may not do so. As far as they are concerned he is THE LP candidate.

  21. Joe Wendt

    Andy Craig,

    Considering the Wyllie campaign was able to pay a similar fee and raise over $180000 in 2014, obtaining $10000 for a Senate primary should be easy for those involved in that campaign (like Wyllie, Blome, and the usual suspects). My criticism still stands and is valid, because they do have the ability to raise the money to recruit an alternative to get on the ballot. Yet, they’re focused on essentially bad-mouthing a candidate, with the blowback of giving Augustus far more media exposure than Wyllie ever got.

  22. paulie

    LPFEC can’t decide who can run.

    Why not? Shouldn’t they be able to say that some candidates are just too embarrassing? I realize that is not the law now but why shouldn’t it be?

  23. paulie

    Considering the Wyllie campaign was able to pay a similar fee and raise over $180000 in 2014, obtaining $10000 for a Senate primary should be easy for those involved in that campaign (like Wyllie, Blome, and the usual suspects). My criticism still stands and is valid, because they do have the ability to raise the money to recruit an alternative to get on the ballot. Yet, they’re focused on essentially bad-mouthing a candidate, with the blowback of giving Augustus far more media exposure than Wyllie ever got.

    And why do you think they are doing that?

  24. Joe Wendt

    Paulie,

    IDK. They could just be stupid and not understand the obvious consequences of sensationalizing this story to the media. They could actually be trying to discredit the LP in general for some bizarre reason that makes no sense to normal people. Hell, it could be aliens for all I know. The fact is that they have the ability to raise the funds to at least get someone else on the ballot, and their focus on attacking Augustus instead of recruiting an alternative seems fishy. Am i wrong.

  25. Pete Blome

    It seems to have become my job to point out that Vicki Kirkland has again evaded any reasoning why she advocates State laws that control the LPF as they do now. She has avoided the fundamental libertarian issue that no force or fraud was used, yet she advocates government intervention in a private, voluntary organization. She further advocates that the LPF, a private, voluntary organization, has no protections under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and must accept whoever the State says we must accept as a candidate. Since when do Libertarians advocate ideas like this?

  26. Wang Tang-Fu

    “Hell, it could be aliens for all I know.”

    Personally I am going with that one.

    “Am i wrong.”

    In general, or specifically?

  27. Wang Tang-Fu

    OK, new conspiracy theory!

    The Wyllietarians are actually on Roger Stone’s team. Wyllie already admitted he asked Stone to run. Stone recruited Invictus to make himself look better in the primary. The Wyllietarians spread the Invictus story and sensationalized for maximum tactical nuclear media impact on purpose so as to get more attention for Stone when he enters the primary. Wyllie and Stone hate the national party and Gary Johnson. All of this has may have something to do with taking over the national party as well. Stone and the Wyllietarians will pack the national convention on behalf of longtime Stone buddy Jesse Ventura. If Stone’s other long time buddy Donald Trump tanks in the Republican primary, maybe he’ll come in and swoop in on the LP.

    Sounds crazy, I know. But does anyone have a better theory to fit the known facts?

  28. Pete Blome

    Addressing Joe Wendt…For once you actually said something that is valid. Why don’t I raise money or run? I resigned the LPF EC for health reasons, both my own and my wife. I physically could not run if I wanted to for the foreseeable future. I frequently have difficulty attending public meetings either due to my own pain or time I must devote to her. I am trying to stay active, but the reality is many of my Panhandle contacts have gone cold because I could not maintain them. I do what I can when I can. I seek potential libertarians who can carry on the fight. Much of the time, however, I simply sit at a keyboard and try to keep the discussion alive with colleagues or on sites like this one, and hope that the future will be better. I can only shake my head at the thought of an Invictus/Kirkland future for the LPF.

  29. Vicki Kirkland

    Paulie, the LPFEC is 21 people. No, 21 people should not be able to decide who the candidates are. Mr. Blome, I have not evaded the question. I answered it above. You don’t have to like my answer, but don’t say I didn’t answer it. My answer is that in my opinion anyone should have the right to run for public office, and anyone is free not to support them.

  30. Joe Wendt

    Pete Blome,

    Sorry to hear about your health, however there are more productive ways to use your time than fanning the flames on a story that is helping a candidate you don’t like.

  31. Pete Blome

    What crap, Vicki. You haven’t answered the questions. Why do you think the State had to come in and, by law, force the LPF to accept a candidate? Why do you think the First Amendment doesn’t apply to the LPF? Why did you advocate State intervention when no force or fraud was used?

  32. Wang Tang-Fu

    “Wang Tang-Fu “But does anyone have a better theory to fit the known facts?”

    Aliens”

    True, there is still that.

  33. paulie

    Paulie, the LPFEC is 21 people. No, 21 people should not be able to decide who the candidates are.

    I am not saying they should be able to decide who the candidates are, only who they aren’t. Being able to decide that some candidates are too embarrassing can very well be considered part of the trust that they are elected to carry out, along with other decisions such as how party money is raised and spent, what goes out through official party communication channels, and so on. If those 21 people should be entrusted with those decisions, why should they not be entrusted withe vetoing candidates out of the primary?

  34. paulie

    So crowdfund donors to raise the $10,000, actually target twice that, and put someone else on the ballot.

    Good suggestion, but I now have an even better one, which may have been lost in the discussion above. Invictus didn’t wait until he had 10k stashed before announcing. He announced first, and will try to raise money later. All this coverage, and as far as we know he hasn’t raised a dime. Now, maybe he has, and I don’t know. The only thing I do know in that regard is that on the LPF EC call he said he does not have the 10k ready to go but he’s not worried about it because he has plenty of time left to raise the money.

    That being the case why can’t one or more other people do the same thing? Announce you are running, and start putting out press releases and asking for money. If you don’t raise enough, either go away quietly or announce you did not raise it and so what.. in the meantime you put out a message and picked up whatever attention you picked up.

    What’s wrong with that approach? Why is no one taking it?

  35. Vicki Kirkland

    Paulie, no I don’t think 21 people should be deciding who can OR can’t run as a candidate. The argument in favor of selection at State Conventions is far better than the LPFEc deciding, but my opinion is and always has been that anyone should be able to run.

  36. Pete Blome

    Everyone does not have the right to run as a Libertarian. That should be a decision made by the voluntary, private organization of the party. If someone doesn’t conform to the Party tenets, they can run on another Party ticket or make their own, or run as an independent, but Libertarians should not be compelled to accept someone because a state law says so. It is a right of association protected by the First Amendment, and if you say the LPF does not have that right, you nullify the Bill of Rights. The State can tell any group who their leaders are.

    Your stance on the unalienable rights of people is critically flawed.

    Why do you advocate State intervention when no force or fraud is used? How is this justified by the Party platform?

  37. paulie

    Paulie, no I don’t think 21 people should be deciding who can OR can’t run as a candidate.

    Already got that. My question is why not? And if not, why is it OK for them to make all the other decisions about party fundraising, messaging and spending? Aren’t our candidates a big part of our messaging, even when they haven’t been nominated, as the current episode illustrates?

    Also, why was it OK for the D and R exec comms to have veto power over their candidates until 2007? If it was OK for them, why isn’t it OK for us?

  38. Vicki Kirkland

    Do you know for certain that that veto power was in place? Some people who were activists back then that I’ve talk to this evening, say that it wasn’t. Making decisions concerning finances, messaging and spending, is very different than making decisions about people.

  39. Jed Ziggler (@JedZiggler)

    “Paulie, the LPFEC is 21 people. No, 21 people should not be able to decide who the candidates are. ”

    Why not? If you don’t like who they pick, don’t vote for that person. Better yet, don’t be a member of that party. Political parties should be permitted to select their candidates by whatever means they wish, be it by primary convention, or whatever. If a candidate doesn’t want to go through the petition system, the state should allow said person to declare himself or herself an independent candidate. No petitions or state mandated primaries necessary.

  40. Andy Craig

    @paulie

    “All this coverage, and as far as we know he hasn’t raised a dime. Now, maybe he has, and I don’t know. ”

    Good point, but what I was positing that somebody already told him they’d cover it, or at least help do so to a significant amount. It’s entirely possible that somebody (or a couple of somebodies) have pledged the amount, but are holding off until he needs it to keep their name off the reports for now. If it was, for example, somebody who has supported GOP campaigns in the past, that’d be something to keep hidden as late as they could. I don’t know offhand if there’s a filing report between the deadline and the primary, but even so it would make sense to delay the actual transfer of funds.

    Is that the case? I don’t know. It’s all speculation. Invictus is/was some kind of lawyer, supposedly, so maybe he’s just wealthy enough that he’s comfortable covering the balance of anything he doesn’t raise (….how much does defending neo-Nazis pay?) But his confidence and lack of concern about raising that much, and that’s he’s so blase about the assumption that he’ll have it, makes me think he likely already has some sort of plan or arrangements for it. Maybe he won’t end up having enough- we can surely hope. But I wouldn’t count on it.

  41. Pete Blome

    Vicki, are you able to make a cogent, reasoned response to why you advocate State control of the nomination process of voluntary, private, political parties when no force or fraud is used? To keep repeating “no I don’t think 21 people should be deciding who can OR can’t run as a candidate” is insufficient for the Vice Chair of the LPF. It explains nothing. It appears to favor big government, a very non libertarian position. To ignore questions of Constitutionality does not make them go away, either.

  42. steve m

    The problem with having 21 people pick the party’s candidate is that by doing so the party is saying to its registered voters “we don’t trust you, but we expect you to trust us”.

  43. Jed Ziggler Post author

    The argument isn’t “21 people shouldn’t pick the candidates”, the argument is “the state has no business telling parties how to pick the candidates.” Even if you think the party should choose its candidates by primary, you should still be against the state telling all parties they have to.

  44. paulie

    Do you know for certain that that veto power was in place?

    I’m going by what was written in this article and previously not disputed in this thread. Haven’t checked elsewhere. I can tell you for a fact that there are states where Republican and Democratic executive committees can block candidates from their primaries.

  45. paulie

    Making decisions concerning finances, messaging and spending, is very different than making decisions about people.

    Why? Candidates are obviously a big part of messaging.

  46. paulie

    Political parties should be permitted to select their candidates by whatever means they wish, be it by primary convention, or whatever. If a candidate doesn’t want to go through the petition system, the state should allow said person to declare himself or herself an independent candidate. No petitions or state mandated primaries necessary.

    Exactly!

  47. paulie

    The problem with having 21 people pick the party’s candidate is that by doing so the party is saying to its registered voters “we don’t trust you, but we expect you to trust us”.

    I don’t think that’s true. For example, the Alabama Republicans bounce whatever candidates they don’t like from their primary, and as far as I can their voters are for the most part OK with that. In fact I can’t recall the trusting the voters argument even being made at all.

  48. paulie

    The argument isn’t “21 people shouldn’t pick the candidates”, the argument is “the state has no business telling parties how to pick the candidates.” Even if you think the party should choose its candidates by primary, you should still be against the state telling all parties they have to.

    Exactly.

  49. paulie

    Invictus is/was some kind of lawyer, supposedly, so maybe he’s just wealthy enough that he’s comfortable covering the balance of anything he doesn’t raise (….how much does defending neo-Nazis pay?)

    He is an attorney. On the call he said most of his clients are drug cases. As for the nazis… well, they own(ed) a piece of property and apparently had lots of money for guns and ammo. So it’s certainly conceivable they have some money socked away. So far, the only (ex?) GOP connection I have uncovered is Okyay, but there may be others I don’t know about yet. Her being fairly recently from NY raises the suspicion that Stone may be somehow involved.

  50. steve m

    I don’t care what the argument is. If the state should tell the party or not. If the party tells me they don’t trust me…

    My response is yep… well its a two way street…. I don’t trust you either.

    So dictate the choices from the top and I wont support you.

  51. steve m

    If Caesar can’t afford 10K$ then he isn’t much of a threat. I would presume he can afford it… so get another candidate and start raising the cash. There are a lot of other Floridians that can afford $10K find one and get them to run.

  52. steve m

    For example… the Libertarian Party at its Presidential Nomination Convention gave us the Bob Barr and Wayne Allen Root ticket. Wouldn’t we have been better off with the Libertarian voters picking instead?

  53. paulie

    But his confidence and lack of concern about raising that much, and that’s he’s so blase about the assumption that he’ll have it, makes me think he likely already has some sort of plan or arrangements for it.

    Maybe. But on the other hand, this is the guy who changed his name to Unconquerable Majestic Sun-God, so confidence is not a problem for him.

  54. Root's Teeth Are Awesome

    steve m the Libertarian Party at its Presidential Nomination Convention gave us the Bob Barr and Wayne Allen Root ticket. Wouldn’t we have been better off with the Libertarian voters picking instead?

    Libertarian voters might have picked Rudy Giuliani, Donald Trump, Jesse Ventura, or Joe Lieberman. I’ve met dues-paying LP members who’ve suggested all of the above as LP dream candidates. Voters would probably swing even more mainstream, and more often.

    (I was at a county LP convention in 2007 or 2008, where a longtime LP member was extolling the libertarian virtues of Giuliani, presumably because Giuliani was “tough on Islamo-fascism.”)

    If the voters, rather than delegates, were to pick the LP’s candidates, there’d probably be fewer outright nutjob candidates, but many more mainstream statist candidates. For better or worse.

    Not that I have any solution. Should the LP ever attract tens of millions of voters, the dilution and compromising of its principles is inevitable.

  55. Andy Craig

    Alaska US Sen 2014 is my case in point against the wisdom or desirability of nomination-deciding minor party primaries.

    In Alaska, there were two candidates who were both relatively well-known Libertarians who’d both run for office before, who were both running active campaigns and engaging in a serious primary debate, on the issues and on which would make a better general election candidate. The textbook case, according to primary advocates, of when a primary election among all Libertarian voters should decide the matter, not the much smaller (and better-informed) party leadership or convention-goers.

    Who won that primary? Some third guy who had not campaigned at all, who was literally incommunicado and had to be hunted down by the party officers after he won the primary. Nobody in LP-AK had even heard of him before. He was literally off in the woods somewhere and didn’t even vote for himself (granted that might be a little less unusual in Alaska, but still…).

    And why did he win? Because he had the same last name as the Republican-turned-Independent who was running for Governor (and who ended up winning).

    1,290 people voted for the candidate who had been endorsed by the state party cmte., 734 voted for his actively campaigning Libertarian opponent. 3,167 voted for a the guy they thought was somebody else running for another office and not as a Libertarian.

    Luckily for LP-AK, once he had been hunted down Thom Walker was talked into stepping aside, allowing the state party to appoint Mark Fish (the runner-up in the primary) to replace him. But if he hadn’t agreed to that, LP-AK would have been stuck with him as their nominee.

    Now, you could point to Alaska’s weird ADL primary as contributing to that, and it certainly did to a degree. (Libertarians and Dems and AIP all ran in the same primary and the top vote-getter from each advanced to the general) You can posit closed primaries, or at least separate primaries, wouldn’t have that problem. But the reality is that closing the primary only marginally ameliorates the problem (and has problems of its own, in terms of the principle of closing a state-run election.)

    State-run primary elections, means deciding our nomination by random chance and voter ignorance. If a candidate has name ID- even *false* name ID- that will dominate. And if, as is more common, none of the candidates has any name ID outside active party members, then you might as well flip a coin. Most people who’ll vote- even if they’ve registered as Libertarians- won’t know who the candidates running are, what their pros and cons are, who has support among active party members, and if they’re even ideologically libertarian.

    There are valid reasons why,in an environment where primaries are expected and are near-universally used by the major parties, it might be to the benefit of a state LP to participate in that process instead of abstaining from it or worse, not qualifying for it. However, picking better nominees or having a higher-quality nominating process is *not* among those benefits.

  56. steve m

    There are reasons I don’t donate funds to the LNC for its day to day operations and top down management is the predominant reason. So against Top down we have The Barr Root presidential team and for top down we have an Alaskan out doorman. I would rather be faced with the Alaska issue.

    I would also point out that Libertarians are not Alabama Republicans.

    I am a member of the Alaskan Alpine Club and as I recall its founder used to shake his head and laugh at the concept of trying to heard cats. Libertarians, being a bit more independent and thought full then your typical democan/republicrat sheeple, aren’t going to be pushed around that easy and know that their votes belong to themselves and not some all to often dysfunctional political party. Tread on us from the top and you might be missing significant support later. Even if you are doing it in our best interest.

  57. paulie

    How about top down from the state regime dictating to all parties how to pick their leadership and candidates… what can be more top down than that?

  58. steve m

    I don’t believe I have advocated having the government dictate party structures.

    I don’t want to be part of party that believes in a paternalistic “we are the party authorities and we know what is best for all of us” organization.

    I would much prefer an organization who tries to create a level playing field for allowing competing candidates, provides equal support for pre-primary candidates, provides support to the post primary candidate and provides channels of communication between party supporters.

    I believe that the majority of the fights within the Libertarian Party are about gaining and maintaining control of the various executive committees so that those engaging in the fights can pick the candidates for us.

  59. paulie

    I don’t believe I have advocated having the government dictate party structures.

    But that’s what the Florida state government is doing here, which is the main bone of contention.

  60. steve m

    I believe the main point of contention is that a candidate not to the liking of the Libertarian Party of Florida’s executive committee. The Executive Committee feels that it should have the authority to remove a candidate that they don’t like. I believe that the Party should have the right to grant themselves that authority, but if they did then I would not want to be a member of that party. I believe the better option is to find a better candidate and then use non-party resources to beat the bad candidate in a primary election.

    Granting the party executive committee the power to purge people from its ranks only leads to more infighting to gain control of the executive committees and is a miss use of party resources.

    I believe that the majority of the fights within the Libertarian Party are about gaining and maintaining control of the various executive committees so that those engaging in the fights can pick the candidates for us.

    Better to trust the membership!

  61. steve m

    I don’t see what is so complicated?

    If you grant a small group the power to make decisions for a larger group they will sooner or latter abuse that power. There will be shenanigans and back stabbings to gain control of that small group.

    Its far better to limit the power and authority of the leadership and then trust the larger membership for picking their candidates.

  62. Thane Eichenauer

    Paulie comments on another thread: “That depends on what his purpose is. If it’s to embarrass the LP you would be correct. If it’s to set up a foil for himself to make himself look palatable by comparison, not so much. There could be some other angle I haven’t thought of.”

    I have no objection to full research on all past and present objections and possible angles that might cause Invictus to become the next Libertarian Party nominee for the office of US Senate from Florida. If you are willing to continue your examination of him and his actions then I believe that at some point his positive words and actions will exceed your reservations about him. I am willing to continue my examination of him and his actions with an eye towards the possibility that he may be an awful political bogeyman set upon us by Roger Stone.

    The above comment is in response to the comment at this URL:
    http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2015/11/lp-candidate-hopeful-derrick-michael-reids-speech-at-the-dakotas-convention/#comment-1267503

  63. Thane Eichenauer

    Paulie comments on another thread: “So what? No one claimed he talks about it every time.”
    I mention it because other folks here at IPR seem to find the past words of Invictus mentioning eugenics to be a bug in their bonnet. It’s been mentioned a lot. I felt a number of mentions of its lack of mention to be a relevant and appropriate comment.

  64. paulie

    I believe that at some point his positive words and actions will exceed your reservations about him.

    Highly unlikely.

    I am willing to continue my examination of him and his actions with an eye towards the possibility that he may be an awful political bogeyman set upon us by Roger Stone.

    The Stone hypothesis is just one of several possibilities, none of them good.

  65. paulie

    I mention it because other folks here at IPR seem to find the past words of Invictus mentioning eugenics to be a bug in their bonnet. It’s been mentioned a lot. I felt a number of mentions of its lack of mention to be a relevant and appropriate comment.

    Not especially. It’s just one of many problem with him that I have discussed extensively, and his chameleon-like qualities have also been remarked on quite a bit.

Leave a Reply

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