Open Thread for June 2016

exasperation

You know what to do. This thread is for you to share anything you think the group would like. It should be related to our mission of covering Independents and third-party politics, but it doesn’t have to. Just make sure it doesn’t plagiarize something or libel someone, and you’ll probably be okay.

Oh, and in case you need some distraction:

286 thoughts on “Open Thread for June 2016

  1. Rich Moroney

    With at least some polls showing Johnson at 10% and over, it’s a possibility that he achieves the 15% threshold for debate inclusion. In case that does happen, I just want to be on-record as predicting that the threshold criteria will be narrowed sufficiently to exclude him.

  2. Chuck Moulton

    I distributed two pieces of Johnson literature to all the delegates.

    The first was a “Johnson intervention” color legal-sized two-sided page flyer:
    http://www.chuckmoulton.org/libertarian/2016/johnson/johnson_pledge.pdf

    It encouraged delegates to withhold voting for Johnson until he makes the following pledge:

    1) I will disavow (or at least de-emphasize) the Fair Tax.
    2) I will get messaging advice from libertarians, not Republicans.
    3) I will report my fundraising / spending transparently and granularly.
    4) I will campaign with a balanced budget – not spend more than I raise.
    5) I will make growing LP membership a core goal of my campaign.

    I’m told several people directly asked Gary Johnson if he would make the pledge. Johnson apparently said he thought his campaign’s finances and transparency were good enough already and there wasn’t a problem with his messaging.

    The second was a “Weld screwed LPNY in 2006” 1/6 sized black & white flyer:
    http://www.chuckmoulton.org/libertarian/2016/johnson/weld_football.pdf

    I printed it out so last minute that color was cost prohibitive.

    Unfortunately, the delegates chose a Johnson/Weld ticket despite their huge problems. Johnson will continue to shill for a big new tax, tainting the libertarian brand. Johnson will continue to run up a huge debt and get his messaging from conservative Republicans.

    The delegates didn’t care that Johnson said Libertarians meet in a treehouse during the debate. The delegates didn’t care that he suggested stopping coal production is a free market solution. The delegates didn’t care that Johnson claimed Weld is “the original libertarian”.

    I voted as follows:
    President (1st ballot): Austin Petersen
    President (2nd ballot): Austin Petersen
    Vice-President (1st ballot): Alicia Dearn
    Vice-President (2nd ballot): Larry Sharpe

    I’ll be voting for Johnson / Weld in the general election this November. I’ll be watching the news coverage and wish them the best. I’ll be donating some money to ballot access in Virginia and Pennsylvania. I’ll be volunteering to help defend the petition in Pennsylvania when the Republicans challenge us. But I won’t be donating any money to the Gary Johnson campaign… I’m a libertarian, and I don’t want to encourage or enable diluting of the libertarian brand with conservative messaging.

  3. Chuck Moulton

    My literature wasn’t effective enough to stop Johnson / Weld from getting the nomination or to get Johnson to run as a real libertarian. Still, with around 10 votes pushing both Johnson and Weld to a second ballot, I like to hope my efforts swayed 10 delegates from Johnson / Weld to other candidates and prevented 1st ballot wins. It’s hard to know.

  4. Melinda Pillsbury-Foster

    Hi Chuck!

    Since this is an open thread I thought I would post this. Convey my greetings to Eric and Justin for me. – Best, Melinda

    Judge rejects voter-registration lawsuit from Sanders supporters
    http://e.latimes.com/a/hBXT11xB8hLWGB9OPp0AAwcqpiz/exmp1
    Los Angeles Times | June 1, 2016 | 3:11 PM

    A federal judge refused today to reopen voter registration in California ahead of Tuesday’s presidential primary, telling a group led by backers of Sen. Bernie Sanders that the state’s election rules do not harm the rights of unaffiliated voters.

    Read more >>
    http://e.latimes.com/a/hBXT11xB8hLWGB9OPp0AAwcqpiz/exmp1

  5. Krzysztof Lesiak

    Does anyone know when the LP official convention minutes will be released? I’d love to see the breakdown of how states voted for POTUS and VP, but have not seen it anywhere.

  6. Andy

    Adding William Weld to the LP ticket may have cost us an endorsement from Ron Paul. I would not blame Ron Paul if he endorses Darrell Castle of the Constitution Party instead.

  7. French Revolutionary

    Why won’t he endorse David French?

    #FrenchRevolution

    #StormTheBastille

  8. robert capozzi

    GJ/WW blitzed the major media in NY yesterday. I’ve found CBS, Fox, CNN, and MSNBC doing extensive hard news and interviews of the two together.

    GJ’s responses have gotten better, and WW is smooth and quick on his feet. The two together make a compelling case. WW jumps in when GJ gets a bit tongue-tied. He’s also very good at re-directing questions to give the answer he wants to give without sounding evasive. Masterful at it, so far.

    Thankfully, GJ is not talking FAIR tax in the clips I saw. They are able to talk process, and even DJT has said that Johnson/Weld is a “fringe” ticket. I like GJ’s jui jitsu of owning the fringe label, but dripped with sarcasm. In the end, they are an edgy centrist ticket, right about where I like to see them.

    Could they be better and crisper? Sure. Maybe a bit more impassioned? Yes. On the other hand, DJT is impassioned in his megalomaniacal way, so the contrast works.

    They are definitely emphasizing social and war issues. It sells. They are unapologetic about that.

    I’d say even GJ’s public acknowledgement of cannabis usage works at this stage.

  9. Be Rational

    Tom Woods: Strawman arguments. And yes, you are being unreasonable.

    Johnson and Weld SHOULD take moderate positions and appeal to broad sections of society. This will bring in members and supporters. Then, Mr. Woods, you get to teach them and explain the principles and the NAP.

    First we have to get them interested, get their votes even, then we get those who are more interested and those who actually think to come to a meeting, a convention, an introduction to Libertarianism. Then we teach them, with friendly invitations, acceptance, understanding and gently lead them to the full monte – NAP Libertarianism.

    Johnson and Weld are doing their part.

    Langa and Tom Woods: Are you ready to do YOUR part?

  10. Steven Wilson

    The republicans are doing it. The democrats are doing it. So why not the Libertarians.

    I am referring to the movements against the “Ticket Candidates” per convention/primaries.

    I respect people who are in motion, and there are conservatives that don’t want Trump representing the brand “republican”. There are progressives that do not trust Billary Clinton, and therefore are stoking the fires of the Bern. You cannot dismiss these actions. They are not anomalies. These are large groups of people that are taking a stand for principle.

    What are the motives of the convention going Libertarians in 2016?

    1. Debate inclusion
    2. Vote-percentage exemption for immediate ballot access for years to come
    3. A possible position on Johnson’s campaign team or Judicial committee “consultant”

    As Johnson and Weld have already proven to be electable (not as Libertarians), this seems to sway the convention goer to punch their name. It worked for Bob Barr. It would explain such high first ballot numbers. But why?

    It is unlikely that the convention goer who supported a Johnson Weld Ticket knew that much about each candidates administration when Governors respectively. Also, many Libertarians libertarians are not fond of the Fair Tax which Johnson has openly endorsed. George Phillies has led the charge with writing a book about the finances of two Libertarian Presidential Candidates which apparently had difficulty running for President and living within there financial means. Phillies work was, IMO, thorough and precise. If the work had been done on another topic, perhaps it would’ve warranted entry into a peer reviewed journal of academia.

    In the study of group think, why do Libertarian convention goers keep voting for carpet baggers that have shown little to no Libertarian ideology in rhetoric, speeches, or actually votes while in office.

    The latter is important this year because both President and Vice President have records as Governors. Bob Barr had a record in the House. Many have thrown Johnson’s veto history into my face several times as “proof” of his libertarian leanings. I retort by bringing up his non-stance on marijuana law, the number of people incarcerated for drug offenses, his willingness to support market-based school systems, and his length in office. Johnson served two terms, was termed out, and could’ve done many things in his final term as Governor to “prove” his Libertarian mind and heart.

    All of the above rambling comes to a single point: the Libertarian convention goer is desperate. I don’t believe that ALL convention goers who voted for Johnson Weld believe that they are pure or hard core Libertarian. They believe they are libertarian at some level (with no actual proof beyond emotivism), and this seems to warrant a vote for each. The Libertarian Convention goer projects their own belief system onto these candidates and then cocoons in denial until the convention vote is finished.

    Bob Barr was a drug warrior while in the House. Weld has a track record for gun control. So here, one can deduce that the convention goer cares about one thing above all else: electability or past public service.

    The Libertarian convention goer does not represent the entire Libertarian movement in America. It is a poor sampling of a niche market of Freedom loving humans set on Individual sovereignty. The convention goer had the time, means, and the logistics to attend.

    It is my belief that if the Libertarian Party functioned as the other parties and ran primaries or caucuses in each state the vote totals would be much different. One could make an argument that in this day of technology that an online internet conference of registered delegates could easily vote for their candidate as did the convention goer. State Chairs and state committees could validate each online delegate and the elections could run just as they are now.

    But why has the Libertarian refrained from innovating and open range voting system for President/Vice President? Answer. It is much easier to manipulate a thousand rather than a million.

    Blogger post Disclosure:
    1996…I voted for Browne
    2000…I voted for Browne and aided his campaign
    2004…Protest year. I didn’t vote as I supported Caruso
    2008…I wrote in NOTA which in Missouri made my ballot void
    2012…I wrote in NOTA which in Missouri made my ballot void

    The Libertarian convention goer is an addict. I will not enable them.

    If a Johnson Weld ticket offends your principles, why not a “Never Johnson” campaign? Simple. The Libertarian is desperate.

  11. Be Rational

    Poor strategy Steve.

    Ed Clark brought in more LP members and donors than any other LP POTUS candidate. He did it be appearing moderate and reasonable and by having nationwide, major network, broadcast TV ads. The TV ads generated interest in this non-threatening, gentle, reasonable candidate, bring in thousands of prospects. An effective follow-up effort by the national office, and supplemented by local organizing, turned thousands of them into hard-core, principled, NAP, paid members and donors.

    However, thousands more were driven out of the LP by radicals who demanded instantaneous purity, instead of teaching and leading. Others were bored out of their minds by by-laws debates and Robert’s rules of order – which should be avoided most of the time.

    Johnson / Weld will do their job and bring in thousands of new prospects. You should be helping. Then local LP members need to bring them in with welcoming, interesting events where we can teach and lead.

    Stop whiining and do your part. I think many radicals actually prefer complaining to doing the hard work of using the smile muscles on their faces. They prefer to be whiny, grumpy, holier-than-thou and have an excues for just plain laziness.

  12. Andy

    Harry Browne brought in more new dues paying members, and he inspired more people to become hardcore Libertarian activists, than any other LP candidate for President (Ron Paul did more, but he did most of this outside the LP), and he did this by being radically libertarian.

  13. Be Rational

    Not so, Andy. From 1979 – 1982 the LP grew dramatically. Many State LPs set membership and candidate records that have never been matched since. The LP shrunk under Alicaia Clark and Honey Lanham and nearly died. Membership records, addresses, LP position papers, books, etc were lost, LP News just about vanished, fundraising dried up. Jim Turney as national chair drove to Houston and brought what was left of the LP back in a trailer. The LP grew a lot in the early 90s as several state parties had decent management and growth with cooperation from the LP office, especially with the assistance of people like Marc Montoni. Project Archimedes was a direct mail scam in the late 90s that generated a lot of activity and profit for the direct mail guru running it, but although this may have looked like membeship growth, it wasn’t real. Harry Browne’s help was overshadowed by the damage of looters in the office. With Johnson / Weld we may finally surpass the LP high-water mark set about 1982.

  14. Melinda Pillsbury-Foster

    And why did we have such a strong reaction to the Brown-Nosers, Flunkies and Lick-Spittles (these were the terms they used to describe themselves) who clustered around Ed Crane? Because they were lying to us. They lied every time they opened their mouths. Crane had lied so many times by 1979 he had to come to California before the convention to sit down with activists and face-to-face assure them he would not be managing the Clark for President Campaign. And guess what? He lied, right to our faces. He took the title ‘Director of Communications,’ with Ray Cunningham as titular Manager but Crane was running the campaign.

    This was to position themselves for the next round of making money from the Kochs. None of them ever volunteered as far as we saw. in fact, they used the term ‘activist’ as an insult. Being paid was everything. And the one paying them was Koch Industries.

    And what did they do later? Worked to change the law in states for the benefit of corporate interests. In this, they followed the same business plan set out by the Kochs. For more on the Howie Rich Campaigns see Hart Williams articles: http://www.hartwilliams.com/blog/blogger.html

    From Koch Truths: http://kochtruths.blogspot.com/2014/03/what-kochs-do-as-corporation.html
    (Go to the link to see links to the articles cited)

    The Koch Method – Lie, Cheat, Steal

    An article in Bloomberg, titled, Koch Brothers Flout Law Getting Richer With Secret Iran Sales, written by By Asjylyn Loder and David Evans, appearing October 3, 2011, included several instances which illustrate the enormous divide between what Charles, David, and other representatives of Koch say, versus how they operate within Koch Industries.

    The article provided a statement from Phil Dubose, a Koch employee. Dubose, who testified against the company, saying he and his colleagues were shown by their managers “how to steal and cheat — using techniques they called the Koch Method. “

    The Bloomberg article gives the sense the Koch Method was a long understood practice, foundational to Koch’s corporate culture. This impression is reinforced by the many instances cited by an array of individuals from within the corporation.

    According to whistleblowers, this method involves lying, cheating and stealing. These are their words, confirmed by objective evidence in legal proceedings.

    The full article is well worth reading. Here we cite two instances to illustrate the point.

    Sally Barnes-Soliz, now an investigator for the State Department of Labor and Industries in D.C., reported to a grand jury about being asked by her bosses and a company attorney at the Koch refinery in Corpus Christi, TX, to falsify data in a report to the state on uncontrolled emissions of benzene, which is known to cause cancer. She refused.

    Barnes-Soliz reported the bafflement when she cited ethical reasons for refusing. The Koch refinery unit pled guilty in 2001 to a federal felony charge for lying to regulators. Koch paid $20 million in fines and penalties. ” For more, go to link above.

    They lied to us in California. Ignored the agreement to share inquiries. And intentionally hid what was happening locally. If they did not control it they did not want it to happen.

    Crane went to DC to become wealthy and succeeded. At the same time he laid down a path of deceit and destruction which drove activists out of the LP.

    Now, as to what happened from 1979 – 1982. California grew, I was there and Southern California Vice Chairman. I ran for office myself and managed over a dozen other campaigns. At the National level there were problems but consider this. Alicia Clark was elected National Chairman and the National Director, Eric O’Keefe did not answer her calls, instead spending time on the phone with – Ed Crane. Phone records, you know. Note that Alicia Clark was, prior to her marriage to Ed Clark the CEO of a large corporation herself and was used to managing employees. When the facts were discovered, she fired O’Keefe, which was her right as CEO. The Crane Machine did everything in their power to interfere with the team elected by the LP, showing no concern for the facts. (They never did, you have to give it to them for consistency.)

    When the Crane Machine lost control of the LP after the 1983 Convention they decided to destroy it. They failed, but what happened was, as they said, a lot list of looters who saw the organization struggling with these and other problems and swooped in like vultures. I walked away in 1988, disgusted.

    Their strategy, boiled down to its most basic form was to lie to people and take centralized action to remove the limits on corporate greed while positioning this as working for ‘freedom.’ They were working for the Kochs, not for individual liberty or the goals agreed on when the LP was founded.

    I wrote articles on the Kochs, starting in 2006, continuing research which began in late 1980. Whistle-blowers sent me information. These checked out.

    Now, who else has been prominent in the news of late over the issue of long term lies made to protect their profits? Exxon, a close friend and associated corporation for Koch Industries.

    And what is Exxon Still Hiding? http://acpvision.blogspot.com/2016/05/exxon-what-they-are-still-hiding.html

    You don’t need to look far to find the model the Oil Industry follows. They all do it.

  15. Krzysztof Lesiak

    From a comment on the LP Facebook page:

    “But interestingly, of all the presidential candidates, I next side with Bernie Sanders at 73 percent,” he said.
    “And look, libertarians agree with socialism as long as it’s voluntary,” he said.
    – Libertarian presidential nominee, Gary Johnson

  16. Be Rational

    Who is this fascist, anti-free speech, anti-libertarian, anti-petitioner, anti-government reform Hart Williams? Some rabid, pro-state polemicist ranting against freedom advocates and against petitioners like Andy and myself does not make your case. It shows you have no idea what you are talking about, no idea what has been happening in the LP movement nationwide or even what liberty means and how to achieve it.

  17. Be Rational

    The LP was nearly destroyed under Alica Clark and Honey Lanham because of Alica Clark, Honey Lanham and the Bergland team who all together still had no clue how to organize or run a political party at any level. They destroyed the LP office all by themselves. They were unable to raise funds or even get out a fundraising letter. They destroyed the original copies of LP literature through their own incompetence. They didn’t manage their own mailing list, didn’t keep it updated, didn’t help local groups, failed at ballot drives – they spent enough money, they just didn’t have any political ability or management ability, so it was wasted. They did, however, suck out as much money as they could for themselves.

    The Crane machine was competent. When they left the LP it was a disaster for the LP and America. However, they did nothing whatsoever to harm the LP, other than withhold their own talents and money. It was the total incompetence and paranoia of the Alica/Honey team and the paranoia and looting of the Bergland team that nearly destroyed the LP.

    When Jim Turney became national chair, he saved the party from certain death. Call it the Turney era if you like, but the LP was growing again and was in good hands until the Bergland gang took over again in the mid to late 90s and began looting the party, again.

  18. Vg

    I noticed that the article about the confused CP affiliate was deleted.There were some good comments explaining what was happening.It gave the other side of the story a chance to shine.What happened to it?The articles posted here always seem to take the side of the confused affiliate and do not show the other side of the story.What is happening on this website?

  19. langa

    Johnson and Weld SHOULD take moderate positions and appeal to broad sections of society. This will bring in members and supporters. Then, Mr. Woods, you get to teach them and explain the principles and the NAP.

    You don’t seem to get it. You can’t simply “teach” just anyone to be a libertarian. I’ve tried converting hardcore authoritarians into libertarians. After literally years of persuading, you might get them to the point where they only want big government on 95% of issues, instead of 99% — that’s about the best you can do. The person has to be at least somewhat open to our message. And the people who are open to our message are people who are sick and tired of the Establishment. These people are not going to be impressed by the “credentials” of two former high-ranking members of the Establishment that they so despise. Nor are they going to be attracted to Johnson’s idiotic idea that libertarianism is some sort of hodgepodge philosophy that cobbles together the “best” of the Democrats and Republicans. If we have learned anything from the success of Ron Paul, Bernie Sanders, and Donald Trump, it’s that the public is sick of Establishment candidates who “play by the rules” and never say or do anything controversial. We need to embrace this by running candidates who are hardcore, uncompromising radicals — not a couple of milquetoast moderates who epitomize the Establishment that our target voters have come to despise.

  20. robert capozzi

    L: If we have learned anything from the success of Ron Paul, Bernie Sanders, and Donald Trump, it’s that the public is sick of Establishment candidates who “play by the rules” and never say or do anything controversial.

    me: Running 3rd party is WAY radical on its face, more radical than RP1, BS, or DJT. RP1 ran on pretty much the same message he had in 88, 08, and 12. He had a modicum of success in 08 and 12, but didn’t gain any traction in 88 as an L.

    Apples and oranges. Surely you see that.

    HRP’s runs in the 90s were also radical on their face, but he was taking edgy — not fringy — positions. If HRP threw his hat in the ring by saying “I want to abolish government,” do you believe he would have been taken as seriously as he was?

    Plumbline NAPsterism is simply not a mass marketable philosophy. To the extent that RP1 subscribes to NAPsterism, it’s largely couched in an operable constitutionalism, which has some credibility on its face.

  21. langa

    RP1 ran on pretty much the same message he had in 88, 08, and 12. He had a modicum of success in 08 and 12, but didn’t gain any traction in 88 as an L.

    Those runs took place in two totally different worlds. The advent of the Internet alone makes any sort of comparison meaningless.

    HRP’s runs in the 90s were also radical on their face, but he was taking edgy — not fringy — positions.

    I don’t recall anything particularly “edgy” about Perot’s positions. IIRC, his main issues were reducing waste — something the GOP had been talking about for decades — and balancing the budget — which Clinton (of all people) actually accomplished a few years after that.

  22. Robert capozzi

    L, HRP was by definition edgy as a 3rd party candidate. But, OK, if he was mainstream, thar FURTHER supports my point. Presidential Internet.

    Post Internet, extremist candidates do poorly, except IMO Trump. Extremism may be no vice, but nor is it a virtue. It’s a strategy, and it generally fails.

  23. Be Rational

    “You can’t simply “teach” just anyone to be a libertarian. I’ve tried converting hardcore authoritarians into libertarians. After literally years of persuading, you might get them to the point where they only want big government on 95% of issues, instead of 99% — that’s about the best you can do. The person has to be at least somewhat open to our message.” … Langa

    ****

    So, that was your mistake. You seleted the wrong individuals to try to teach. It’s also quite likely that your attitude makes you a very poor teacher. Most people, even those trained as teachers, make poor teachers.

    There are many authoritarians who will only support people like Sanders, Clinton or Trump – and they will never change. You have to pre-select and qualify your targets for political education.

    Johnson and Weld will bring in to the LP thousands of individuals who are interested and agree with at least some Libertarian views. The Johnson / Weld campaign will bring in good prospects, they will qualify our leads.

    Then, our best outreach literature should be sent to them, our friendliest members should invite them to meetings and greet them with warm hospitality, our best leaders should motivate them to action, and our best teachers should teach them what it means to be a Libertarian.

    If you have any of these skills you can help too. However, those who are rude, obnoxious or overly zealous will drive our new recruits away, so such people should be excluded from our outreach and education efforts.

    It takes time, patience, understanding, caring, motivation … a lot of skills to reach out teach and lead.

    Most of all, to build an effective political Libertarian Party, to win elections and change the direction of our nation and our world toward, it takes tolerance of others whose views are not perfectly aligned with the Statement of Principles and the NAP – as defined by you.

    And if you can’t be tolerant of others who are Libertarian, but who are not pure enough to suit your high standards, then perhaps you are not Libertarian.

  24. Andy

    The best teachers are those who are knowledgeable and passionate – and really believe in – the subject that they are teaching. Johnson and Weld both fail to meet this criteria.

  25. Be Rational

    Johnson / Weld are not supposed to be the teachers. Their job is to get attention (money and votes) and to obtain and qualify the leads for our party to follow up with.

    “Johnson and Weld will bring in to the LP thousands of individuals who are interested and agree with at least some Libertarian views. The Johnson / Weld campaign will bring in good prospects, they will qualify our leads.

    Then, our best outreach literature should be sent to them, our friendliest members should invite them to meetings and greet them with warm hospitality, our best leaders should motivate them to action, and our best teachers should teach them what it means to be a Libertarian.”

  26. George Dance

    Chuck Moulton: “I voted as follows:
    President (1st ballot): Austin Petersen
    President (2nd ballot): Austin Petersen

    I’m a libertarian, and I don’t want to encourage or enable diluting of the libertarian brand with conservative messaging.”

    Great; so you voted for the guy whose immigration position was
    (1) to deport illegal immigrants: “as commander-in-chief he has to obey the law, even laws he wouldn’t support in a perfect world (which it obviously isn’t). There are immigration laws on the books; they’ve been written by Congress. As president, Petersen will implement them. ”
    (2) to keep the border closed to legal immigration: “Petersen explained, correctly so, that you can’t have a welfare state and open borders at the same time. This means that if his views would ever become mainstream and accepted, the welfare state first would have to be dismantled…. That’ll take us 20 or 30 years, at which point America can have a debate about the advantages and disadvantages of a no-borders immigration policy.”
    https://pjmedia.com/trending/2016/05/25/libertarian-presidential-candidate-austin-petersen-redeems-himself-on-the-glenn-beck-show/

    And for the guy whose plan to adress the debt crisis was to cut federal spending by 5% over 5 years (which may indeed have balanced the federal budget, assuming *no* tax cuts). “The “Penny Plan” is very simple. It would mean that we would cut one penny out of every federal dollar spent. If the government did this for five years, and limits overall spending, we can have a balanced budget within five years.” http://austinpetersen2016.com/petersen-reduce-taxes-balance-budget/

  27. Gene Berkman

    I posted on my blog a brief tribute to Muhammad Ali, Fighter for Peace:https://calibertarianreport.com/2016/06/04/muhammad-ali-fighter-for-peace/

    It has been reposted on Antiwar.com, which also posted a tribute by IPR writer Tom Knapp:http://antiwar.com/blog/2016/06/04/muhammad-ali-a-profile-in-moral-courage/

    Muhammad Ali was opposed to the Vietnam War and the draft when few others held those views, and he understood that “In war the intention is to kill, kill, kill and keep on killing innocent people.”

  28. Chuck Moulton

    Chuck Moulton wrote (6/1/2016 at 6:35 pm):

    The first was a “Johnson intervention” color legal-sized two-sided page flyer:
    http://www.chuckmoulton.org/libertarian/2016/johnson/johnson_pledge.pdf

    Governor Weld’s reaction to my flyer:
    http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/05/gary_johnson_needs_to_leave_the_libertarian_party_behind.html

    Earlier in the morning, I’d spotted Weld sitting all by himself in the back of the convention hall. I asked if I could talk with him, and he patted a neighboring chair and invited me to sit. He was studying an anti-Johnson leaflet someone had been handing out. “I always like to know what the opposition is saying,” he explained. “They don’t seem to like Gary’s advocacy for a consumption tax. But neither do I. I think it’s regressive.”

  29. Melinda Pillsbury-Foster

    To: Be Rational (Who was clever enough to give you advice for a name, your mother?)
    Congratulations to them, at any rate.

    In response to your highly revealing question about Hart, “Who is this fascist, anti-free speech, anti-libertarian, anti-petitioner, anti-government reform Hart Williams? Some rabid, pro-state polemicist ranting against freedom advocates and against petitioners like Andy and myself does not make your case. It shows you have no idea what you are talking about, no idea what has been happening in the LP movement nationwide or even what liberty means and how to achieve it.”

    Hart used to be a Libertarian. Then he met some Party members and decided the fact he is an activist committed to individual rights, local governance, transparency, and accountability meant he would not fit in. Hart was a published journalist decades ago. Now, he runs his own business and blogs as a hobby. So, now your question has been answered.

  30. Chuck Moulton

    Rick Adams wrote:

    Looks like Sarwark and Moulton have really stepped in it now! https://m.facebook.com/CommunismKills/posts/1162351727149649

    Twitter is not a good medium for that. She regularly takes things out of context. In a later tweet I offered to provide context to anyone via email:
    https://twitter.com/moulton/status/738899450031050752

    So far only one person emailed me.

    His initial message (which seemed a little skeptical and combative to me):

    You promised facts and context.

    Well? Convince me why she deserves to be banned.

    His reaction to my reply:

    Longer reply than expected, and actually had some good points.

    Thanks for the response.

    I’ll post my long email if this ever becomes a controversy beyond her friends list; however, I suspect it won’t. Of course Ashley Rae Goldenberg herself has declined to directly contact anyone, preferring to air her grievances on Twitter, Facebook, and Tumblr.

    It was a mistake for me to engage her on Twitter at all. I waded into that conversation because 1) I was defending Robert Sarvis (who was a governor candidate when I was VA state chair), 2) I was trying to help (because I initially thought she genuinely wanted to figure out how to get unbanned), and 3) I figured the LP should have more young women involved. No good deed goes unpunished.

  31. Melinda Pillsbury-Foster

    Be Rational
    June 6, 2016 at 09:06

    “Ah, yes. Your hero, Hart, is a fascist-socialist. Thank you.”

    Correction: Hart is not my hero, we cooperated on research and I respect his intellectual honesty, while disagreeing with him on multiple issues. But he is pro-transparency and never have we needed that more than today.

    I met so many people like you when I was active in the LP. They all had in common that they spent a lot of time talking and no time actually doing anything useful for freedom. What is your real name? What have you done for freedom? Your expressed opinions are divisive, designed to reinforce existing bias, you seem incapable of meaningful dialog, and you repeat yourself endlessly.

    Who are you in real life? Post a bio.

  32. Melinda Pillsbury-Foster

    That would be true in most sports, especially those which are based on muscles. There are, however, a wide range of sports. Additionally, sports within each gender are generally broken up by size or weight, aren’t they? Since the only sport I ever really enjoyed playing myself was basketball, Karate not being a sport in that sense, I await how what falls out with interest.

    When I was in school at St. Stephen’s in Rome we had a basketball team and no one on the team, naturally all male, could out-shoot or out play one girl who was taller than any of them. Her parents were, I think Norwegian. One was a Silver Medalist the other one was, as I remember, a Gold Medalist. Different sports, as I remember. So inherent ability and early training do count for something.

  33. Rick Adams

    LOL Chuck it looks like Ashley just discovered IPR because she’s got screenshots of your reply to me all over twitter and FB. I never heard of her until she began this crusade against Rob Sarvis and the LP…. Man, what a drama queen! ?

  34. langa

    The end of girl’s athletics?

    The situation you are describing is nothing new. Back in the ’70s, Renee Richards (a transgender woman) competed in professional women’s tennis, reaching the 3rd round of the U.S. Open in 1979. This did not lead to a flood of transgender women dominating women’s tennis.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren%C3%A9e_Richards

  35. paulie

    Can the other IPR editors please update the timestamp on this article periodically to keep it on the front page but not as the top article? As noted on the email list, I have some as yet unexplained technical difficulties with making updates to articles, clearing spam, etc. However, I am still an admin, and have verified that I am, so I am not sure why this is.

  36. Melinda Pillsbury-Foster

    Nice job defending rights in the real world!

    Rights include both speaking out and action. Actions which demonstrate better solutions to problems we face work well because they provide visible proof of concept. An instance of this is the kind of organizing to provide optimal assistance to those in need in Santa Barbara. Local organizations, churches, non-profits, and individuals, cooperated to provide health care to a population of 17,000 people who otherwise would not have had medical care. Santa Barbara is very proactive for providing resources through these means for other needs as well, including food. Much of this happens through Unity Shoppe. http://www.unityshoppe.org/ Community action is direct action by people, exercising their right to say, “We care and want you to be well and prosper.”

  37. Bondurant

    Dump Trump chatter isn’t going away. Cleveland may yield a chaotic convention. Very curious what happens with Weld if Trump is dumped and Romney walks away with the GOP nomination.

  38. tylor

    Hey guys, I don’t know why, but I stopped receiving e-mail notifications of articles, so I re-subscribed. I just want to make sure I’m staying up-to-date with your fine publication. 🙂

  39. Andy

    Weld is a long time buddy of Mitt Romney, and he endorsed him for President in 2012, so do not be surprised if Weld endorses hi again if this happens.

  40. NewFederalist

    Whatever happened to Wang Tang-Fu? He hasn’t posted here in quite a while.

  41. George Phillies

    Polling
    As reported on RealClearPolitics.com, which appears this year to be doing the best polling aggregation.

    General Election: Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson vs. Stein CNN/ORC
    Two rounds of question:

    Clinton 47, Trump 42
    Clinton 42, Trump 38, Johnson 9, Stein 7

    Clinton and Trump lose about the same number of votes when Johnson and Stein are added, about four percentage points each. Johnson and Stein total 16 points, so there appear to be a big chunk of Johnson-Stein voters who have zero interest in the dudnamic duo.

  42. Be Rational

    Potential major shakeup will greatly affect the Johnson campaign.

    There is a strong movement to dump Trump at the convention – it may succeed. Called “Free the Delegates” it’s interesting who’s involved.

    Nearly 1000 on the latest conference call of delegates, alternates and supporters.

    **************

    House Speaker Paul Ryan, on Sunday’s “Meet the Press” said “the last thing I would do is tell anybody to do something that’s contrary to their conscience.”

    *************

    “It’s not an effort for a candidate or against a candidate,” said Eric O’Keefe, a Detroit GOP operative who is a member of the group. “It’s an effort to educate people on what their real authority is and have them get the comfort that they’re not alone.”

    **************

    https://www.yahoo.com/news/unconventional-special-report-hundreds-gop-000000630.html

  43. NewFederalist

    So… wouldn’t it be just swell to dump Trump at the convention. Perhaps, oh say, Mitt Romney could be persuaded to step in to save the party. Wow!

  44. Be Rational

    Ed Crane — is reported to be ready to raise large donations for Johnson and Weld … IF he sees substantial white papers and policy proposals.

    Since Eric O’Keefe is involved in the Dump Trump at the Convention movement, which signals some other behind the scenes supporters, including Gov Scott Walker, WI, who has also joined in, I expect the purple PAC will stall until after the convention to see which way the wind is blowing.

  45. Be Rational

    “… recent Bloomberg poll, “… of those who favored Sanders—55 percent—plan to vote for Clinton … 22 percent say they’ll vote for Trump … 18 percent favor Libertarian Gary Johnson.”

  46. Thane Eichenauer

    Be Rational> Ed Crane — is reported to be ready to raise large donations for Johnson and Weld … IF he sees substantial white papers and policy proposals.

    Ed Crane founded CATO Institute and was part of it until 2012 per Wikipedia. Doesn’t CATO Institute have loads of those items on hand? That sounds like an odd thing for Ed Crane to want.

  47. Be Rational

    I don’t think it’s odd, I think Crane is stalling to see if O’Keefe et al can replace Trump in Cleveland.

  48. Melinda Pillsbury-Foster

    “Thane Eichenauer
    June 23, 2016 at 01:46

    Be Rational> Ed Crane — is reported to be ready to raise large donations for Johnson and Weld … IF he sees substantial white papers and policy proposals.

    Ed Crane founded CATO Institute and was part of it until 2012 per Wikipedia. Doesn’t CATO Institute have loads of those items on hand? That sounds like an odd thing for Ed Crane to want.
    Be Rational
    June 23, 2016 at 05:29

    I don’t think it’s odd, I think Crane is stalling to see if O’Keefe et al can replace Trump in Cleveland.”

    Melinda – Ed Crane accomplished his goal. The Kochs turned him into a wealthy man. Now he and his cabal are working to create a political base for themselves for their further enrichment. White Papers are just a way to turn speculative proposals into money through donations, large (Koch sized) or small (by deluded ordinary people). What is needed is working solutions which are acceptable to both sides of the political dialog which is not focused on either self-aggrandizement or converting the political goals of others into cash to fill their own pockets while never delivering.
    By working I mean these solve the presenting problem. An example applied to government would be a way to lower the cost of social services by treating drug and alcohol addiction with Neurofeedback, which has been proven to extinguish the symptoms of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) within three months in 75% of those receiving the treatment. Drugs and alcohol are a form of self-medication to cope with the symptoms caused by PTSD. Neurofeedback is now growing in use for upscale clients who either have these problems or simply want to increase their cognitive acuity. Top level stock brokers and other high-stress professionals are among them.
    Neurofeedback has been used in Canada and lowered the number of people on welfare.
    That is one example. Others are available at: http://whosyourcandidate.homestead.com/Our-Issues.html
    So in this instance the market is making this available. Government does not use Neurofeedback, either to reduce the number of people seeking social services or for Veterans who return from service incapacitated by the condition.

  49. Election Addict

    I’m pretty sure some articles disappear somehow when you go to “older posts.” Not that it is some insufferable annoyance, but I figure it should be noted.

  50. Melinda Pillsbury-Foster

    Not surprising. Trump won because the rest of them are NeoCons and that ‘mind set’ has been rejected by those who are really Conservatives. In this case Trump was perceived as at least not a corporate neocon flunky. And he probably is not, just not very normal. Dems are also commenting that is would likely prove to be less of a war hawk than Hillary.

    But Non-of-the-Above remains a hard candidate to elect. How would you hold the Inaugural Balls?

  51. Be Rational

    “BR; don’t hold your breath.” – Cody Quirk, June 25, 2016 at 12:39

    No breath holding. Rather, I’m going to get a big bowl of popcorn and hope for a good show.

    I find the players interesting, however. It means there is a serious cabal, and we’re only seeing the tip of the iceberg on the dump Trump at the convention movement. O’Keefe being involved certainly provides a plausible explanation for Crane’s delaying tactic, why he is not yet helping Gary Johnson with his Super PAC. The White Paper delay is obvious subterfuge.

  52. Melinda Pillsbury-Foster

    Machiavelli probably sent a gift when Crane was born. Him and his cabal have remained fat, happy, and funded since their original tryouts on the LP in the late 70s. But whatever they do it will not promote freedom, just themselves.

  53. Chuck Moulton

    Chuck Moulton wrote (6/1/2016 at 6:35 pm):

    The first was a “Johnson intervention” color legal-sized two-sided page flyer:
    http://www.chuckmoulton.org/libertarian/2016/johnson/johnson_pledge.pdf

    Chuck Moulton wrote (6/4/2016 at 9:28 pm):

    Governor Weld’s reaction to my flyer:
    http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/05/gary_johnson_needs_to_leave_the_libertarian_party_behind.html

    Earlier in the morning, I’d spotted Weld sitting all by himself in the back of the convention hall. I asked if I could talk with him, and he patted a neighboring chair and invited me to sit. He was studying an anti-Johnson leaflet someone had been handing out. “I always like to know what the opposition is saying,” he explained. “They don’t seem to like Gary’s advocacy for a consumption tax. But neither do I. I think it’s regressive.”

    I just watched the Full Frontal with Samantha Bee video on the LP convention.

    It contains a cameo of Governor Johnson reading my flyer:
    https://youtu.be/0Psp0A-zJgU?t=3m53s

    Screenshot:
    http://www.chuckmoulton.org/libertarian/2016/johnson/johnson_reading_literature.jpg

  54. Andy

    Chuck, your flyer was a valiant effort, but it was too little, too late. A flyer like that should have been printed months ago, and Johnson should have been hit with it at every state convention he attended.

    The majority of the Johnson and Weld delegates had their minds made up before the convention. There wasn’t much that could have been said at that point that could have changed their minds. I tried talking people out of voting for Weld, but it was like talking to a wall.

    I think for the next convention there needs to be a concerted effort to not have another Republican Lite, or Republican 2.0, ticket. Those of us who want a more libertarian Libertarian Party presidential ticket need to start supporting candidates earlier, and we need to make sure delegate slots are filled with more like minded people. It may also be necessary to make some by laws changes to make it more difficult for outsiders to hijack our party’s nominations.

  55. Jim

    I didn’t support Barr in 2008. I voted for Ron Paul in the primary and stayed home in November. Johnson wasn’t my first choice in 2012, but after he got the nomination I ended up voting for him and putting in a lot of hours for him just because I could feel the country was headed for opportunistic turmoil down the road and a decent Johnson campaign then might save the party some money on ballot access when that time came. Johnson was my first choice in 2016, though. It’s not because I’ve gotten any less principled – I’m well aware that Johnson is far from perfect on that front. But this year, unlike any other in my voting lifetime, there is an opportunity to expand the party exponentially. And Johnson was the only one with the credentials that would allow the press to take the party seriously enough to get us exposure. I don’t know if Johnson has the ability to succeed at that, but he’s the only one who had the opportunity to do it. If this were 2004, I would not want Johnson at the top of the ticket. If things are back to normal in 2020, I won’t be supporting a Johnson/Weld type candidate. But for now, let’s take advantage of the unusually high levels of exposure to engage in some outreach.

  56. robert capozzi

    aj: I think for the next convention there needs to be a concerted effort to not have another Republican Lite, or Republican 2.0, ticket.

    me: I see TK wants to invoke the plumbline-violation clause in the LNC bylaws against GJ. Apparently, NS has told him that there have been no LNC members who’ve called for defrocking the J/W ticket.

    Something you might consider is to make it easier to prosecute LP candidates who violate the plumbline. Rather than leave it to the LNC members, why not change the Bylaws so that ANY LP member can indict ANY candidate for ANY plumbline platform violation?

    This could serve as a poison-pill to ward off any non-100% NAPster from seeking the nomination. Think of it: 15K+ with the ability to officially snipe at an L candidate for ever uttering anything incongruent with the platform.

  57. robert capozzi

    more…

    If the full membership is a bit broad, you might consider any state LP chair as having standing to prosecute plumbline violations. 50 would-be snipers might be a sufficient poison pill.

  58. George Phillies

    “NS has told him that there have been no LNC members who’ve called for defrocking the J/W ticket.”

    The LNC has already had a motion in this direction, with a second. It was voted down.

  59. steve m

    if any member of a 20,000 member group can by singular declaration cause a vote of the groups board of directors, you would have a board that was tied up with needless votes.

  60. George Phillies

    That’s odd, because Nick chaired the meeting at which the motion was made. Perhaps the exact wordings differed just enough that all statements were true; assuredly the motion received no votes on the LNC.

  61. robert capozzi

    Here’s what TK said on the defrock J/W matter:

    “I did ask a question, if that’s what you’re referring to. And I’ve received a tentative answer to that question — the chair informs me that as of yesterday, no LNC members have requested that the matter of rescinding Johnson’s nomination be put on the agenda for the body’s next meeting.”

    http://independentpoliticalreport.com/2016/06/full-video-of-gary-johnsons-town-hall-cnn-interview-06-22-2016/#comment-1388510

  62. Chuck Moulton

    I’ve refrained from commenting on all of Johnson’s terrible media performances shitting on the libertarian brand because in all fairness a majority of the delegates in convention decided to nominate Johnson/Weld knowing full well they would shit all over the libertarian brand.

    But the opposite issue concerns me, so I have to speak up.

    https://johnsonweld.com/store-2/#!/SIGNS-&-BANNERS/c/19691257/offset=0&sort=normal

    WHAT THE FUCK?!!! Where is the word “libertarian” on any of Johnson’s signage?!!! This is ridiculous!! He’s taking our ballot access and doing nothing to build the party — only feuling a cult of personality.

    What idiot signed a contract with the Johnson campaign that allowed them to leave the word “libertarian” off all their promotional items?

    Here is another example:
    https://garysgear.com/product/yard-sign/

  63. Melinda Pillsbury-Foster

    It appears Johnson is not running as a Libertarian. Rather naughty of him, don’t you think? Sounds like fraud to me. That violates the NAP because you can’t tell by his signs he is a Libertarian and you sure can’t tell by what he says or by his stances on issues. (Pause to think)

    Why is he still the candidate? Removing him would be great publicity. Just think, you can show the public what it means to be a Libertarian, representing people and their rights from all points on the spectrum. At the same time you can show the public how seriously Libertarians view their principles.

    Just a thought, of course.

  64. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    A friend is putting together a page that shows that neither Hillary nor Trump mention their parties on their campaign stuff. At this point of the campaign, when we’re down to just a few candidates, isn’t it possible most people know he’s Libertarian?

  65. Andy

    Jill, there are still a lot of people who do not know who Gary Johnson is, or what the Libertarian Party is.

    I encountered several people yesterday while gathering Libertarian Party ballot access petition signatures who asked me if Bernie Sanders was going to be our candidate for President.

    Chuck, I agree with you that promoting the Libertarian Party brand is important, and ought to be one of the priorities for our candidates. The Johnson campaign putting out materials that does not mention the Libertarian Party reminds me of when the Bob Barr campaign did the same.

  66. Chuck Moulton

    No. Many people think third party candidates are independents. We need to increase our brand recognition election after election by showing voters there is a Libertarian Party and a set of issue positons are identified as “Libertarian”. Candidates who don’t identify themselves as Libertarians miss a huge advertising opportunity and feed a flleting cult of personality rather than moving the ball down the field building up the LP for the next election.

    Apparently Johnson/Weld have not yet signed a contract with the LP… and the LP is in a terrible bargaining position now having already handed the Johnson/Weld campaign most everything they want (ballot access). The LP is getting screwed over just like they were by the Barr campaign. Will we never learn?

  67. reeds uitgeput

    Signage?

    Is that really a concern? The word Libertarian being “left off” Gary’s signs? Really?? I don’t see the problem. He *is* getting the Libertarian message out, though maybe not in the “pure” form some require. Besides, I don’t see the other parties’ candidates putting their names on their signage.

    For example, here’s links to the official stores
    (I would have posted a screen shot here, but don’t know how – sorry.)
    https://shop.hillaryclinton.com/collections/signage
    http://shop.donaldjtrump.com/category-s/113.htm
    https://johnsonweld.com/store-2/#!/SIGNS-&-BANNERS/c/19691257/inview=product67785230&offset=0&sort=normal

    I’m sorry, but I’m just tired of people complaining about little nitpicky things. Johnson and Weld are our candidates. Suck it up. All the bickering going on? Does not do one single thing to help our party. All it does it make us look like unruly children.

  68. Chuck Moulton

    I can hold my nose and vote for a LP candidate that holds only half-libertarian positions. I’m not sure I can vote for a candidate who actively runs from the word “libertarian”.

  69. Melinda Pillsbury-Foster

    To answer Jill’s remark it is likely a significant part of the public are unsure of Johnson’s affiliation. He probably received much more attention when he was a Republican Governor. But as a third party the LP needs to keep the affiliation front and center if the goal is having it remembered. Of course, given what he says he might as well be something else, so that may not matter.

    Removing Johnson would likely result in a salutary change in the behavior of future candidates. Johnson gave a different appearance before winning the nomination. Does anyone know how much he has received in donations between the time of the nominating convention and today? I keep thinking about those Gay Nazi Wedding cakes.

  70. Andy

    Everyone already knows who the Democrats and Republicans are. These parties have been ruling this country for a long time, they have lots of money, and they get lots of free publicity in the media.

    The Libertarian Party brand is far less known among the general public, and needs all of the exposure it can get.

  71. Melinda Pillsbury-Foster

    Jill said, “A friend is putting together a page that shows that neither Hillary nor Trump mention their parties on their campaign stuff. At this point of the campaign, when we’re down to just a few candidates, isn’t it possible most people know he’s Libertarian?”

    It is so nice to see Jill is being understanding, here. And, after all, what does it mean to say you’re a Libertarian, anyway? Gosh, darn, no one knows what that means now…..and do they really need to know? What difference will it make it the public remains in ignorance?

  72. Thomas Knapp

    “Apparently Johnson/Weld have not yet signed a contract with the LP”

    Why should they? Why would they?

    The bylaws do not require that campaign to sign a contract with the LNC.

    The bylaws require the LNC to support the presidential ticket, contract or not, as long as the campaign is conducted in accordance with the platform (it isn’t, but nobody seems to care much about that).

    There was an attempt in Orlando to modify the bylaws so that that nobody could run for the LP’s presidential nomination without getting on their knees and fellating the LNC … er, signing whatever demands the LNC put in front of them … but that got voted down, didn’t it?

  73. George Phillies

    The contract is the deal that lets GJ2016 use the LNC mailing list for fundraising. The Bylaws require that the LNC support the campaign but do not say how the support is given. The contract is the deal that gives the candidate a specific benefit and in return gets the LNC the names of candidate donors and volunteers.

  74. Thomas Knapp

    “The contract is …”

    The contract could be anything.

    If the campaign wants to contract with the LNC and vice versa, I don’t see any reason why they shouldn’t. But the bylaws proposal to require presidential candidates to sign whatever the LNC put in front of them as a condition of seeking the nomination was insane.

  75. Jim

    >Gary Johnson is not a libertarian! Associating with Gary Johnson is going to destroy the Libertarian Party brand!
    _________
    Chuck Moulton points out that the word “libertarian” is not on the Johnson campaign merchandise.
    _________
    >Gary Johnson is just building a cult of personality! He should be putting the word “libertarian” on everything to promote the Libertarian Party brand!

    Alright, then.

  76. robert capozzi

    cm: We need to increase our brand recognition election after election by showing voters there is a Libertarian Party and a set of issue positons are identified as “Libertarian”.

    me: With all the major media J/W has had, the L word has probably generated more “impressions” since May than all L prez campaigns combined.

  77. Thomas Knapp

    “Why would it be insane to offer a contract with specific performance?”

    Contracts are negotiated instruments in which two or more parties agree to mutually beneficial arrangements. The bylaws proposal was for something that it CALLED a contract but that was actually an open-ended authorization for the LNC to demand anything it wanted as a precondition for being allowed to ask the national convention for its presidential nomination. That’s not a contract, it’s an extortion racket.

  78. langa

    Given the things they are saying, I’m actually glad Johnson & Weld aren’t using the LP name on their signs. In fact, I would prefer they not mention the word “libertarian” (big or small L) at all. If people don’t realize they are “representing” us, that makes it harder for them to give us a bad name. In this case, there is such a thing as bad publicity.

  79. Robert capozzi

    L, bad name? Or do you mean the wrong impression?

    They seem to be coming across quite well with most.

  80. Andy

    They should just sit at home for the rest of the election season and be paper candidates. That CNN town hall was cringe worthy.

  81. Melinda Pillsbury-Foster

    But the LP as an organization can now modify what it expects from the individual who receives the nomination. Those modifications would then be in place for 2020.

    That should be a simple and clear cut list of requirements which would include complete sharing of the mailing lists generated by National and the Campaign, (Affiliated States would, presumably, participate). When I was active we generated lists locally and on the State level. Is this still the case? Receiving calls, Call-backs, get to you events, workshops on the principles, and dialog on problems and how the principles applied were routine.

    Issues have always been up for grabs, some candidates choose a limited number of issues on which to run. Pointing out to any candidate a position is not libertarian, and why, needs to happen. One would hope the candidate would be open to this kind of dialog. Failure to do so causes confusion on the principles.

    The Libertarian Party is the political tool for a larger movement whose aim is enable the localization of power to the people as individuals and allow them to order their lives as they wish, cooperating with others for prosperity and peace.

    We will know the Libertarian Party has been a successful tool when we can fold up the tent and put it away, along with all the other parties.

  82. Robert capozzi

    A, yes, I can understand your opinion from the perspective of a NAPster. That was a major league opportunity, and it was not a home run. They went 1 for 4, perhaps, good enough to not get shipped back to the minors.

    GJ is a dogged dude, so I suspect he doesn’t take your counsel.

  83. langa

    They seem to be coming across quite well with most.

    So what? Obama, Clinton, and both Bushes “came across” well enough with enough people to actually get elected. That doesn’t mean that any of them were fit to represent the LP, and neither are Johnson & Weld.

  84. Andy

    The CNN Town Hall would have been an excellent opportunity for Johnson and Weld to educate the public about jury nullification of victimless crimes, but of course there was not a peep about this important issue out of either of them.

  85. Thomas Knapp

    Well, there were a lot of things they COULD have done, but that’s not what bothers me. In any given situation, one has to weigh what the opportunities are, what the payoff on taking any given one versus any given other might be, etc. And since they were answering questions rather than just being given free-form time to say whatever they liked, that further constrained them.

    I’m not worried about what they could have done and didn’t, but rather what they shouldn’t have done and did. They weren’t nominated to go out and campaign against the platform of the Libertarian Party, but that’s what they did. If they can’t actively and enthusiastically support every plank of the platform, no biggie, but at the very least they could avoid actively opposing it. That seems pretty fucking basic to me.

  86. Andy

    They could have brought up jury nullification as it related to the drug war and other issues where people get arrested for victimless crimes.

    I agree with your general premise though.

  87. Thomas Knapp

    Yes, they could have brought up jury nullification in that context. And I would have thought it was cool if they had. But I’m not upset that they didn’t. No candidate is going to be able to mention every good idea in every appearance.

    I’m happy to leave it up to each candidate what particular angle to take on things — except when that angle is “I support the exact opposite of what the party that just nominated me supports.” When that’s the angle I start wondering why the candidate didn’t pick a party to run with that he agrees with instead of a party that he opposes.

  88. Magnus Dahlstrøm

    He already did that. He chose the Republican Party and they rejected him outright.

  89. Magnus Dahlstrøm

    Were you cryogenically frozen like Austin Powers and revived to stop Dr. Evil William Weld?

  90. Melinda Pillsbury-Foster

    That would have been much more fun. No, I was coping with a wealthy psychopath whose sexual energies focus on raping little girls and destroying any woman with whom he has had a relationship. I learned this only after he left me.

    He stalked Ayn Rand until she had her attorney threatened him for her. Once, when we were still married, he told me he couldn’t get his fantasy about Rand to come out as he wanted. He described it to me.

    I’ll never forget it. I can still see the perplexed look on his face.

    There they were standing in the window of the Statue of Liberty watching the lights of NY go out and she refused to ‘be his’ because she was being faithful to Frank and Nathaniel. So he pulled out two quit claim deeds and told her they had been paid off.
    Ayn Rand then punched him in the face.

    I told him it was his fantasy and his problem.

    The whole story will be in the book.

  91. robert capozzi

    tk: “I support the exact opposite of what the party that just nominated me supports.”

    me: Seems wildly overstated. GJ unabashedly calls for the legalization of weed. That’s not “the exact opposite.” He did also point out that he wants to end the drug war, and talked about decriminalizing harder drugs.

    Did he handle the matter with Rothbardian precision and with crystal clarity? No.

    Let’s applying for a 4-year job, let’s keep in mind.

  92. Thomas Knapp

    —–
    tk: “I support the exact opposite of what the party that just nominated me supports.”

    me: Seems wildly overstated. GJ unabashedly calls for the legalization of weed. That’s not “the exact opposite.”
    —–

    Libertarian Party: “[W]e favor the repeal of all laws creating ‘crimes’ without victims, such as the use of drugs for medicinal or recreational purposes.”

    Gary Johnson: We are not espousing legalization of any drugs outside of marijuana. … We’re not advocating the legalization of any drugs, not heroin. … No drugs legalized outside of marijuana …. keep the drugs illegal.”

    He said what he said. And he said it over and over. And then, either before or after that, he put it in writing at his web site:

    “The Johnson/Weld team supports the legalization of marijuana …. Johnson and Weld do not support the legalization of other recreational drugs that are currently illegal.”

    https://johnsonweld.com/issues/

    Normally when a guy says X over and over, in multiple formats and multiple places, I assume that what he’s trying to communicate is in fact X and not some strange thing very different from X but so subtle that only Robert Capozzi can interpret it from disturbances in the entrails of game birds.

  93. Melinda Pillsbury-Foster

    But to be a libertarian, all variations from Minarchist to Anarchist, you want to move toward the autonomy of the individual, freedom for each of us. The most powerful tool for freedom is choice, our choices for ourselves and for how we exchange with others. A free market has such potential power to make freedom happen and they say nothing about it.

    Some of us probably had businesses when we were little. I did, I had a lemonade stand for years and sold candy bars, too. Today they are making it impossible for children to experience the power of ‘doing.’ And that is only one thing. He is not making what we believe tangible and visible to Americans. That is not a failure of principle but it is failure to make them hungry for what freedom means to us.

    We need to show people what freedom means.

  94. Jim

    Johnson said in an interview years ago – maybe in his 2012 run – that he only supported the legalization of marijuana. He went on to explain that he believed the legalization of marijuana, over the course of the next 20 years, would lead to the decriminalization of all drugs as people realized the benefits and the end-of-the-world scenario painted by prohibitionists failed to materialize. That baby steps approach still seems to be his position. From an interview earlier this year:

    “Would the world be better off if all drugs were legal? Yes. The world would be better off, that 90 percent of the drug problem is prohibition-related, not use related,” he said. “But what I’ve said is, look, let’s legalize marijuana first and when we do that, I think the whole country takes a quantum leap toward understanding substance abuse.”

    Mr. Johnson said he had not actively “advocated the legalization of other drugs although would I sign onto to it? Absolutely.”

    Pushing too hard for other drugs, he said, could “muddy the water” toward a push for marijuana legalization. “First if you start talking about legalizing all drugs, I think you muddy the water for what is a clear path to seeing that happen.”

  95. langa

    Normally when a guy says X over and over, in multiple formats and multiple places, I assume that what he’s trying to communicate is in fact X and not some strange thing very different from X but so subtle that only Robert Capozzi can interpret it from disturbances in the entrails of game birds.

    Yes, but remember, RC believes that language is indeterminate, so he simply interprets whatever Johnson says to mean whatever he wants it to mean, which may change from one day to the next. For example, Johnson could say today that he supports taxpayer-funded child pornography, and then tomorrow he could “clarify” that when he said that, he “really” meant that we should abolish the minimum wage, and, according to RC, there would be no basis for criticizing his original statement.

  96. Thomas Knapp

    “That baby steps approach still seems to be his position.”

    Depends on what you mean by “seems.”

    On the CNN Town Hall he didn’t say anything about baby steps. He simply said that he only wants to legalize marijuana and he specifically said that he wants to keep other drugs illegal.

    His web site issues page reiterates that position rather than the “baby steps” position.

    I suppose that it might “seem” to people who follow him very closely day after day, week after week, year after year, that what he really means is something very different from what he actually says.

    But I suspect that to the average person dropping by his web site out of initial interest, or putting down the remote when he sees the town hall and thinks it looks like something good to watch, it will “seem” that Johnson supports/opposes what he says he supports/supposes, not something else.

  97. robert capozzi

    L and TK, well, I don’t “support” the legalization of all drugs, either, because I don’t “support” unripe ideas. I do “support” legalization of weed because it is ripe.

    Politics is different from philosophy. It’s the practice of the possible. J/W are practicing politics, not philosophy.

    On the philosophical plane, sure, all drugs should be legal. Of course, there are many, many questions about how in Rothbard’s Republic product safety standards would be handled.

  98. robert capozzi

    tk, baby steps are implicit.

    Didn’t GJ also talk about the experiments in decriminalization on CNN?

    It’s very rare when a pol says, “In 50 years, I believe my policy will lead to this very specific outcome.” And when they do, they are overpromising something that sounds positive to most, and, btw, usually does not address the unintended consequences.

  99. Jim

    Thomas Knapp – I don’t see the inconsistency. He would prefer to legalize all drugs, but recognizes that the country is only ready to legalize marijuana, so that’s all he will do. The “baby steps” approach will take longer than 4 years.

    Johnson isn’t the kind of candidate that promises to rip the government to shreds with a chainsaw. That kind of talk will get libertarians cheering, but it will also get us 0.5% of the vote. We’ve done the 0.5% thing for 40 years and the government has grown in unfathomable ways. Johnson is saying what needs to be said in order to attract enough support to put the brakes on and get the government moving in the right direction. Things didn’t get this bad with one President, and it will take more than one to get things back to the way they ought to be.

  100. Thomas Knapp

    Jim,

    “I don’t see the inconsistency. He would prefer to legalize all drugs”

    If he would prefer to legalize all drugs, why does he keep saying in public, over and over, very pointedly, that he does not want to legalize all drugs?

    RC,

    “Implicit” means “implied though not plainly expressed,” not “the exact opposite of what is expressed.”

  101. robert capozzi

    L: RC believes that language is indeterminate, so he simply interprets whatever Johnson says to mean whatever he wants it to mean, which may change from one day to the next.

    ME: Langa, I’m SO sorry I have failed you. I have failed in explaining my view, despite numerous attempts. I’ll try again.

    I have given my feedback numerous times that I find many of GJ’s positions wanting, sometimes substantively, sometimes rhetorically, sometimes both. It’s demonstrably true that language is nuanced IF you’d care to pay attention. The BeeGees were right about words! 😉

    I trust I’ve repeated back the deontological Rothbardian line enough times that you get that I have once bought into that thought system. Having recovered from it, I still totally “get” the simplistic absolutism that you regurgitate here, the glaring non sequiturs, the mangled, incomplete syllogisms.

    Like: taxpayer-funded child pornography! Come on! Wake up! Maybe ponder the fallacy of the excluded middle. Maybe read the Tao…slowly…let it sink in.

    Think of yourself as Neo, choosing the Red Pill.

  102. robert capozzi

    tk, for me, ATC, GJ is not supporting the “exact opposite.”

    I respect that’s how you see things, but I do suggest you consider reconsidering that POV.

    Or continue to campaign get the LNC to defrock your party’s nominees. If you are successful, it will save me an hour in November.

  103. Thomas Knapp

    “Or continue to campaign get the LNC to defrock your party’s nominees.”

    As I have explained to you at least once before, I can’t “continue” campaigning for that because I never started campaigning for that.

  104. robert capozzi

    tk, it depends on what we mean by “campaign.” You are posting indictments of J/W’s utterances and reminding the Hive Mind that the Bylaws have a defrocking clause. Might be called a whisper campaign in some quarters, agitprop in others. You have repeated “exact opposite” many times, despite the fact that most will interpret that as hyperbolic rhetoric at best, a non-credible, transparent smear at worst.

    GJ puts weed legalization right near the top of his list. Dude’s background is well known. He’s massively for expanding personal choice. He wants to expand the national conversation on a range of issues.

    Tear him down if it makes you feel good. But, then, I never did get the point of a circular firing squad.

  105. Thomas Knapp

    “tk, it depends on what we mean by ‘campaign.'”

    Well, in the past, when I have “campaigned” for the LNC to do so something, I have done so by:

    1) Contacting the officers and at-large representatives on the LNC, as well as the representative of the region I’m from, to request this or that action. I have done no such thing and in fact when one regional rep suggested that I should do so if there was some action I wanted taken, I responded that there is no action I want taken and have no intention of requesting any action from anyone.

    2) Signing and promoting petitions to urge or compel the LNC or Judicial Committee to act. I have neither signed nor promoted any such petition. I am aware of the existence of one such petition. I have been asked to sign that petition. I declined.

    I noted that Johnson/Weld are running against, rather than for, the LP’s platform.

    I asked asked a question related to that fact.

    I got an answer to that question.

    From my perspective, the matter is substantially closed.

    Granted, to the extent that some people keep screeching “nooooooooo — Johnson didn’t say what he actually said, he said what I WISH he had said,” I’m going to keep saying “no, he said what he actually said.” But that’s really just a matter of fighting the attempt to replace reality with fantasy in the public square, not of suggesting that any particular thing be done.

  106. robert capozzi

    tk: From my perspective, the matter is substantially closed.

    me: Excellent!

  107. robert capozzi

    tk, just curious, who has said, ““nooooooooo — Johnson didn’t say what he actually said, he said what I WISH he had said,” I’m going to keep saying “no, he said what he actually said.” “?

    No one that I’ve seen denies the quotes in your indictments vs GJ. They just see a different big picture.

    Reality can be SUCH an illusive thing! 😉

  108. Thomas Knapp

    —–
    tk, just curious, who has said, ““nooooooooo — Johnson didn’t say what he actually said, he said what I WISH he had said,” I’m going to keep saying “no, he said what he actually said.” “?
    —–

    Among others, you.

  109. robert capozzi

    tk, sorry, no. Your quotes are accurate, I believe. I don’t buy your INTERPRETATION of the quotes.

  110. Thomas Knapp

    RC,

    Precisely.

    I interpret them to mean what they clearly mean.

    You interpret them to mean what you wish they meant.

    One of those approaches makes sense.

    The other doesn’t.

  111. robert capozzi

    msp: We need to show people what freedom means.

    me: Agreed. How?

    One would to get elected and demonstrate how Ls take a different approach, and that that approach works.

    Another would be to build a L-based nation from scratch. These efforts have all failed to date.

  112. robert capozzi

    tk: I interpret them to mean what they clearly mean.

    me: Unfortunately for us all, virtually all believe that we have a corner on right interpretation.

    I’m open to the possibility that everyone is incorrect!

    OTOH, you may have the sole monopoly on proper interpretation.

    Curious, though, have you ever changed your mind about something you once ardently believed in? If so, could this be another mind-changing instance in the making?

  113. Thomas Knapp

    RC,

    I don’t live under the illusion that me changing my mind would change reality. Even if I suddenly decide that Johnson said what I would have preferred for him to say instead of what he actually said, he will have said what he actually said.

    I suppose it’s probably nice to live in a universe where reality constantly reforms itself to let one have exactly the universe one prefers, but I’m constitutionally unpredisposed to fantasize at that level.

  114. robert capozzi

    tk, again the FACT of the quotes you cite are not in dispute. Nor is it in dispute that, technically, the quote BY THEMSELVES violate the platform plumbline.

    The INTERPRETATION of him taking the EXACT OPPOSITE position is what strikes me as the matter at hand. Regarding one prohibited drug, GJ is on the side of the angels (i.e., the LP conventions approving the language in the platform).

    There is by my interpretation additional mitigation in that he has also spoken positively of decriminalization, although for me even that is not necessary to not accept your “exact opposite” stance.

    Neither HRC nor DJT are for legalizing weed or any prohibited drug. GJ is for legalizing weed. That’s good, supportable politics from where I stand.

    Burqa banning, btw, would be bad, unsupportable, deal-breaking politics.

    We probably all have one or a few or a combination of deal-breakers. It seems yours is just one — perhaps any — platform plumbline violation. In this sense, you have VERY high standards. Too high for my taste, but I certainly respect that that’s your standard, if I have this scoped reasonably properly.

  115. Thomas Knapp

    “Nor is it in dispute that, technically, the quote BY THEMSELVES violate the platform plumbline.”

    Since I’ve not at any point alleged “violations” or referenced “plumblines,” I neither know (nor particularly care) whether or not whatever you’re talking about is “in dispute.”

  116. robert capozzi

    tk, All well and good if you don’t care, and fine if you don’t buy my terminology. Still, you said on this thread:

    Thomas Knapp
    June 28, 2016 at 12:21
    ….except when that angle is “I support the exact opposite of what the party that just nominated me supports.” When that’s the angle I start wondering why the candidate didn’t pick a party to run with that he agrees with instead of a party that he opposes.

    This feels kinda — I dunno — dense. A candidate picks a party closest to his/her views and which is a serviceable platform for his/her message. While many admired your attempt to create your own party, it proved unsurprisingly unserviceable.

    There was no closer pick for GJ, and he chose not to found the Johnson Party, wisely so.

  117. langa

    Langa, I’m SO sorry I have failed you. I have failed in explaining my view, despite numerous attempts. I’ll try again.

    Unfortunately, your latest comments have only served to further confuse me. If I am to ever understand your position, you will have to answer a few more questions for me. Let’s start with this one: If Johnson did, in fact, say, “If elected, I will push for a new Department of Youth Erotica, which will use tax money to produce and distribute child pornography”, would it or would it not be reasonable (to you) to interpret this statement as a simple declaration of Johnson’s preference for pepperoni pizza, rather than sausage pizza?

  118. Be Rational

    Strategy:

    Candidate A: Promises that if elected President he will legalize all recreatonal drugs. Candidate A scares the public, gets little attention, no media coverage, 0.5% of the vote.

    Candidate B: Promises that if elected he will legalize marijuana as a first step toward legalizing all recreational drugs. This too scares the public, scores some attention, little media coverage and 0.6% of the vote.

    Candidate C: Promises that if elected he will legalize marijuana but that he has no plans to legalize any other recreational drugs. Although he has proposed decriminalizing all such drugs in the past and has said it would be better if all such drugs were legal and that he wants to end the war on drugs, he is running for a 4 year term as POTUS and reiterates that he plans no drug legalization beyond marijuana. The public is ready and agitatinf for marijuana legalization, believing it overdue. This candate is welcomed by the public, covered by the media and helps move the ball forward toward nationwide legalization of marijuana.

    GJ’s positioning makes sense as part of a strategic plan to advance the cause of liberty.

  119. Be Rational

    I assume the candidates are 3rd party or independents. If candidate C were a major party candidate, this position on drugs would be a strong cornerstone as part of a winning platform.

    As the LP candidate, GJ will likely fall to less than 3% by election day. Johnson has an edgy but popular and winning position on drugs. He’s weak on other issues where he’s just not prepared or completely current, let alone principled. And he needs to not only be prepared, educated and principled, he needs to take strategic positions that are achievable.

    Worst of all for Gary, however, his campaign suffers from incompetent management and no strategy on outreach, advertising or generating earned media coverage, all of which he needs to grab the attention and support of the mass of voters that remain unaware that either he or the LP exist.

  120. Thomas Knapp

    “GJ’s positioning makes sense as part of a strategic plan to advance the cause of liberty.”

    Maybe it does, maybe it doesn’t. That’s not this is about.

    What this is about is that he’s running against the Libertarian Party on the issue.

    Maybe me shooting at you would make sense for some reason, but it’s kind of fucking silly to yell that I’m not shooting at you while I unload a full magazine of .45 ACP in your direction.

  121. Be Rational

    I don’t disagree that GJ is making statements that are at odds with the platform.

    It may or may not prove to be a good strategy to advance the cause of liberty. It can be upsetting to hear. The best we can hope for is that the campaign generates a lot more support, more money, and thousands of prospects that can be recruited and presented with more principled Libertarian positions that will allow the party to grow. As the future unfolds we will all see the outcome – and whether there will be any positive change.

    One thing that seems to never change is the endless, circular debating on IPR.

  122. Robert capozzi

    BR, life is one long discussion. Politics is no different. Some are heard by more, most are involved in his or her version of quiet desperatikn.

  123. robert capozzi

    br: his campaign suffers from incompetent management and no strategy … generating earned media coverage,

    me: Are you sure you mean to say this?

    I’m sorry, but is there ANY doubt that since the convention, J/W have earned many fold more earned media and even hard news coverage than perhaps all L prez coverage in aggregate?

  124. Thomas Knapp

    “I’m sorry, but is there ANY doubt that since the convention, J/W have earned many fold more earned media and even hard news coverage than perhaps all L prez coverage in aggregate?”

    Does not compute. Translates to “no doubt that maybe some indeterminate multiple of X.” Sort of like “I guarantee that there could maybe probably …”

    But anyway …

    More earned media and even hard news coverage than any past LP presidential campaign? THAT, I’d say there’s no doubt about.

    Many times the earned media and even hard news coverage than any past LP presidential campaign? I guess that depends on what you mean by “many.” I could buy the claim of at least twice as much as any single past campaign.

    Any multiple greater than 1.0 of the earned media and even hard news coverage of all past LP presidential campaigns combined? Strikes me as highly unlikely.

  125. Magnus Dahlstrøm

    Could someone help me embed the THROWBACK THURSDAY video above and then delete this message and the previous?

  126. robert capozzi

    tk, perhaps overstated, perhaps not. There’s probably no baseline stats to measure J/W against.

    I only watch online, and I suspect a lot of folks do. It’s probably difficult to really measure impressions in this day and age, too.

    Seems we agree they’ve got a FUCK of a lot of media. It’s quite a bit more than I thought they’d get. MTP pretty much out of the gates was quite the coup.

    OTOH, they’ve probably gotten a tiny fraction of what Perot 92 got.

  127. Thomas Knapp

    Oh, yes, they’ve received a great deal of media.

    Hard to compare to Perot 1992 for the same reason it’s hard to compare to Clark 1980, in that the nature of television in particular has changed. The big three networks used to deliver tens of millions of voters in one time slot. Now much of the political media coverage has bled off into bazillions of cable and online outlets and is either formally or de facto available on-demand instead of constrained in a particular timeframe.

    In 1980, if I wanted someone to see Clark’s infomercial, or even in 2000 if I wanted someone to see Browne’s before most people had high-speed Internet, I had to tape it on VHS — or in the case of Browne’s, buy it on VHS — and get it to them. These days, I email a URL.

    There are pluses and minuses. Stuff is much more available than it used to be, but there’s also a lot more to choose from and choosing it requires more sense of intentional direction instead of just sitting down in front of the tube and choosing ABC, NBC or CBS and watching whatever they deign to put in front of you.

    Comparing outlets, audience size, attention span, etc. for today to those same factors prior to, say, the 2008 election is difficult in terms of extracting useful information. My rough guess is that Johnson is meaningfully reaching far more American voters than any past LP candidate but probably not more (or at least not a LOT more) than (for example) than Clark and Browne combined or Badnarik and Barr combined, let alone all four combined.

  128. robert capozzi

    tk, possibly.

    If J/W can get in the debates, that will almost certainly take them to the next level, i.e., Perot-type interest.

    So many twists are of course possible in this most wacky cycle.

  129. NewFederalist

    PLAS… Strontium 90… climate change… inter-specie dating… you’re welcome!

    (Just interjecting some real serious stuff into this thread.)

  130. Thomas Knapp

    “If J/W can get in the debates, that will almost certainly take them to the next level, i.e., Perot-type interest.”

    We can burn that bridge if we come to it. Hopefully we won’t.

  131. natural born American

    Weird ending to that Ayn Rand fantasy. You’d think it would end with a loving rape rather than a punch in the face.

  132. Magnus Dahlstrøm

    I still don’t get what that had to do with Melinda being busy in 2011 when Ayn Rand died in 1982. Was he stalking her grave?

  133. Magnus Dahlstrøm

    Yes I’ve heard of this Nathan Norman you speak of. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathan_Norman_(entertainer) I am an admirer of him and Augustus Sol Invictus but I’m not either of them. I am a Norse American currently living in South Dakota. I have heard a rumor that Nathan Norman is in talks with William Johnson about replacing Bob Whitaker as the American Freedom Party presidential nominee but that’s all I can say.

  134. NewFederalist

    If Newt Gingrich gets tapped for Trump’s Veep are you backing the Trump-meister all the way, Nathan?

  135. Magnus Dahlstrøm

    Nathan Norman recently held a live chat on YouTube and he said he will do that if Gingrich is selected. If not, he says he’ll still consider it unless Trump picks a homosexual.

  136. Melinda Pillsbury-Foster

    Craig was stalking her in the 60’s but still bragging about it when I met him in the late 70’s. To prepare for his romantic venture Craig bought a Brooks Brothers suit, had his fingernails manicured, his hair cut, took along orchids, and sat in her lobby for several days, according to his report to me. I laughed the first time he told me because I thought he was kidding. Later, much later, I realized his odd behavior went much further.

    Among other revelations he wrote one of his girl friends, the one he paid to monitor his Sugar Daddy accounts, that he was thinking of hiring a hitman to kill me. That was 2010. http://craigfranklin.blogspot.com/2016/01/a-truth-in-advertising-moment-for-craig.html

    Anne kindly gave me the passwords and account information. Scroll down and you will find his profile. It was the same on all of his sites she had access to. http://craigfranklin.blogspot.com/2016/01/a-truth-in-advertising-moment-for-craig.html

    This was the same year his son, Scott, did pay a hitman to kill his wife. Scott is now serving time in High Desert Correctional Facility in Susanville, CA. He got 10 years because the plot was discovered and his wife was not harmed.

    Everyone who knew them assumed Scott got the idea from Craig. Scott, Morgan and Michael Emerling Cloud were three of the people on Craig’s conference calls when they were planning how to kill me during the divorce. Craig paid very well. Morgan got $5,000 a month. Michael got periodic payments, evidently, We have one check for $6,000 to Michael paid for his attempt to keep me from attending the LPC Convention in 1998.

    Craig’s first comment on hearing Scott had been arrested was, “That was stupid. They always suspect the husband first!” Craig’s next action was to call his attorney in an attempt to get unsupervised visitation with his granddaughter He ignored his 10 year old grandson. Craig as a fetish about incest. That was a shock, let me tell you.

    After the hearing the family was put into a victim protection program. I reported the letter to the authorities but no action was taken.

  137. Melinda Pillsbury-Foster

    Rachel says 13% of registered voters would prefer a meteor striking the earth to Hillary or Trump. Because of the deep unhappiness with both candidates Johnson should be doing better. He needs to let Americans know he will solve the problems and that he cares about the abuses which government has enabled. Most of the problems can be solved by holding the corporate criminals accountable. Libertarians are viewed as not caring if ordinary people live or die. That was brought home to me tonight in a conversation I had with a friend in Ohio. He did not know I am libertarian although we have known each other for several years. He was shocked when he found out. He is supporting Trump because Trump, he says, “cares for real people.”

  138. Jim

    Thomas Knapp “If he would prefer to legalize all drugs, why does he keep saying in public, over and over, very pointedly, that he does not want to legalize all drugs?”

    That’s an incorrect characterization of Johnson’s statements, from what I’ve seen. I have not seen him say that he does not *want* to legalize all drugs. What he says is that his campaign/Presidency will only advocate legalizing marijuana for reasons I have already described. He even briefly touched on it in the CNN interview:

    “I’m not advocating such. [Referring to the legalization of all drugs.] It’s marijuana. And I think – I think the country comes to a quantum leap in understanding, by legalizing marijuana, and that drug problems are health issues. They’re not criminal justice issues.”

    What Johnson wants and what he can get done are two separate things. You can’t sell more liberty than someone is willing to buy.

    You could essentially describe Johnson’s position on the legalization of marijuana as if it were a gateway drug to the decriminalization and then legalization of all other drugs. He thinks the public is ready for the legalization of marijuana, but not other drugs. And several polls have shown this to be the case (although some polls already show support for a range of decriminalization options for harder drugs, such as fines and mandatory treatment, rather than imprisonment.) Johnson doesn’t believe the public will be ready for the legalization of other drugs until after the results of legalizing marijuana are in. And that will take years longer than he will be in office.

    You don’t have to swing for the fences every time. You can win the game with a series of singles.

  139. steve m

    Jim,

    Actually from the CNN Town hall Gary did say he didn’t want to legalize heroin. He went on to say (i am interpreting or paraphrasing) that he wants to mitigate the dangers by not prosecuting the users and providing them alternatives such as places where they can have their supply checked for purity and get clean needles.

    My take is that Gary is in this to win (i would be surprised if he did but I respect his attempt to do so). That Gary believes that US voters are in agreement with him on pot but not ready for the “harder” drugs. To be in it for the win you have to pick the fights you can win and not fight battles that you would lose and that would cost you votes.

    Here is where I differ with Tom Knapp and Dr Phillies (both of whom I respect and support) and other more hard core Libertarians. But, I want to see progress and I see the Johnson/Weld progress.

  140. langa

    L, I see no plausible associations there.

    Is there one for you?

    I don’t know. In your view, what makes an association “plausible”?

  141. langa

    Johnson doesn’t believe the public will be ready for the legalization of other drugs until after the results of legalizing marijuana are in. And that will take years longer than he will be in office.

    This is silly. Marijuana has been legal in 2 states for a few years now. And marijuana (and other drugs) have been legal in European countries (like the Netherlands and Portugal) for a lot longer than that. If someone is open-minded about the issue, they should have more than enough evidence by this point.

  142. Jim

    langa – You know there are 50 states, right? Saying it’s legal in 2 states (it’s 4 states) which comprise 5% of the US population for, at most, 4 years, doesn’t provide the average American voter with the experience of living with legal marijuana. Most Americans couldn’t even find the Netherlands on a map. Some of them may have the vague idea that drugs might be legal there, but that’s a far cry from living in a place where they are legal and experiencing the effects legalized drugs have on their daily lives.

    Most Americans are ready for legalizing marijuana, according to the polls. They are not ready for legalizing all drugs. There is some support for decriminalizing the harder drugs though, and that will be the next step to reach for after legalizing marijuana. The decriminalization option with the most support for hard drugs is mandatory treatment and probation, but no prison time.

    Like I said, you don’t have to swing for the fences on this. It can be done with a series of singles. It’s just going to take some time.

  143. Jim

    steve m – It might sound like I’m quibbling here, but I’ve read the CNN transcript several times and Johnson did not say what he *wanted* to do on CNN. He said what he *would* do. What he *would* do is advocate for the legalization of marijuana, but not other drugs.

  144. Thomas Knapp

    ” Johnson did not say what he *wanted* to do on CNN. He said what he *would* do. What he *would* do is advocate”

    To “advocate” is to “support or recommend” — in other words, to say “I want X.”

    To say “I do not advocate X” is to say “I do not want X.”

    So what you’re saying to me is “Johnson isn’t saying what you say he’s saying — he’s saying what you say he’s saying!”

  145. steve m

    Jim,

    JOHNSON: So heart breaking, heart breaking. And we are not espousing the legalization of any drugs outside of marijuana. But what you are pointing out, and this is — this is heart breaking — but what you’re pointing out is that prohibition, really, is what your son succumbed to, and that was is that overdose — and, again, speaking specifically, please, just — but overdose, you’re a heroin addict, and you’re taking heroin, and you take — you take heroin — you take your heroin, you take your heroin, your supplier has now been arrested and put into jail, and now comes a new supplier of heroin, and the new supply of heroin, visually you’re taking the same dose that you’ve taken before, but it’s of a different quality and a different quantity, and it ends up killing you.

  146. steve m

    continued

    So when you look at programs like Zurich, Switzerland, where they have a heroin maintenance program, the idea in Zurich, Switzerland, was no more overdose deaths, because you could — as a heroin addict, you could go in, you could get your dose, it would be a free dose, but you wouldn’t die of an overdose. You wouldn’t — you’d have clean needles so that you’d be able to not succumb either to Hepatitis C, HIV.

    The idea was to reduce death, disease, crime, and corruption, and that’s what’s happened in Zurich. And the citizens of Zurich have re- upped on that program. So I hate to say it, but it’s prohibition, it’s quality, quantity unknown that kills people.

  147. steve m

    to me this sounds like…. move the issue of use from criminal prosecution to health care. It might not be the ultimatum ideal for libertarians but it is better then leaving the issue of drug usage in the hands of the law enforcement branch of the government.

  148. Thomas Knapp

    Steve m,

    You write:

    “move the issue of use from criminal prosecution to health care. It might not be the ultimatum ideal for libertarians but it is better then leaving the issue of drug usage in the hands of the law enforcement branch of the government”

    In the criminal system, at least in theory, you have to be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of what you’re accused of, which is a specific crime. In the medicalized version, civil commitment (Weld specifically referenced this as his tool of choice), the evidence only has to be “clear and convincing” and the grounds can be general.

    In the criminal system, you are sentenced to a specific period of time and will be released when that time is up (if not before). With civil commitment, the length of your detention is indefinite — just however long they happen to feel like it.

    So either way the cops come drag you off to confinement. It’s just that in the medicalized version they don’t have to prove as much and they keep you as long as they damn well please. I’m not sure how that’s “better” from any point of view.

  149. Jim

    Thomas Knapp – “Advocate” and “want” are not synonymous. Stop trying to pretend they are. I could want to eliminate all taxation in every form, but I would not advocate for that if I wanted to be taken seriously while running for office.

  150. robert capozzi

    L: I don’t know. In your view, what makes an association “plausible”?

    me: Epistemically inescapably, it’s a feeling based on memories. If one lost ALL memories, the world would be seen as an infant sees it…a blank slate. The infant is taught associations, they are not inherent.

    Clear enough?

  151. Thomas Knapp

    I can understand why some people would support Johnson and his positions as a matter of strategy.

    There’s no need to continually redefine words and pretend that he doesn’t say what he actually says in order to do that.

    Have the courage of your convictions. If you agree with Johnson that heroin shouldn’t be legalized, just say so. Or if you think he’s lying when he says that, just say so. You should be embarrassed for yourself with the “he didn’t say what he said, he said what I wish he had said” nonsense.

  152. robert capozzi

    L: If someone is open-minded about the issue, they should have more than enough evidence by this point.

    me: At this point, it’s a big IF. My sense if open minded is on the rare side among the US electorate. Do you feel otherwise? Any data suggesting widespread open-mindedness on the hard-drugs issue?

  153. robert capozzi

    tk: To say “I do not advocate X” is to say “I do not want X.” So what you’re saying to me is “Johnson isn’t saying what you say he’s saying — he’s saying what you say he’s saying!”

    me: Nope. Are you not familiar with the concept of reading between the lines? I’m sure you are, yes?

    I don’t advocate legalizing heroin, either. My sense is that it is politically unripe. I do advocate having a national conversation about the War on Drugs, which, like Prohibition before it, has failed. It makes no sense to me to incarcerate people for what they injest.

    “Advocacy” to me means “this is my near-term agenda.” What I believe would be optimal in the long run is something different.

    Is that really so hard to grok? 😉

  154. Thomas Knapp

    There aren’t any lines to read between in his most succinct summary of his agenda for drugs outside marijuana:

    “Keep the drugs illegal.”

    That’s what he said.

    It’s what he said whether I like it or not. It’s what he said whether you like it or not. It’s what he said, no shit, period, end of story.

    It’s one thing to argue that he didn’t really mean it that way (even though every other statement he made in the same venue, or made elsewhere in the days surrounding that one, supports him meaning it).

    Or to argue that he didn’t mean it at all — that he’s just strategically lying because the yokels would go berserk if he suggested right now that the US become as free as Portugal.

    But it’s another thing entirely to say that he didn’t say What. He. Fucking. Said.

    He DID say What. He. Fucking. Said.

  155. robert capozzi

    more….

    Using a less charged subject to illustrate, I advocate shifting taxes from the current configuration to a flat tax, possibly a negative income tax.

    Longer term, I’d like to see only pollution taxed.

    Longer term still, I can almost imagine global nonarchy/panarchy. As a Hayekian, I don’t have the fatal conceit of knowing what that might look like with any sort of precision. Institutions evolve, and for nonarchy/panarchy to be a sustainable configuration, many institutions would need to arise to maintain global tranquility.

    Advocacy requires for most a sense of plausible achievability. Theory is less dependent on achievability.

  156. Thomas Knapp

    So based on what you say you want above, you wouldn’t go on TV and describe your position as “keep pollution untaxed.”

    At least not if you speak English.

  157. robert capozzi

    tk: So based on what you say you want above, you wouldn’t go on TV and describe your position as “keep pollution untaxed.”

    me: No. Off the top of my head, I’d hint that I’d like to shift taxes from taxing productivity to taxing negative externalities (though I’d come up with a better word). If pressed, I’d say it’s something that needs more study.

    In the near term, we need to right the economic ship, get people working, saving and investing, starting businesses, and shrinking government.

  158. Thomas Knapp

    “Consider the possibility that your literalistic interpretations are blinding you to other possibilities”

    Consider the possibility that your impulse to ascribe a specific agenda to me is blinding you to the fact that I have not, am not, and have no intention of requesting any ACTION on the fact that Johnson is saying what he’s saying, and that I’m just noticing that he’s saying what he’s actually saying, rather than something else.

  159. robert capozzi

    tk, you’ve convinced me you are no longer fanning the flames for defrocking.

    Now, we’re just talkin’. 😉

  160. Thomas Knapp

    Cool!

    I do have an agenda, btw. But it has nothing to do with “defrocking” Johnson/Weld. In fact it has nothing at all to do with Johnson/Weld unless they should happen to want to sign on to it (that option is open to every other candidate, of any party or independent). It’s also not about the war on drugs. Press release goes out and web site launches tomorrow. Stay tuned 🙂

  161. robert capozzi

    Another platform plumbline that J/W have tripped several times is their advocacy of a “safety net.” Is there a reason why J/W detractors don’t attack them for that?

    Just curious.

    Like hard-drug prohibition, the idea of abolishing the safety net in favor of charity is IMO more a theoretical stance than a political one. I support J/W’s advocacy, though at some point I would like to see all charity be charity.

  162. Thomas Knapp

    “Another platform plumbline that J/W have tripped several times is their advocacy of a ‘safety net.’ Is there a reason why J/W detractors don’t attack them for that?”

    Yes, so platform plumbline that it’s neither explicitly mentioned, nor really even implicitly referenced, in the platform. Maybe it was back in the old days before you LRC guys gutted it?

  163. steve m

    Tom,

    Not under the Vancouver B.C. model. Enforcement is aimed at dealers while the city provides the drugs to those that want them. More like a socialized heroin model. The city seems intentionally to be messing with the heroin model by providing a quality product on one hand for free while going after competing distributors.

    The city also provides place where users can get their drugs tested for purity. Is this a libertarian ideal? no. Is it better then arresting users and tossing them into jail? I think yes. Does the health department have enough beds to act like a prison as you suggest? I seriously doubt it.

    Would I rather see the country try this over what we do? sure at least in a few experimental places. In the meantime legalize pot. That will take a large chunk of money out of the police departments and remove “reasons” for confiscating property from the police.

    http://vancouver.ca/people-programs/four-pillars-drug-strategy.aspx

  164. Thomas Knapp

    Steve,

    Well, the “Vancouver model” is all very well and good, but I didn’t just bring up civil commitment out of nowhere. William Weld did. So maybe you should tell him about Vancouver.

  165. steve m

    Tom,

    Next time Weld calls me I will. But it was Governor Johnson who brought up the Vancouver Model.

  166. Thomas Knapp

    steve m,

    Yes, there’s a certain amount of differentiation between Johnson and Weld on various issues — which actually would be kind of refreshing if that differentiation didn’t usually come down to one of them having a really awful position on something.

    Johnson’s position on the drug war COULD be incremental, plausibly moderate, but good. He wants to legalize marijuana. He wants to treat other drugs as medical rather than legal issues and unlike Weld he doesn’t bring up civil commitment as a way of doing that. But he has a tendency to let his answers get away from him … and then instead of saying “hey, sorry, my answer got away from me, let me revise and extend my remarks,” doubling down on whatever mistake he made and even entrenching (I strongly suspect that the “keep the other drugs illegal” language went up on their site AFTER he said it on CNN).

    That tendency of his wouldn’t be so disheartening if it didn’t stretch back decades with little sign of improvement — in fact, with signs of worsening.

    At least when he was governor and said something really stupid about how he would give the Democrats an end to the death penalty if they would give him marijuana decriminalization, he instantly realized how horribly horse-tradish that sounded and instantly apologized, took it back, and came out against the death penalty without condition (even though his tenure as governor up to that time had had him asking the legislature to let him kill 13-year-olds, asking the legislature to not require unanimous juries for the death penalty, and being the first governor in more than 40 years to actually authorize an execution).

    These days, he holds on to insane ideas like the “Fair” Tax — “prebate” welfare scam included — across whole four-year election cycles and won’t let go of it even though everyone around him with two neurons to put together for a synapse tells him it’s just dumb. Even Weld bucks him on that one.

    I have to think it’s just stubbornness. And I hate stubbornness. I wish everyone was as accommodating and willing to meet in the middle as I am 🙂

  167. Be Rational

    robert capozzi
    June 29, 2016 at 15:01
    br: his campaign suffers from incompetent management and no strategy … generating earned media coverage,

    me: Are you sure you mean to say this?

    I’m sorry, but is there ANY doubt that since the convention, J/W have earned many fold more earned media and even hard news coverage than perhaps all L prez coverage in aggregate?
    ***********

    Yes, I do mean to say that. The GJ/WW … “campaign suffers from incompetent management and no strategy on outreach, advertising or generating earned media coverage, all of which he needs …”

    You can point to all the coverage the campaign has gotten, and it may very well exceed all the coverage of all prior LP POTUS campaigns, but this coverage wasn’t a result of any strategy or action taken by the campaign. It happened because the LP nominated two former governors who have some experience and credibility in a year when the majority of voters detest the two presumptive nominees of the D & R parties.

    The coverage so far was a given, out of the box. No campaign strategy or action was necessary to get this attention. The most inocompetent campaign manager would have seen this amount of coverage.

    Unfortunately, nothing has been done and there is no strategy or action being taken to generate earned media coverage. Such action is necessary to increase the level of media coverage and to earn continuing media coverage.

    The 2016 GJ campaign is a black box where money disappears and no outreach is undertaken. They may spend a tiny percentage of the campaign money on ballot drives, but they haven’t a clue on how to run a national campaign for POTUS. As a result, they are turning in very poor fundraising numbers. Why donate when the money will just disappear into a black hole?

    They have missed their first two and most important advertising windows of the campaign. These would have generated media coverage, the attention of millions of people, and higher polling numbers leading to more media coverage and even higher polling numbers, resulting in being included in more or all polling … and all of this would generate more donations than the cost of the ads.

    They missed out on the Electoral College leverage and time leverage they had available.

    And since they aren’t advertising, thousands of individuals who could and would donate if there were a reason, and if they could trust the campaign, will just sit out the election – again.

    ********
    You can inherit $50,000,000 and just live on the money. You’d be rich and look rich, but you did nothing, it just came to you.

    Or, you can invest the money actively and turn it into $100 billion. That’s something you earned. It takes work, strategy and competence.

    The GJ/WW campaign is suffering from the same incompetent management as in 2012.

    This is a sad waste of a great opportunity.

    The convention should have insisted, as I wrote on IPR, on replacing the campaign management and putting some financial guarantees and controls in place, prior to voting for GJ’s nomination.

  168. Thomas L. Knapp

    “As a result, they are turning in very poor fundraising numbers.”

    They were nominated on May 29th.

    Their most recent fundraising report covers the period through May 31st.

    We won’t know until July 20th what their post-nomination fundraising numbers look like.

  169. Melinda Pillsbury-Foster

    I started whosyourcandidate.com to create a market in alternatives and so persuade Johnson to more forcefully represent the real Libertarian position, which calls for accountability for everyone, including those who are not really people, like corporations.

    The proposals there were included in a letter sent to the five individuals who are now qualified presidential candidates who, stretching it, could be on the November ballot. Johnson was among these.

    Late last night I received an answer from Bill Kmerl, a candidate for the Green Party who will be their Vice Presidential candidate. They all worked together on their ballot drives this last week.

    His response to my questions was:

    “Melinda,

    Thanks for your patience.

    I have now been able to read your six questions and find nothing the least objectionable. So put me down for a “yes” on all six.

    Have a good weekend.”

    I responded, wishing him well. The six questions were:

    On Inauguration Day will you:

    Number One: Order any and all prosecution for marijuana and hemp to cease forthwith.

    Number Two: Release all prisoners convicted of victimless crimes, starting with pot.

    Number Three: Order the Department of Justice to investigate the banks responsible for the Meltdown.

    During your first year will you:

    Number Four: Encourage the building of Sustainable housing for the homeless, those defrauded by the Mortgage Scam, the disabled, the elderly, and others victimized by predatory corporations as a follow up on the investigations. Accountability for fraud must include making the victims whole.

    Number Five: Start a mutual insurance company allowing options for alternative health care.

    Number Six: Mandate the use of only sustainable building materials for all Federal projects.

    You might wonder, “Is this to be politically correct?” No. it is to save money for taxpayers and for our own housing. These materials are less expensive, stronger, more durable and in increasing use in countries not controlled by corporate greed, but sold for many times what the products we have identified cost. Additionally, they are entirely sustainable and in many areas the only really safe building technology. (Ask Californians)

    Visit GeoPolymer Institute if you would like to know more about this technology. 3DPrinting can lower the cost of construction and restoring infrastructure, essential to the well being and safety all of us need. There are several working examples of this. geopolymer.org

    Government is the servant of the People and as such needs to carry out the will of the people and ensure our rights are protected. Here are some specific actions we want Our Candidate to adopt as action items.

    To be carried out immediately after the Inauguration in January 2017. We picked these so the
    Candidate can visibly confirm our agreement for action.

  170. Be Rational

    There were some recently reported disappointing fundraising numbers for GJ/WW on IPR somewhere, to which I’m referring.

    This also refers to the “they need to raise more money first” refrain, which ignores the fact that donors want a reason to donate. Run the first round of ads, show you’re serious, use that to raise increasing amounts of money for each subsequent rouund.

    You have to save and invest and start the compounding process.

  171. steve m

    The amount raised by both the Johnson 2016 team and the LNC for May of 2016 was significantly better then what was raised in May of 2012. About 3 times higher for both.

    Add to this that the Libertarian Convention in 2012 was held May 2-6 while the 2016 convention was held May 26-30th. So the 2016 fund raising might not have received as much of a post convention bump.

    The FEC Reports for Johnson May 1st through 31 are now available.

    For the 2016 http://docquery.fec.gov/cgi-bin/forms/C00605568/1079473/

    for May 2016 Johnson raised from individual contributors $350561.42

    For 2012 http://docquery.fec.gov/cgi-bin/forms/C00495622/791749/

    in May 2012 Johnson raised from individual contributors $118634.66

  172. robert capozzi

    br, they are rolling out ads as we speak. Here’s the latest:

    http://reason.com/blog/2016/06/30/is-this-gary-johnsonbill-weld-spot-the-g

    Presumably, they are also sharing the mounds of vids of appearances they’ve had since the nomination.

    At some point soon, your refrain will be moot regarding fundraising tactics. Unless you are making an “I told you so” case for after the elections. Unfortunately, even if they do poorly, you never bothered to make an alternative case, other than waving your hands about certain states and demanding J/W make loans to the campaign, which they are doing with their time.

    Consider getting over it.

  173. Be Rational

    That’s a great spot, RC.

    It’s 2 minutes 11 seconds, so they’re not running it anywhere and they won’t.

    They could probably cut it to 2 minutes and buy long ad times. Still time to spend half a million dollars and bracket the upcoming conventions in 12 target states. They have raised that much, so they don’t have to borrow. It would give the donors who are sitting out a reason to donate, plus boosting them in the polls and extending and boosting their earned media.

    Doubtful they understand this.

  174. Melinda Pillsbury-Foster

    If Johnson announces affirmatively he will carry out the first three pledges and congratulates Bill on agreeing with him there will be affirmative publicity and Johnson just needs to add, “As Libertarians we care about justice and about people.”

  175. robert capozzi

    br: Doubtful they understand this.

    me: Are you Roger Stone? Karl Rove? Mary Matalin?

    Not that they necessarily know better, but you speak as if you are an authority hiding behind a pseudonym. What have you done or do that gives you the confidence that the BR proto-plan light years more effective than what is being done?

  176. Thomas L. Knapp

    Interesting video, but it’s not an ad.

    Ads are made for consumption by the general public, which means television, which means 15, 30 or 60 seconds long.

    A two-minute-plus-odd-seconds video is a “get our existing supporters to go OOH! AHH! LET ME GET MY CHECKBOOK OUT AGAIN!” operation.

    Nothing wrong with that. In fact I’d say it’s a good thing in this particular case since if it was an ad it would cost Johnson/Weld the vote of everyone who got pissed off after falling asleep in the middle of it and missing their shows, which means everyone who’s not an LP member.

  177. Thomas L. Knapp

    Dear God. Thick versus thin libertarianism is just about the only thing I can think of that might be as boring to the general public as two former Republican governors reminiscing about what it’s like to be two former Republican governors.

    I kept expecting to nod off and wake up to “… mountain on every continent” or “I hear the rice pudding is really good today.” Just sayin’ …

  178. Be Rational

    The most effective POTUS ads the LP ever ran were the 5 minute Clark for President ads which ran nationwide on major networks in 1980.

    These spots, at two minutes, can be very effective.

    The 12 state plan is still the way to change the outcome of this election.

    Our last chance for effective use of early time leverage is during the major party conventions. Then the summer season sets in when political interest ebbs, by fall GJ/WW will have slipped from their current high levels. Too late.

    They should cut out 10 or 11 seconds – whatever it takes to drop the ad to the two minute length, plus adding in any needed disclaimer (hard to get good times on YouTube for edits).

    They can drop the segments that say:

    “Good government is easy.”
    “Watch”
    “On the ballot in all 50 states.”

    and tighten up a couple of time gaps to make up the difference.

    Of course, they may have some other good spots to use.
    Fine.
    But it’s time to get out there.

    What say, Gary Johnson?
    You in
    this thing to win?
    Come on.
    Run some ads before it’s too late.

  179. Thomas L. Knapp

    My recollection is that the Clark ads were longer than 5 minutes and that they were effectively infomercials which ran instead of normal programming, not as ads.

    It would be interesting to see what it would cost to run long ads like that, or even the two-minute version Johnson/Weld have produced, on a scale that reaches as many viewers as the Clark production.

    Based on past performance, though, I don’t expect this campaign to invest much money in advertising. I could be wrong, of course. And even if it doesn’t, the PACs getting behind it might.

  180. Be Rational

    “Are you Roger Stone? Karl Rove? Mary Matalin?”

    *******

    What experience do these three have in leveraging major network news coverage on a shoestring advertising budget for a relatively unknown Libertarian party candidate? None. I doubt they’ve even considered it. Even combined they likely have no more experience than you do Bob.

    … and yes, I’ve done it and seen it work.

  181. Be Rational

    The Clark spots were 5 minutes.

    The 5 minute spots were used because they were very inexpensive relative to other political advertising options at the time. They were treated as purchased political programming time (Anderson bought longer time slots of the same type) and they were listed in TV Guide.

  182. NewFederalist

    Be Rational- Why do you think your advice is being totally ignored?

  183. Be Rational

    NewFederalist
    July 1, 2016 at 15:43

    Be Rational- Why do you think your advice is being totally ignored?

    *********
    I suspect that the Johnson campaign has the same strategy as in 2012:

    … that they are trying to maximize their NET donations to pay out in salaries to unnamed individuals. Because of this, they have no intention to waste or even risk money on advertising since their goal is net funds for themselves.

    So, they will do as little as possible in the area of outreach and advertising. They have to do ballot access, but the rest, nada.

    Many potential donors have similar suspicions.
    Other potential donors will not donate until they see some action being taken.
    Others will wait for signs of results from the actions being taken.

    The Johnson campaign could raise more funds by convincing the first group – that doesn’t trust them – by proving they are honest. They could do this with transparency and could have done this with openness in 2012 – if they had nothing to hide.

    They could satisfy the group demanding honesty and the group demanding action by actually doning advertising and outreach.

    They could satisfy the third donor group by doing effective advertising utilizing targeting and leverage – both strategic targeting by advertising in key states, utilizing leverage to earn free media worth hundreds of times what the ads cost, and time leverage by advertising early and filling the void for a third choice, winning supporters before they’ve locked in their choice to another candidate, earning more media coverage early and raising money early that can be used for even more advertising.

    These reluctant donors, thousands of individuals who are waiting for a reason to give, represent millions of dollars that will not be raised.

    But, in life there are risks. Better for the Johnson campaign to hang on to the cash they are raising to pay themselves.

    So, no ads, no leverage, far fewer donations, far less money raised, far less support in the polls, no debate appearances, vote totals back down to earth – less than 3 percent. Opportunity lost.

    But the managers and others in the campaign get paid. Without risk.

    That’s why I think the Johnson campaign is doing nothing.
    That’s why I don’t donate.
    That’s why others don’t donate.

    *********

    RC, OTOH, likes being contrary, on all kinds of threads. It seems to be a form of entertainment for him. He sometimes makes good points and askes good questions, but often he just trolls important topics, sending them off into the weeds. Fun times for all.

  184. NewFederalist

    Thanks for your well reasoned response, Be Rational. I very much tend to agree with you.

  185. natural born citizen

    Unfortunately that seems to be the case for every LP Presidential campaign. Donations for advertising all go to pay advertising consultants, and then there’s no money left for actual advertising.

  186. Thomas Knapp

    nbc

    The Badnarik campaign aired advertisements.

    My recollection is that the one campaign — maybe the second Browne campaign? — did some kind of targeted thing with its ads, e.g. “we can buy a package to air the commercials in this area for $X if we buy by Friday. If you want the commercials aired in this area, donate and slug the donation “for Project Advertise in Peoria.”

  187. George Phillies

    The second Browne campaign aired TV ads. The LNC aired TV ads for the second Browne campaign.

    Badnarik did TV advertising in fair part aimed at one or a few states.

  188. Be Rational

    Raising money to show ads in whatever area with selection based on donors’ choices is not targeting. It’s a scattered, shotgun approach. It’s the opposite of targeting.

    Badnarik didn’t have enough money to meet any threshhold of targeting.

    The only LP POTUS campaign to run effective advertising was Clark 1980.

  189. George Phillies

    Be Irrational: Would you care to validate your claim about Badnarik targeting against Badnarik FEC reports? Badnarik had more general election money than any Libertarian Presidential candidate other than Johnson 2012, and due to frugal spending on staff spent more of it on outreach.

  190. Be Rational

    Targeting requires spending enough money to buy enough advertising to make a significant impression on the viewers and with enough coverage on Major Network Broadcast TV to reach a significant portion of the population of that media market.

    A well run targeted TV campaing will also lead to significant earned media coverage in the target market. It the timing is done correctly it can result in nationwide coverage on the national news of the major networks – an opportunity that the Johnson campaign has so far avoided using.

    The shotgun approach of buying a few spots based on donor choices involves spreading a small amount of money over a large area. Only a few ads are placed in any one market. There is no saturation and there is no targeting. The shotgun approach doesn’t work. Advertising professionals are aware of this even if LP kibitzers are not.

    Running a handful of spots in a variety of markets, as done by the Browne campaign meant there was no targeting. The Bergland campaign used a similar approach to TV advertising and likewise accomplished nothing.

  191. Thomas L. Knapp

    Once again: Just because you don’t approve of the TYPE of targeting, that doesn’t mean it’s not targeting.

    The Browne campaign targeted donors, not viewers or voters (it didn’t just do that with its TV advertising, it did that with everything).

    And no, targeting does not imply any minimum purchase. If I spend five bucks on Google or Facebook and tell it to show my ad only to white redheaded females in Billings, Montana, I am targeting.

  192. Be Rational

    TK, Your comment shows that you are looking at this from a different perspective. I am presenting this from the perspective of an advertising professional.

    Sure, you can use the word “targeting” in other ways. You can target certain individuals for fundraising. You can shoot a gun at a target. You can have career targets or target scores on tests.

    We have been discussing Targeted Advertising under the shorthand expression “targeting” since other uses of the word “targeting” for our purposes would be non-sequiturs.

    The Browne camp was trying to suck in more donations and used promised ads as a lure to gain donations. But, the advertising was NOT targeted. In fact, their shotgun approach would mean the money was mostly wasted, just as during the Bergland campaign which did the same thing. (How many of the same people were involved in both campaigns and who profited would be an interesting audit trail to follow. Perhaps those profits were the goal of the fundraising and the ads were the lure to maximize the donations and the profits. In terms of advertising, there was no targeting. In terms of fundraising victims, sure there were “targets” or more accurately, “marks.”)

    For advertising professionals who understand the word targeting, it refers to actual advertising, and it requires spending enough money to saturate the target audience so as to attempt to move a certain percentage to take a desired action. This requires a lot of money to be focused on small areas. As I wrote much earlier on this topic, we would need to plan up to $30,000,000 on the 12 states I slected to target before moving on to more states. The ads should be (and should have been) run during certain time windows of opportunity when it is (was) possible to reach voters and the media more effectively to generate ongoing support and the necessary “earned” media.

    In political campaigns, the targeted audience comprises the voters in a political voting geographic subdivision of the US. In POTUS races this means a State (or in the case of Maine and Nebraska, it can be a specific CD to earn a single Electoral Vote). Political targeting in POTUS campaigns requires running advertising on Major Network Broadcast TV without which it is not possible to reach enough of the voters in the target state. The advertising must be timed and planned to generate earned media on top, or the dollars required will be several times higher.

    The actions taken – and NOT taken – by the Johnson campaign tells me that either they have no one on the inside who understands the fundamentals of targeted advertising for effective political campaigns or that they have financial goals that preclude making such expensive and risky investments in advertising.

  193. robert capozzi

    Ad agencies and political consultants, iirc, make most of their money from ad buys. They have incentives to run ads.

  194. Be Rational

    The Full Service Ad agencies that I have worked for made most of their money from the creative side: creating ad campaigns, marketing strategy, public relations, generating earned media, writing, design and production of print, radio and TV spots, consulting on all aspects or advertising and marketing.

    However, there is a nice fat commission on all ads placed: print, radio and TV that amounts to a nice bonus with no additional cost since all the work was already billed on the creative side. It is possible that a single ad, if it continues to run for a long period of time, can generate much larger commissions, but clients are generally aware of this and they will demand – and get – a reduced rate, essentially taking back a share of the agency commission. So, the biggest billing and profits always came from the creative, design, production, strategy and marketing services.

    Some candidate managers set up their own ad agencies and mark-up all the work done by other ad agencies and contractors by an additional 10% and then they re-bill the campaign. They get 10% on the pass through for doing nothing. Then all the money goes to a single agency. On an FEC report all the money would be paid to a single agency and would look strange because of this arrangement. In cases such as this the manager’s agency will still make more from the services side, since that is the bulk of the billing, so 10% on top of a bigger number is still more than 10% on top of a smaller number.

    A campaign on a tight budget that creates and produces its own advertising may only need to buy ad placement. In this case they don’t need an agency. They can buy direct from the media outlets.

  195. robert capozzi

    BR, the MARGIN is higher iirc for ad buys…15% vs. labor of 10%. Total costs might be more for creative, depending on the amount of creative used.

  196. Be Rational

    Ad commissions for TV, radio and print are standard at 10%.

    Creative, production, design etc. for us were always billed at whatever we decided they were worth. Hold a creative meeting, kick around some ideas, come up with a concept. $3,000 – $10,000 for a few hours labor. This was always where the big money was.

    Re-billing from pass-through agencies is generally at a 10% markup. It means the original agencies or freelancers charged their usual prices and now the entire amount is being marked up and billed again.

    Some ad agencies run their own contract studios on the side. They bill themselves for the full amount and then mark it up again by 10% and bill the client.

    Then a pass-through agency run by the campaign manager will mark it up again.

    And then the low funded POTUS campaign has no money leftover for major network broadcast TV advertising.

    The LP needs to make sure that the finances of their POTUS campaigns are completely transparent.

  197. robert capozzi

    br, maybe it’s 10%. But there are almost no variable costs to ad buys, as I understand the economics. No?

  198. Be Rational

    We always billed media planning as a separate item, meaning that there were no costs to assign against the media commissions. One could assign some back-end paperwork, accounting type costs to the commissions, but we never did.

    However, there was so much money on the production side, that the profits were greater there. If you produced only one ad and then ran the same ad hundreds or thousands of times, with no additional production costs and were able to keep the entire 10% commission on media, then media commissions would produce more income.

    We generally produced new spots on a regular basis for our clients, so the ads being run were constantly changing.

    Clients with large volumes of runs using the same ads generally negotiated up-front for a cut of the commissions. So, the profit to the agency from the large ad buys wasn’t as great as the standard commission would have allowed.

  199. George Phillies

    “The LP needs to make sure that the finances of their POTUS campaigns are completely transparent.”

    BR got one thing right. His description of advertising should be entirely familiar.

  200. Be Rational

    Here is a timely example of subcontracting to your own agency, and, in this case, some consequences:

    “… Noble’s employment of his own consulting firm, Noble Associates, is the key point in the FEC’s ruling that the three nonprofits had failed to comply with federal disclosure laws. According to all three conciliation agreements, the three groups each received millions of dollars from CPPR and then spent that money on millions of dollars of advertisements targeting Democratic senators and congressmen for defeat in the 2010 elections.

    The three groups spent CPPR’s money through media vendors who produced advertising and determined which candidates to target. In each case, Noble’s consulting firm was working as a subcontractor for these media vendors. This was not disclosed in any prior filing with the IRS or the FEC …”

    07/13/2016 04:13 pm 16:13:10
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/koch-dark-money_us_578691d2e4b0867123df60f6

Leave a Reply

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