Darryl W. Perry Announces Limited Presidential Write-In Campaign

Darryl W. Perry

Darryl W. Perry

Campaign Press Release:

Libertarian Party Presidential Candidate, Darryl W. Perry, announced today his intention to launch a limited write-in campaign for the 2016 US Presidential Race.

When radio personality, libertarian activist, and CEO of Liberty Lobby LLC, Darryl W. Perry, embarked on his Presidential Campaign, he did so with three goals in mind: 1) to run the most libertarian presidential campaign in history; 2) to proclaim the ideas of liberty as boldly and as often as possible; and 3) to give as many people as possible the opportunity to vote for an actual libertarian in November.

After the 2016 Libertarian Party National Convention in Orlando, Florida, Perry issued a statement saying he had “accomplished two-thirds of the goals I set for my campaign. I ran the most consistent libertarian campaign to date, and I took every opportunity, including my well-received Concession Speech, to promote the ideas of liberty.”

Perry, who was officially endorsed by the NH Liberty Party at their convention in February, added, “While my original intention was to either continue my campaign through the November election or support an LP ticket with actual philosophical libertarians, the Libertarian National Convention left me emotionally drained. I will not be continuing my campaign through November.”

Since then, numerous people have asked for a way to give people the ability to vote for a philosophical libertarian for President. Due to the numerous instances of the Libertarian Party Presidential ticket running in opposition to the LP Platform, including supporting limitations of the 2nd Amendment rights of people on secret lists, new forms of taxation, and statements against freedom of association, Perry decided to file declarations of intent to be a write-in candidate in a handful of states where a slate of electors is not required. The laws in another eight states claim all write-in votes are valid. Meaning that on November 8, 2016, voters in 17 states (AL, AK, DE, IA, ID, KS, MT, NE, NH, NJ, OR, PA, RI, VT, WA, WV, WY) plus DC, will have the ability to cast a vote – albeit a write-in – for an actual libertarian, Darryl W. Perry. This means Perry potentially has access to 114 Electoral College votes.

Between now and election day, Darryl’s focus will remain at the state and local level where more opportunities exist to affect positive change. In addition, the Darryl W. Perry Presidential Campaign does not intend to raise any funds or have any expenditures towards this limited write-in campaign. Perry says, “I do not make this decision lightly, however I have the ability to not let another election cycle go by without a philosophical libertarian candidate in the general election. Finally, I encourage everyone, including members of the Libertarian Party, to follow their conscience when they cast their ballot in the Presidential election.”

162 thoughts on “Darryl W. Perry Announces Limited Presidential Write-In Campaign

  1. Bondurant

    It’s nice to see that some states actually have some sensible laws in place. All write-in votes should be valid everywhere. Not so here in Arizona. I won’t be voting for Johnson but since I feel obligated to cast a ballot, if only to help possibly oust Sheriff Arpaio, I’ll be writing in DWP even if the vote won’t count.

  2. Be Rational

    Too goofy to be chair of an LP State Party.

    If you’re going to run against your party’s nominee, you should resign your position as chair. Your duty to the party, as chair, is to support your candidate and maximize their vote totals. But, you see this as an opportunity to toot your own ego.

  3. Anthony Dlugos

    Be Rational,

    I was wondering about that too with regard to his duties as chair, but then I remember what we’re dealing with and figured to play it for the yuks befitting of this operation.

  4. Thomas Knapp

    “If you’re going to run against your party’s nominee”

    Perhaps LPNH no longer regards the Libertarian National Convention’s nominee as its nominee.

    At least one LPNH local affiliate has asked the state’s regional representative to introduce a motion to the LNC suspending the Johnson/Weld nomination.

    If enough of LPNH agrees with that position for the state party to have decided to separately nominate, the candidate its delegation supported at the national convention (one Darryl W. Perry) seems like a reasonable alternative nominee.

  5. Caryn Ann Harlos

    State affiliates are autonomous with very limited exception (such as ratification of the SoP). No matter what anyone’s opinion is of the decision, don’t be an ignoramus about Party structure.

  6. Richard Winger

    That list in the post of states in which all write-ins are valid is incorrect. Delaware, Idaho, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, and West Virginia all have write-in declaration of candidacy laws. And Oregon and Washington laws say write-ins will not be counted unless the vote-counting equipment suggests a write-in may have won. Washington state also has a write-in declaration of candidacy requirement but the state still won’t count such votes unless the write-in candidate might have won.

    And almost all the states in which all write-ins are technically supposed to be counted, in fact don’t obey the law. And if they were sued, they would probably say they need not canvass write-ins for president because there are no presidential elector candidate. The only states that count all write-ins for president are Rhode Island and theoretically New Hampshire. And even New Hampshire is very arbitrary about which ones get a state tally that the Secretary of State includes in the official vote.

    Also the national publications and organizations that tally the national vote for president never include candidates who are not on the ballot in at least one state. This goes for the FEC’s Federal Elections book, as well as Congressional Quarterly’s America Votes. So Darryl will go down in history with no recorded votes.

  7. Anthony Dlugos

    Jeremy,

    haha, no.

    Just enjoying the comedy. You know I love the soap opera that is the Libertarian Party.

  8. Caryn Ann Harlos

    Anthony you are just being a nasty piece of work for no reason?

    And not he “should” not. There is no duty here. And it is the business of NH Libertarians, not anyone here.

  9. Be Rational

    Yes, Perry should either resign as chair or renounce his campaign against his party’s nominee.

    The National LP chose its nominee. For better or worse, it’s Gary Johnson. The party is sticking with its nomineee for P and VP and the duty of party officers, the national commitee and the national office are to support the nominee.

    The New Hampshire LP is an affiliate of the National LP. Gary Johnson is on the ballot as the nominee of the New Hampshire LP. As long as they are an affiliate and the NHLP is supporting the LP nominee, then the chair of that affiliate along with the party apparatus such as it is in NH has an obligation to its membership to support the party nominee.

    So, either the NH LP should renounce its support for Johnson, and vote to back Perry – if this is allowed in the bylaws of the NHLP at this date, or Perry should renounce his write-in campaign against his party’s nominee or Perry should resign from any position with the NHLP executive committee for the duration of his campaign.

    *

    Hey, but very few people have the ethical foundation and moral fortitude to do what they should do. Just look at the mess in Oregon.

  10. Caryn Ann Harlos

    There you go being ignorant of how affiliates work. This is the business of NH Libertarians, not you. You keep saying “should” with no support or standing.

    Not my business. I am not a NH Libertarian.

  11. Frank Gilbert

    So, this is like Ted Cruz running a write in campaign after he lost the Republican nomination….no, wait. Cruz got a significant percentage of the Republican delegates. This is like Ben Carson running after HE lost the Republican nomination. Good Move, Darryl.

  12. Be Rational

    I think you just don’t know the meaning of the word “should.”

    FYI, “should” is a matter of opinion, which anyone can hold – even you.

    Yes, any action to be taken in response to this lapse in ethical judgement by Perry is up the the NHLP, its membership, its executive committee according to its bylaws … But, we can all see what Perry should do – if he is ethical and responsible he will resign as chair or end his campaign.

  13. Brad

    If he wanted this, he should have never tried for the Libertarian nomination & just went with a write-in campaign months ago. Oh well.

  14. George Dance

    Not the first time the New Hampshire LP has run a different candidate from the national nominee. At least this time they let the nominee have the ballot line.

  15. Tony From Long Island

    Oh give it a rest! You didn’t come close to the nomination of your own party . . . so now a write-in? He’ll get 1% of the usual .05% the LP usually gets.

    This guy has some set of balls. This is a Trumpian narcissist type move.

    Perry shouldn’t be anywhere near any position of influence or authority.

    Frank Gilbert: No, this is more like George Pataki running a write-in campaign after losing the republican nomination.

    :::: shaking my head and sighing ::::

  16. Be Rational

    But, you have to admit, Perry does have a theoretical chance of winning more votes than Milnes.

  17. Thomas Knapp

    BR,

    Darryl announced his write-in campaign today.

    He was elected chair of LPNH last weekend.

    And the week before that, one of LPNH’s local affiliates (a prominent member/leader of which was subsequently elected vice-chair of LPNH in the same election that made Darryl chair) formally requested that the Libertarian National Committee remove Johnson as its presidential nominee.

    Has it even crossed your mind that all those events might be part of a connected, coherent, intentional sequence rather than random incompatible coincidences?

  18. Be Rational

    Of course TK, that’s why there are the possibilities I listed.

    IF he didn’t mislead the NHLP about his intentions to be chair of an affiliate of the National LP supporting the nominee … and
    IF the NHLP now votes to recind or renounce its support of Gary Johnson and throw itself behind its chair, Perry for POTUS …
    THEN and only then will it be proper for Perry to remain as chair

    Otherwise, Perry has a moral and ethical obligation to either resign as chair while running his POTUS campaign against his party … or
    He can terminate his campaign and support the nominee of his party …

    or, he can remain as chair of the NHLP while the NHLP is backing Gary Johnson and prove that he has no higher ethical standards than Hillary Clinton.

    (It will be fun to see him run his quixotic write-in campaign in a vain attempt to beat Milnes’ vote total.)

  19. Thomas Knapp

    “He’ll get 1% of the usual .05% the LP usually gets.”

    The LP usually gets much closer to 0.5% than .05%. Call it half a million votes.

    1% of that would be 5,000 votes.

    I will be surprised if Darryl gets 500 votes.

    Which is fine, since the point of his candidacy is to give libertarians a libertarian to vote for if they would rather vote for a libertarian than for Gary Johnson.

    If anyone wants to do some betting, here are two propositions to bet against if you want to give me some money:

    1) The number of votes Darryl gets nationally will not represent the difference in votes required to move Gary Johnson from winning any single state to not winning that state or vice versa (example: If Darryl gets 500 votes nationwide, Gary will not come within 500 votes of carrying any state without actually carrying it).

    2) Assuming that every vote Darryl gets would otherwise have gone to Gary Johnson (not a safe assumption, but stipulated arguendo), the number of states in which Darryl’s candidacy costs the state Libertarian Party ballot access for the next election will be zero.

  20. Thomas Knapp

    BR,

    But the thing is, the possibilities you list belie your pseudonym.

    If the LPNH’s members want Darryl to remain as chair, it is ethical and proper for him to remain as chair. Period. It’s their organization, not yours. They, not you, get to decide what they want. You don’t have to like it. That’s how it is whether you like it or not.

    If the LPNH’s members do not want him to remain as chair, it may or may not be ethical and proper for him to remain as chair (depending on whether or not he lied, including by omission, to win election as chair). But it would certainly be a dick move.

  21. Be Rational

    It would be a more interesting bet to see if either Perry or Milnes could get their mother to vote for them.

  22. Thomas Knapp

    Tony,

    I’d take the over on that — but it would be difficult to verify one way or the other as some states aren’t reliable when it comes to counting write-ins even if they claim they do.

    If I had to guess, I’d guess he’ll get 100 votes or so in New Hampshire, and single or low double digits in each of the other 16 states where he can be written in.

  23. Be Rational

    If the NHLP membership desires that the NHLP continues to back Gary Johnson, then they are quite unlikely to want a chair to work against their interests.

    Your only argument fails on logic.

  24. AMcCarrick

    Another nail in the LP coffin. Told you a month ago the LP is dead by the 2018 mid-term elections.

  25. Thomas Knapp

    BR,

    I went to look up the word “logic” and didn’t find “something that BR considers likely” in any of the three dictionaries I checked. Cite, please?

  26. AMcCarrick

    Since the purists-anarchists can’t get their way they’d rather the party crumble into nothing than have a candidate that is actually electable by more than .0001% of the populace. You’re doing a wonderful job of that.

    Thanks for making my new party even more viable, and the LP a soon to be forgotten laughing stock.

  27. Tony From Long Island

    Perry should be censured if not booted by the national LP for running a write-in campaign against the nominee of his own party.

    Go start the Anarchy in the USA party with the other handful of anarchist and let the LP grow as it has been.

    I hope he reads these, as I know he sometimes comes around here. You are being laughed at. Loudly

    This made my day!

  28. Anthony Dlugos

    We’re in a people business. Guys like Perry never will get that. I realized that when he was face to face with Governor Weld in Orlando, filled with righteous anger, spittle flying.

    No one wants to be part of an organization so disjointed that you have 50 subsets all doing their own thing, nominating who they want, with no esprit de corps, just a shrug of the shoulders and a “well, that’s the LP of Montana’s decision, ‘taint nothing I can do about that.” No one wants to be a part of such a desultory clusterf*ck. Well, almost no one.

    I confess I don’t know what the “rules” say here with regard to national vs state affiliates. Frankly, I don’t care. Go ahead, shrug your shoulders and hide behind legalese. Make a factious comment that the people of New Hampshire finally get to vote for a Libertarian. See where it gets you.

    This is a narcissistic equivalent of Weeks/Meeks disrobing in Orlando. Once again, a Radical does themselves and their cause a disservice. No surprise.

  29. Tony From Long Island

    In a new poll just released within the hour, Johnson has 11% in New Hampshire.

    Go find ’em all Daryl. I’m sure they’ll be excited to hear your doomspeak with that creepy speaking style you have.

  30. Caryn Ann Harlos

    Interesting. I am part of a voluntary organization and I don’t care what the terms of our voluntary association are! Nice.

    And nice smear Anthony when you know well that the LP Radical Caucus doesn’t endorse this, and one of our founders and many of our members are in key positions in the Gary Johnson campaign, and I serve on the Gary Johnson Advisory Committee.

    Very low.

    And yes it is the business of LPNH Libertarians as Tom said. There is absolutely no duty, under the terms of our voluntary association (perhaps there is under NH Bylaws, I don’t know their bylaws) to do so.

    You don’t like the autonomy? Too bad. Try to get national bylaws changed. Now THAT would be amusing.

    There is one thing that is amusing here, and it how upset people are over the autonomy of the affiliates. Multiple affiliates have done things that I don’t personally like. But it is their right.

  31. Caryn Ann Harlos

    Funniest comment of the day:

    ==with the other handful of anarchist===

    Someone is really out of touch with the LP.

    And I am an anarchist, and I don’t support this for various reasons. But it is perfectly the LPNH’s right. The bigotry towards POVs in this thread is astounding.

  32. Thomas Knapp

    Quoth Anthony,

    “I confess I don’t know what the ‘rules’ say here with regard to national vs state affiliates.”

    The rules don’t say a whole lot. A couple of opinions (how well-qualified I am to offer those opinions is of course in the eye of the beholder):

    In my opinion, a state party nominating/endorsing a presidential candidate other than the one nominated by a national convention at which that state party was represented (or had the opportunity to be represented and declined that opportunity) would clearly meet any reasonable standard of cause for a vote by the LNC to disaffiliate that state party.

    In my opinion, a state party choosing to keep a state party officer for any reason it deems good and sufficient, instead of impeaching that officer for this or that reason, doesn’t come within a country mile of such cause and is entirely the business of the state party in question, per the bylaws requirement that the LNC respect affiliate autonomy.

  33. Tony from Long Island

    I have no bigotry toward the anarchists, I just think it’s laughable. I have a very differing opinion. But “bigotry” is a pretty strong.

    I think anarchy = selfish. Does that make me a bigot? That’s pretty far fetched.

  34. Tony from Long Island

    I have no bigotry toward the anarchists, I just think it’s laughable. I have a very differing opinion. But “bigotry” is a pretty strong.

    I think anarchy = selfish. Does that make me a bigot? That’s pretty far fetched.

  35. robert capozzi

    ad: We’re in a people business. Guys like Perry never will get that.

    me: Spot on! NAPsters view the NAP like a math problem. They view the SoP and platform like the 10 Commandments or math rules…addition works this way, subtraction that way. They tolerate only the most minor rounding errors, if that.

    “Violate” the NAP, don’t tow the platform line in a literal manner…well, then, you are not a L. Therefore, J/W are frauds. Therefore, Ls need a choice. Therefore, Perry should give REAL Ls a choice.

    There are no other socialization-type considerations for the NAPster. They seem to believe in the saying, “Burn the village to save it.”

  36. Jill Pyeatt

    FYI–the spam filters keeps catching comments that shouldn’t be caught (meaning regular commenters’ comments). I’m releasing them as quickly as I can. Since I’ll be at my desk all afternoon, and have IPR set up on my second monitor, I should find and release them within a few minutes.

    Sometimes being OCD is helpful–

    Thanks–

  37. Tony From Long Island

    Well this day was fun! Thanks to Mr. Perry for the laughs.

    I have inventory tomorrow, so I’ll be here alllllll night!

  38. Caryn Ann Harlos

    Your comments go beyond simply disagreement. You get mean and nasty, and yes, when I see that, I see bigotry. At first you said it was because you don’t like Andy whatever, whatever. But I see it in nearly all your comments about a group you simply don’t like. No matter how entertaining it would be to address the “selfish” remark, I just note, that I took you at your word that it was just a personal thing with Andy, but I see a pattern and practice, and thus, just as I do now with RC, I will simply ignore. No one has time for that.

    Tom you have it exactly right. It is a NH issue, and yes, if the Party itself repudiates the nominated candidate, it *could* be grounds for disaffiliation. I personally think there is as much chance as that as for a disqualification motion. Which is none.

    As an LP Radical, I find this whole drama unnecessary and want nothing to do with it. I do not support this move and find it incredibly destructive and wrong-headed. We exist within the framework of the Party for good or ill and we have a nomination process. I will respect that process. When I can’t, I will leave the party. I see this as analogous to donating to another candidate when there is a Libertarian on the ticket. I disapprove. So sorry to derail the anti-anarchist rant building up.

    That all being said, it is NH’s business.

  39. Anthony Dlugos

    Mr. Capozzi,

    “Spot on! NAPsters view the NAP like a math problem.”

    Absolutely.

    When it comes to politics, the personal is far more important than the philosophical.

  40. George Phillies

    “We’re in a people business. Guys like Perry never will get that. I realized that when he was face to face with Governor Weld in Orlando, filled with righteous anger, spittle flying. ”

    I was in the Orlando debate. I was the moderator.

    When Johnson was challenged by Perry, Johnson violated the debate rules to which he had agreed. The rule was “no interruptions”. He interrupted. He falsely claimed his 2012 campaign had no debt. When I told him to stop, he started arguing with me. So I called him on it. He liked that even less.

    Unfortunately, Perry chose not to stick to his line of attack.

    Johnson is a two-faced liar, and in my opinion is less fit temperamentally to be President that is Donald Trump.

    I will be happy to discuss this point with members of the press.
    George Phillies
    508 754 1859
    phillies@4liberty.net

  41. Shawn Levasseur

    I think that this is a tactical error on Darryl’s part as this will achieve little other than pissing people off.

  42. Caryn Ann Harlos

    Shawn I agree with you. And unfortunately, people looking to smear radicals, will take this as indicative of us as a group. I do not support, and I am one of the most active and visible radicals presently.

  43. Jill Pyeatt

    Dr. Phillies said: “Johnson is a two-faced liar, and in my opinion is less fit temperamentally to be President that is Donald Trump.

    I will be happy to discuss this point with members of the press.”

    I’m very disappointed in you, George. It’s one thing to peruse every little thing Johnson does and gleefully report to us what you don’t like, meaning LP members, but wanting to taking it out of the party seems to be nothing less than sour grapes. I have also been disappointed in the Johnson/Weld campaign, and might even vote for Jill Stein as a protest vote. I have no desire, though, to drag this outside of our little world here.

  44. Thomas Knapp

    “I think that this is a tactical error on Darryl’s part as this will achieve little other than pissing people off.”

    I doubt that it will achieve even that.

    The only thing it will achieve is the thing it purports to achieve: It will give libertarians in 17 states an opportunity to vote for a libertarian for president if they would like to do that, and if they notice that the opportunity exists. I expect that few of them will notice and that among those who do most will choose to choke back the vomit and vote for Gary Johnson instead for any of several reasons that they consider good enough. Which is fine. The only person whose opinion of a vote matters is the person casting it.

  45. Thomas Knapp

    Jill,

    If LP members didn’t want people talking about the evil and stupidity of the decisions made at the national convention in Orlando, perhaps they should have chosen delegates who weren’t so inclined to make evil and stupid decisions.

  46. Andy

    Perry”s actions here will only piss off those who deserve to be pissed on for supporting Johnson/Weld.

  47. George Phillies

    Jilll,

    I am somewhat attached to basic honesty. We shall have to differ on this point.

    As long as the Shiny Bauble Caucus keeps giving us candidates like Barr and Johnson, and getting away with it, they will keep repeating their evil deeds. Worse, this time, they will credit Johnson and not Trump/Clinton for all the good things that are happening now to our party. I am working to stop them, because I believe in long-term rather than short term issues.

    It’s not as though I am saying anything that has not been up here before, repeatedly.

    And here is the actual NH polling data from RCP as raised someplace on someone’s thread.

    Monmouth 9/17 – 9/20 10
    NBC/WSJ/Marist 9/6 – 9/8 15
    Emerson 9/3 – 9/5 14

    George

  48. Rebel Alliance

    I appreciate what Perry wants to do, giving a voice to the 49.5% of convention delegates who were denied it on both slots of the ticket. But just 5 weeks before the election, this comes off as sour grapes. The whole push behind supporting Johnson was that he had the best chance to get into the debates (not happening) and also get election results that give the LP major status in many states (still could happen).

    Should Johnson get 5% of the vote (or whatever % is needed by state for major status), that would be lemonade out of lemons and huge for the LP going forward. Previously, should Johnson not have achieved that level, he’d have no one to blame but himself and his limp milquetoast message, and the lesson would be clear that the party needs to re-radicalize. Now, should Johnson not achieve that level, he can blame Perry especially if we see results like 4.9%, so it’ll be the radicals fault. Perry can have much more impact as NH chair and in other future roles, than by burning bridges with this quixotic quest. This is a poor decision by Perry.

  49. Thomas Knapp

    RA,

    Breaking 5% (absent actually winning), as Perry pointed out at the national convention, is the absolute worst possible thing that could happen to the LP.

    The chance that his write-in candidacy will be the difference between Johnson making or not making 5% is almost nil. But if he did have that effect, the LP would owe him a debt of gratitude beyond that it has ever owed any of its candidates for any office.

  50. robert capozzi

    gp: Worse, this time, they will credit Johnson and not Trump/Clinton for all the good things that are happening now to our party.

    me: I don’t know who these Shiny Baublers are, but most GJ supporters I’m aware of totally get that Trump/Clinton created a huge (relatively speaking) opening for a GJ candidacy. I get the sense that GJ himself believes that.

    So, do you have some examples of Baublers saying that GJ would do well in any field? Seems kinda silly if they believe that, given the 12 result.

  51. Rebel Alliance

    TK, how is breaking 5%, gaining major status, and having a stronger position to get the LP’s message out to the public a bad thing?

  52. George Phillies

    “…t election results that give the LP major status in many states (still could happen). …”

    No, never could happen

    There are only a few states where a difference might be made.

    5%, and I am not believing you for believing the line, is another lie from the Shiny Bauble Caucus.

    5% does have an effect on getting a Federal check, but that is not major status,

  53. Andy

    “Rebel Alliance
    September 29, 2016 at 17:06
    I appreciate what Perry wants to do, giving a voice to the 49.5% of convention delegates who were denied it on both slots of the ticket. But just 5 weeks before the election, this comes off as sour grapes. The whole push behind supporting Johnson was that he had the best chance to get into the debates (not happening) and also get election results that give the LP major status in many states (still could happen).”

    The Seacoast Libertarians, an affiliate of the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire (which is chaired by newly elected Vice Chairman of the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire, Rodger Paxton), unanimously passed a resolution calling for the Libertarian National Committee to vote to remove Gary Johnson and Bill Weld as candidates for the Libertarian Party, due to their advocating in favor of multiple violations of the Libertarian Party’s platform. This resolution was passed on to their LNC Region Representative, with the intention of this being brought to a vote of the LNC. I believe that so far, the LNC has ignored this resolution, so I would imagine that this has something to do with Darryl W. Perry declaring himself as a write in candidate, as in Perry is retaliating as a response to the LNC failing to bring the resolution to remove Johnson and Weld as candidates to a vote, which, once again, was passed by an affiliate of the LP of New Hampshire due to Johnson and Weld advocating multiple violations of the Libertarian Party’s platform during the course of their campaign as Libertarian Party candidates.

    I doubt that very many people, even within the Libertarian Party, are going to know about Darryl W. Perry’s write in campaign, so I do not see it having much impact on the election results.

    I will consider writing in Darryl W, Perry for President, but the state where I will likely be voting, if I vote, does not consistently count write in votes (which there has been talk of law suits being filed over this for years, but has not happened as far as I know), so I do not know if I am going to write him in or not. If I do vote, my choice right now are as follows:

    1) Leave the presidential part of my ballot blank,

    2) Write in None Of The Above for President.

    3) Vote for Constitution Party candidate, Darrell Castle, for President.

    4) Write in Darryl W, Perry for President.

  54. Thomas Knapp

    “TK, how is breaking 5%, gaining major status, and having a stronger position to get the LP’s message out to the public a bad thing?”

    There’s no such thing as “gaining major status” by “breaking 5%.” There may be some states where 5% is relevant vis a vis continuing ballot access. In others the bar is lower or higher.

    The only thing gaining 5% gets is government funding for the next LP presidential slate. Which means that the LP will be in a far weaker position to get its message out to the public.

    The LP has already established (three presidential election cycles in a row now, as a matter of fact) that it’s vulnerable to opportunists who want to use the LP’s ballot line to promote messages that aren’t the LP’s. Add a $10-20 million government welfare check to the mix and the likelihood that the LP will ever re-grow the testicular fortitude to resist such charlatans falls to nearly zero.

    Fortunately, as the Reform Party has shown us, that problem does solve itself within a couple of cycles. Presumably as the LP falls toward the “could have its convention in a phone booth” point of irrelevance, libertarians would form a new party and perhaps build some protections against a similar fate into its structure.

  55. Gene Berkman

    There are already more comments on this than the number of votes that Mr Perry will get.

    I have been a libertarian since the mid 1960s and Darryl Perry does not strike me as an articulate spokesman for freedom. Anyone who starts off a discussion on drug legalization by bringing up methamphetamine shows that he does not care to convince people outside his little circle. And that is the only thing he said at the LP national convention that I remember.

    I just don’t see why people think he is an articulate spokesman for libertarian principles. But at least it means one more candidate that Gary Johnson will beat.

  56. Thomas Knapp

    Gene,

    Whether or not he’s an articulate spokesman for libertarian principles is certainly a debatable question.

    But at least, unlike Gary Johnson, he’s a spokesman for libertarian principles.

    And it’s not like Gary really has the articulate part down, either.

  57. Just Some Random Guy

    @ Rebel Alliance

    TK, how is breaking 5%, gaining major status, and having a stronger position to get the LP’s message out to the public a bad thing?

    Supposedly it’s what ruined the Reform Party and made it lose direction. Rather than, you know, the fact that when you remove Ross Perot from Ross Perot: The Party, it inherently loses direction. I find it rather dumb.

  58. Andy

    Gene Berkman said: “I have been a libertarian since the mid 1960s and Darryl Perry does not strike me as an articulate spokesman for freedom.”

    I bet that you have spent very little time actually listen to Darryl W. Perry speak then. I have listened to him on an off for several years on the Liberty Radio Network (he is one of several co-hosts of Free Talk Live, and he also has his own show, and he does a news segment as well), plus I have watched several of his videos on YouTube, and I’ve heard him speak in person, and I would say the exact opposite of what you said is true.

    I spoke to several Gary Johnson delegates at the Libertarian National Convention in Orlando, some of whom one could even label as Darryl W. Perry critics, and not one of them said he was a bad public speaker. One of them even admitted to me that he thought that Perry was a very good orator, and his criticisms were more along the lines of not liking the way he dressed, and not liking his hair cut, and his lack of money, and his platform being too radical.

  59. Andy

    Check out one of Darryl’s speeches and judge for yourself whether or not you think that he’s a good public speaker.

    Darryl W. Perry’s Closing Keynote @ Keenevention 2015

  60. Rebel Alliance

    TK, there are several states where 5% gets ballot access. I live in one of them. The percentages vary in other states.

    “The only thing gaining 5% gets is government funding for the next LP presidential slate. Which means that the LP will be in a far weaker position to get its message out to the public. […] Fortunately, as the Reform Party has shown us, that problem does solve itself within a couple of cycles.”

    So if the LP ticket succeeds, it fails. Of course if it fails, it also fails. That is a no-win proposition. As a longtime activist in the LP, I can’t accept this defeatism.

    “The LP has already established (three presidential election cycles in a row now, as a matter of fact) that it’s vulnerable to opportunists who want to use the LP’s ballot line to promote messages that aren’t the LP’s. Add a $10-20 million government welfare check to the mix …”

    Yes there is a danger from the political welfare check. But as you stated, that situation already exists. So the check doesn’t really change things. Additional Barr and Weld types could jump in to co-opt the LP, but principled candidates would also have a stronger stage presence and credibility. Given that the LP has been a non-player in mainstream politics for over 40 years, I think it’s worth the risk. Without strong results this year, we continue to fail. With strong results, there’s a chance of success. I’ll take that chance.

    The Reform Party isn’t an apt comparison. The LP has a number of safeguards to ensure it remains at least generally pro-liberty: the Statement of Principles, the Pledge, the platform which got more radical this year, and 49.5% of its members who are still principled activists. The Reform Party had no principles, few pro-liberty positions in its platform, and stood for nothing in particular, which made it easy to be co-opted.

    Additional safeguards could be enacted in 2018, perhaps new bylaws to ensure that only principled candidates can gain the nomination, or even to refuse the political welfare check. We’ve got two years to think of them. IMHO, automatic ballot access, not the welfare check, is the main benefit of getting 5% (or whatever) this year.

  61. Thomas Knapp

    RA,

    There is only one way for the Libertarian Party to succeed. That is to see its platform implemented as policy. If it elects the next ten presidents with LP-affiliated congressional majorities to match and doesn’t implement its platform, it will still be a failure.

    At this point in time, the state LPs have an obvious problem: They can’t seem to field national convention delegate majorities who are interested in making the party a success at a national level.

    Until we solve that problem, a $20 million welfare check would make things worse, not better.

    I’d like to think that maybe, just maybe, the off-year delegates might be a little more responsible and be able to pass a bylaws amendment making any candidate who does not undertake a legally binding obligation to refuse the welfare check ineligible for the nomination. But I’m not confident in that likelihood.

  62. Jack Knauff

    “It would be a more interesting bet to see if either Perry or Milnes could get their mother to vote for them.”

    I don’t know about Mr. Perry but I believe Mr. Milnes’ mother is deceased so unless she was from Chicago I guess not.

  63. Richard Winger

    Every voter gets at least 2 votes to influence the direction of the federal government in November 2016. Every voter can vote for president and for US House. There is a serious blind spot in this thread. People seem utterly oblivious to the US House races. Every Libertarian who wants to influence the public face of the Libertarian Party, toward the beginning of this year, was free to run for US House. There are no real residency requirements for US House anymore. Using the US Term Limits decision, courts have wiped out residency laws and laws requiring candidates to even be registered voters. Despite this, there are only 122 US House districts (out of 436, counting DC’s delegate) with a Libertarian running. Of course the ballot access laws in some states make running for US House very difficult (especially Georgia and Illinois, and the two top-two states California and Washington) but there are many many other seats where a Libertarian could have run with no petition and no filing fee.

  64. Steven Wilson

    It seems to me to be one strategic move after another. He and Rodger Paxton take over leadership of LPNH and then he sets up a write in campaign in the only state which actually counts write in votes per SOS.

    Either he is marketing for the Free State Project or he is marketing for his ideology: either way he is promoting secession to the locals to see if it is viable in that domain. Paxton and his wife Jessica built the Arkansas LP from scratch. Perhaps Perry is wishing for similar results in New Hampshire.

    Perry announced his Presidential run back in 2010. He seems to me to be thorough and precise with his time and effort. His end game has always been clear, but the means have been cloaked.

  65. Anthony Dlugos

    “So if the LP ticket succeeds, it fails. Of course if it fails, it also fails. That is a no-win proposition.”

    Nope. That’s called The Book of Purity, NAP chapter 1, verses 1-3. King Rothbard Edition.

    Just gotta add the exposition on verse 2: if it fails, its not the fault of the Purist. Its not the Purist’s shady or unknown background, lack of qualifications, lack of previous elective office experience, generally sour or downright frightening disposition, or predilection for shock tactics, its the fault of the voter for not accepting Savior NAP. We could nominate an orangutan for President, and if sign languages the NAP and loses the election anyway, its the voters fault, not ours as a party for nominating The Great Ape.

  66. Anthony Dlugos

    “But at least, unlike Gary Johnson, he’s a spokesman for libertarian principles.”

    spokesman
    [spohks-muh n]

    noun, plural spokesmen.
    1.
    a person who speaks for another or for a group.
    2.
    a public speaker.

    In definition #1, “a person who speaks FOR…a group” “FOR” implies Daryl would be speaking libertarian principles on behalf of someone to someone else. Since, in reality, Daryl would be speaking libertarian principles to ONLY the very same people he was presumably speaking on behalf of, I do believe the proper term would not be “spokesman,” but perhaps “navel gazer.”

    Obviously, you have to be speaking to the public to be a public speaker. I think we know that wouldn’t be happening.

  67. Rebel Alliance

    Anthony, I’m getting fed up with the attacks on “purists” here. It’s really quite strange. We all want pure water to drink. We’re increasingly skeptical of chemicals and additives and are preferring pure, natural foods. But somehow when it comes to politics and philosophy, “purity” is a bad thing and “contaminated” libertarianism is being proposed as the better option.

    That said, I am not opposed to incrementalism. As a runner in a marathon, you cannot get from the starting block to the finish line in one single step. Many steps are needed … so long as the end goal is always kept in mind. I see obtaining ballot access/major status as one of those steps to move forward.

  68. Caryn Ann Harlos

    I said no such thing. I said THIS RADICAL opposes. The LPRC has issued no official statement.

    However, in my opinion, his action is against our Bylaws and it is my position he has automatically resigned from the caucus. Please write board@lpradicalcaucus.org to tender your resignation if you wish. It is further my position that if someone wants to run against the duly nominated ticket, the honorable thing is to leave the party to do so.

    We exist within the Party structure and running against the party’s ticket is outside our purpose.

  69. Caryn Ann Harlos

    How ridiculous. There is nothing “radical” about being dismissive of bylaws and working within the bounds of a voluntary organization.

  70. Andy

    “Caryn Ann Harlos
    September 29, 2016 at 23:33
    I said no such thing. I said THIS RADICAL opposes. The LPRC has issued no official statement.

    However, in my opinion, his action is against our Bylaws and it is my position he has automatically resigned from the caucus. Please write board@lpradicalcaucus.org to tender your resignation if you wish. It is further my position that if someone wants to run against the duly nominated ticket, the honorable thing is to leave the party to do so.”

    What about the fact that Johnson & Weld have campaigned against the sections of the Libertarian Party’s platform on multiple occasions since becoming the nominees?

    What about the fact that since being nominated as the LP’s candidate for Vice President, William Weld donated money to a big government Republican candidate for Governor of New Hampshire, Chris Sununu, who has a Libertarian Party opponent in the race, in Max Abramson?

    What about the fact that the Seacoast Libertarians, an affiliate of the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire, unanimously passed a resolution calling for the LNC to remove Johnson & Weld as candidates for the Libertarian Party, and this resolution was presented to the LNC Region Representative for New Hampshire with the purpose of getting the LNC to vote on this issue, and the LNC has done nothing with it?

    So given these facts, I see no reason why Darryl Perry should not run as a right in candidate.

  71. Caryn Ann Harlos

    If the party is that corrupt then leave and work against it. Otherwise stick to the voluntary rules of the association and get preferred candidates nominated.

    Running as a competitor to the ticket is not operating within the party in good faith. If I got to that point, I would leave.

    Having candidates that are not what one would prefer is a risk of being in a group.

    And I bet most people here would be singing a different tune if the roles were reversed.

    If I am one thing, it is consistent. Sauce for the goose and gander alike.

    It is this self destructive tendency that is keeping solid radicals from achieving what we should.

  72. Andy

    “Caryn Ann Harlos
    September 30, 2016 at 00:22
    If the party is that corrupt then leave and work against it. Otherwise stick to the voluntary rules of the association and get preferred candidates nominated.”

    Why should the people pointing out the corruption have to be the ones who leave? How about the ones who are causing the corruption and not adhering to the party’s stated principles leave the party?

  73. Andy

    “campaigned against the sections of the ”

    Should read, “campaigned against multiple sections of the…”

  74. Darcy G Richardson

    I view Darryl’s write-in candidacy as an honorable act of conscience, giving disenchanted and disheartened Libertarians a bona fide alternative to the goofy, gaffe-prone Republican masquerading as their party’s nominee.

  75. Rebel Alliance

    Andy, why not just get together with a few buddies over a cooler full of Bud, and commiserate about how much the LP sucks. Then you’ll feel like you’ve really accomplished something.

  76. Tony From Long Island

    Caryn said (about me) ” . . . . Your comments go beyond simply disagreement. You get mean and nasty, and yes, when I see that, I see bigotry. At first you said it was because you don’t like Andy whatever, whatever. But I see it in nearly all your comments about a group you simply don’t like. . . . . ”

    Caryn: It is not my intention to offend anyone (except Andy). I apologize if I have done so. However, I strongly disagree with the governing philosophy (or lack thereof) espoused by the anarchists or “purists.” You think my posts are “mean and nasty” but that is not my intention. Usually I try to be “snarky” but maybe that’s lost in the typing / verbal translation.

  77. Bondurant

    Don’t worry, TK. There’s an excuse coming down the pike from the GOP Lite keyboard apologists regarding Weld’s continued fight against libertarianism.

  78. JamesT

    It’s something I’ll have to consider. But I doubt in PA they’ll actually count them. I hate an-caps’ culture and A hole attitudes. They are philosophically correct but just do all the same tribalism, hate monger and insular community crap everyone else does nowadays. They’re hyper partisan and hateful. Can’t have a civil discussion with anyone. They also don’t understand long term strategies or marketing. But literally everything is better than Bill Weld.

    I’m still leaning towards staying home or voting for Castle.

  79. Tony From Long Island

    It takes guts for a major paper to endorse Gov. Johnson right after he looked like a deer in headlights with Chris Matthews. I am intrigued.

    Also, I have not mentioned the weird tongue thing with Kasie Hunt on MSNBC. . . what the hell was that about? Sometimes he’s just plain weird.

  80. Robert Capozzi

    Build the platform! Sharpen the guillotine!

    Although, in candor, I would have advised WW against that donation.

  81. Anthony Dlugos

    Mr. C,

    I would have advised against the donation as well.

    But I cut a LOT of slack for someone who’s actually held office before.

  82. Thomas L. Knapp

    “You needed an excuse”

    No, YOU needed an excuse.

    The Chicago Tribune endorsed Republicans for president for 169 years. Then they endorsed Obama twice. Now they’re back to endorsing Republicans. Dog bites man.

  83. Thomas L. Knapp

    “It takes guts for a major paper to endorse Gov. Johnson right after he looked like a deer in headlights with Chris Matthews.”

    Would that be the “talk to the people who will never, ever, ever vote for me” appearance Anthony claimed was too important to leave time for campaigning to voters who were actually available, on Democracy Now!’s 1,400+ radio and TV outlets? That appearance there?

  84. Tony From Long Island

    No, actually they endorsed Libertarians. Yes, they at one point referred to them as “moderate republicans,” however, they ultimately decided to endorse: ” . . . . . Libertarians Gary Johnson of New Mexico and running mate William Weld of Massachusetts [who] are agile, practical and, unlike the major-party candidates, experienced at managing governments . . . . ”

    Thought you were a journalist TK 😛

  85. Tony From Long Island

    Who’s less likely to vote for Johnson? The lefties who watch MSNBC or the lefties who listen to Democracy Now?

    I happen to watch MSNBC and also listen to Democracy Now and, until two days ago, was going to vote for Johnson……could change my mind and come back, though.

  86. Thomas L. Knapp

    “Thought you were a journalist TK”

    I’ve been a journalist for ~37 years now. For the last 20 or so, I’ve been almost exclusively an opinion journalist/advocacy journalist/polemicist.

    And even a straight five-point-lede newsman would not be forbidden by any ethical canon to notice and report in the Trojan press that the Greeks’ gift horse was made of wood.

  87. Thomas L. Knapp

    Anthony,

    I’m partial to the original Kentucky mash bourbon, Old Crow. Good, and not very expensive. I like it better than the slightly more expensive brands, e.g. Jim Beam (which ended up owning Old Crow, at least for awhile and maybe still). Of course, you can seldom go wrong with Maker’s Mark if you want to spend 2-3 times as much.

  88. Sean Scallon

    “Perhaps LPNH no longer regards the Libertarian National Convention’s nominee as its nominee. At least one LPNH local affiliate has asked the state’s regional representative to introduce a motion to the LNC suspending the Johnson/Weld nomination. If enough of LPNH agrees with that position for the state party to have decided to separately nominate, the candidate its delegation supported at the national convention (one Darryl W. Perry) seems like a reasonable alternative nominee.”

    So your wish is for the LP to be like the Constitution Party where state affiliates, if they don’t get they want or suffer some perceived slight just go off and nominate their own tickets for their own states. Lovely! That’s a great way to build a national party, act in the same manner the Confederacy acted in. Joseph Brown for President! Or the CP for that manner, on its way to ashbin of history.

    People often talk about elections being the most important this or the most important that and its usually nothing but hot air. But 2016 is important for this reason: either there going to be a responsible, mainstream, viable Libertarian Party for people to vote for instead of the two major party or there won’t be. This is the chance they have been waiting for for a long time, having credible Presidential ticket i.e. meaning two persons who have served as governors and government officials with the major parties backing very unpopular nominees. If the LP can’t take advantage of this because certain sore losers within can’t handle the fact they were beaten fair and square, then the LP, like the CP will never amount to be anything more than sectarian debating society. Now some people may want it to be this way. That’s fine. But there are many others who this year as that once chance for a breakthrough from politics as usual i.e. the LP being nothing more than a fringe movement. And the fact they were able to nominate Johnson/Weld, however distasteful they may be to some, should at least be respected enough to at the very least caution silence and indifference rather than undermining their efforts in the name of dogma. Unfortunately some people can’t help themselves.

  89. Andy

    Sean Scallon said: “So your wish is for the LP to be like the Constitution Party where state affiliates, if they don’t get they want or suffer some perceived slight just go off and nominate their own tickets for their own states.”

    This is not my wish. My wish is that a majority of Libertarian National Convention would nominate actual libertarian Libertarians to represent us to the public on our presidential tickets. My wish is that the LNC would do its job when the presidential ticket strays too far from Libertarian principles. My wish is that the LNC would at least go through the motions of representing the membership by voting on the motion to remove Johnson and Weld as candidates which was submitted to the LNC by Libertarians in New Hampshire.

  90. Tony From Long Island

    Andy: ” . . . . . This is not my wish. My wish is that a majority of Libertarian National Convention would nominate actual libertarian Libertarians to represent us to the public on our presidential tickets. . . . . ”

    Well, you didn’t get your wish . . . stop bitching and complaining about it. Work toward getting your wish in 2020 (though I hope you don’t).

    The LP did nominate a Libertarian. You just can’t accept that because he is not “libertarian enough” for you. Get over it. Move on to the next challenge. Why don’t you run for local office? You’d have to take off the tin foil hat for media interviews, but at least you would be doing something to accomplish your goal.

  91. Marc Montoni

    Were they beaten “fair and square”?

    Various members of the LNC worked at least a couple of years in advance to set the tone for just such a result (stacking committees, etc). Their faction-mates at the state level have done the same thing. In addition, Shiny Object Caucus members use every opportunity to blame anarchists and radical libertarians for the failures of 98% of LP candidates who are NOT anarchists or radical libertarians. They do it at national meetings, at state and local party meetings, and via websites like this, and on Facebook.

    For over ten years, they have turned an organization we helped form into one that is increasingly hostile to our continued participation. As a result of that hostility, hundreds of long-time radical Libertarians have given up on the Party, and a lot of them were the petitition-circulators and wallet-openers the Party desperately needs. If that’s good for the Party, then so be it.

    Ron Paul called predictable reactions to being warred upon, “blowback”.

    Well, Perry’s act is blowback.

    I do not agree with his actions. I disagree with him enough that I was the person who pointed out his announcement was his automatic formal resignation from the Radical Caucus under our bylaws.

    But I understand why he did it.

    Want to prevent more people from becoming part of the active opposition? Then stop making war on us, listen to our concerns, and select better candidates. Don’t be Democrats and Republicans.

  92. Tony From Long Island

    Marc: ” . . . . Were they beaten “fair and square”? . . . . ”

    Yes. None of the things you listed would constitute it not being “fair and square.”

    I do agree that the concerns of the very small portion (which you admit) of the LP should be listened to. But why should 98% capitulate to 2%?

  93. Chuck Moulton

    LP leaders (LNC members, state chairs, etc.) may not be obligated to support the nominee as a matter of law (bylaws), but they certainly should as a matter of ethics. If you accept a LP position of authority, you have a fiduciary duty to support the party’s interests over your own. If you are actively running yourself as a candidate against the party’s candidate, that is a clear conflict of interest.

    I was excited when I discovered Perry was elected NHLP chair because I know he’s the sort of person who will get his hands dirty and DO STUFF. He’ll pick up the phone, shake hands, send mailers, raise money, and generally get the NHLP moving and growing again. But running against the LP candidate in the general election disgusts me. It’s nothing more and nothing less than sour grapes. To top it all off, it’s monumentally unethical and a clear conflict of interest.

    All that said, this shouldn’t surprise anyone. Perry has no allegiance to the LP. He uses it when he pleases and discards it when another vehicle is more personally beneficial, as was abundantly clear at the 2010 national convention, where he hoodwinked the delegates into giving him convention time for a national chair candidate speech, then used it to urge everyone to join the Boston Tea Party.

    I hope Perry grows up and works for the good of the LP rather than his own cult of personality.

  94. Caryn Ann Harlos

    Those are very good points Chuck on conflicts of interest. As a Radical Caucus member I certainly believed it was in conflict of interest of the Board position there as we exist to work within the Party, not attack it via the ballot line.

  95. Tony From Long Island

    Caryn, I hope you saw my earlier post in response to you. I do not mean to make you feel insulted. It’s not my intention.

  96. Anthony Dlugos

    “…and select better candidates.”

    These ARE better candidates. They’re the best candidates we’ve ever had.

    “As a result of that hostility, hundreds of long-time radical Libertarians have given up on the Party…”

    this was inevitable for growth to happen. If they’re gonna leave, I wish them well. I won’t shed a tear, however. Their choice.

    Frankly, if the choice is between keeping a radical and getting a nonviolent drug offender out of prison because a scatterbrain pragmatic like Johnson, who refuses to call for an immediate end to the drug war, gets elected and ends the federal prohibition on marihuana ONLY, then I’ll help the radical pack their bags and kick them in the rear on the way out the door if that’s what they prefer.

    “a lot of them were the petitition-circulators…”

    We have the potential to create a party that no longer needs this duty to be performed. That’s part of what success would look like. Having Libertarians go around gathering signatures means we’re still failing.

    “…wallet-openers the Party desperately needs.”

    There are wallet openers who can donate more without batting an eye than the trickle we’ve received in entire years previously. We need those heavyweights. They won’t be donating if we nominate anarchists, even anarchists who claim to be okay with incrementalism.

    “For over ten years, they have turned an organization we helped form into one that is increasingly hostile to our continued participation.”

    So this whole freedom and liberty thing was really about you? Hate to break it to you, but from one anarchist to another, the process you describe here was also absolutely inevitable. It’s a true irony that you help to create an organization that is eventually going to cast you aside, but that is exactly what’s gonna happen. As a free market anarchist, I know that I am at the very front tip of the bell curve, and that brute math tells me the Libertarian Party will have the sufficient support they need to enact changes in policy LONG before they get to my policy positions. I will effectively NEVER be represented, and that’s okay with me if we can move this country in a libertarian direction.

    Besides, we’re all just a computer simulation anyway, so any minute now the superior intelligence that created the program we are running in is just gonna hit anyway.

    Drink up!

  97. Tony From Long Island

    Anthony, well said. I only wish there were strong arguments like that when I decided to move on. Couldn’t have said it better myself.

    Anarchy in the USA Party anyone?

  98. Caryn Ann Harlos

    Tony, I believe insult is taken not given, and when I see it get to the extent I might take it, I remove myself from the exchanges.

    I appreciate your words, and ask that we try to see how others might be affected. I fail, but I try to treat other people with respect…. and when I can’t, I remove myself. So thank you.

  99. robert capozzi

    I just got an email from Perry. He’s promoting his “Liberty Lobby,” of which he is the CEO.

    His friends should suggest to Perry an IMMEDIATE name change, as there was a previous Liberty Lobby that promoted Holocaust denial and anti-Semiticism.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty_Lobby

    I trust Perry and Ls don’t want that sort of association, yes?

  100. Marc Montoni

    I do agree that the concerns of the very small portion (which you admit) of the LP should be listened to. But why should 98% capitulate to 2%?

    Lying is the kind of crap I have come to expect from minarchists. Generally speaking I do not regard anyone who has to lie to make a point as an honorable individual.

    As you are fully aware, that wasn’t what I said. I am going to issue this *ONE* correction. Acknowledge that you lied and pu words in my mouth, and I will happily have a conversation with you; continue to put words in my mouth and you will be twitfiltered.

    The radical / anarchist core of the LP is not 2%. I specified very clearly that the percentage of LP CANDIDATES who are squishy was 98% vs those who are consistent at 2%.

    As for their numbers in the general population of the LP, anarchists probably are more like 5 to 10%. Radical Libertarians, more like 10 to 15%. Ask 100 Libertarians if a) taxation is theft, b) whether private transportation infrastructure is worth implementing; and c) if all of Prohibition should be repealed, and you’ll have about a quarter supporting all three. Those would be the radicals and the anarchists.

    That’s not 2%.

    The others will be the minarchists and opportunists who show up to the national conventions for one day and inflict their choices on the entire party, and then go home and never lift the first petition board.

    Nevertheless, a quarter of the Party is a constituency that opportunists like yourself should listen to instead of attempting to silence us.

    End your war, and go organize your precinct.

  101. Richard Winger

    Marc Montoni, you live in Virginia, you are very experienced in the LP and in activism generally. No one got on the ballot as a Libertarian for US House in Virginia this year. If you want your ideas about liberty to get out to the public, why didn’t you get the 1,000 signatures and run for US House? You were free to choose any district you desired. Surely one of the districts has an interesting race, where you could have been one of only three candidates on the ballot, and got some attention for your ideas. This year, the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 10th districts only have one Republican and one Democrat on the ballot.

    And in the 11th district, there is only a Democrat on the ballot. You could have been in a two-way race.

  102. Anthony Dlugos

    Tony,

    Thanks, brother.

    The other true irony about this situation is that I know the value of people like Marc and Caryn better than they do, as someone who spent time as an entrepreneur, and I know with absolute certainty that their talents are being wasted on shit jobs that I don’t want them doing.

    My job is to take the pit bulls we have out back and kick them around and bruise them up until such time that I can take them to the wealthy donors who like sniveling b*tches, such that they are willing to spend the money to bankroll turning those pit bulls from raging bile ducts to effective fighters for Liberty.

  103. Tony From Long Island

    Wow Marc, settle down. I admit that I sometimes read these posts quickly – I only post at work but jeez, relax.

    Whether it’s the 2% I (apparently mistakenly) interpreted from your post or the 15 – 20 % it’s still a small minority. I happen to believe it will continue to grow smaller because in my opinion, that type of “100 / 100” libertarianism is not realistic and will never ever come to pass.

    I prefer to try to find realistic ways to reduce government. I think I actually went back and forth with Caryn a few months back about going from A to B instead of A to Z. Maybe I am misremembering that.

    Richard took the words out of my mouth by saying . . . run for office . . .

    I can’t “organize my precinct” because I am no longer a member of the LP. I left mainly because I couldn’t take what I felt was unrealistic but unrelenting arguments from the “100 / 100” crowd and because my views on one particular subject that is very important to the LP (gun regulation) changed.

    I still however, agree with several important planks of the LP platform.

  104. natural born citizen

    Perry does not “potentially ha[ve] access to 114 Electoral College votes” unless he has 114 candidates for elector.

    Everything else in this article indicates that Perry has 0 candidates for the electoral college.

    Thus, Perry has access to 0 electoral votes.

    Hope this helps.

  105. Caryn Ann Harlos

    You are misremembering Tony. I am too busy to get into discussions like that since being elected.

  106. Tony From Long Island

    Also, Marc, As a party continues to grow, it will naturally take on people who don’t agree with every plank of the platform. If not, it remains the .5% vote getter it has been.

    The LP will inevitably have more members who have similar views to mine. It can either accept them and grow … or reject them and stay irrelevant.

  107. Thomas L. Knapp

    Quoth Sean Scallon:

    “So your wish is [a bunch of stuff that makes no sense since I was not expressing any wish at all, but rather hypothesizing as to why LPNH might possible be cool with Perry’s candidacy].”

    Fixed, no charge.

  108. robert capozzi

    Tony, actually, it rejects them now, though many don’t recognize it.

    To be a L one must believe that there’s a cult of the omnipotent state. Most sane people would not believe in such a fantasy, but many gloss over those bracing words.

  109. Tony From Long Island

    I don’t necessarily agree. I just think that some people who believe that happen to be Libertarians. Most Libertarians (I feel) just want smaller government and more personal freedom.

    Those who fell the way you think they do are just very verbal.

  110. Anthony Dlugos

    Believe it or not, The Bard actually had something to say about the NAP/SoP:

    Ay, marry, is’t,
    But to my mind, though I am native here
    And to the manner born, it is a custom
    More honor’d in the breach than the observance

  111. robert capozzi

    tony: I just think that some people who believe that happen to be Libertarians.

    me: You misunderstand me. The LP’s Statement of Principles starts: “We, the members of the Libertarian Party, challenge the cult of the omnipotent state and defend the rights of the individual.”

    There is no room for disagreement here. Effectively, this says that ALL LP members challenge this (non-existent) cult. By signing the Pledge and joining the LP, many of the LP’s members unwittingly are agreeing to this language.

  112. Tony From Long Island

    wow. All these years and that kept going over my head. I just went to LP.org and saw it. I do find that a bit odd for a political party that wants to be taken seriously.

    So what happens when there are a senate and house full of Libertarians and one in the White House? Will there still be a cult of the omnipotent state?

    Well I don’t think there’s a cult of the omnipotent state. So, I guess I can’t re-join the cult of the LP.

  113. Gene Berkman

    Robert – when Dr John Hospers – noted limited government libertarian – wrote the Preamble to the Statement of Principles, “The Cult of the Omnipotent State” was actually quite powerful. Leonid Brezhnev was head of the Soviet Union, having deposed Krushchev and restored some respect for Stalin the USSR; Mao Zedong was head of the Communist Party of China, and soon to be runner up for the Vice-Presidential nomination at the Democrat National Convention; even Francisco Franco was still alive.

    Richard Nixon was President. Jerry Vorhees, after Nixon’s visits with Brezhnev and Mao, noted Nixon’s friendships with totalitarian dictators. Also in 1972, operatives with Nixon’s campaign hired members of the American Nazi Party for a plan to get the American Independent Party off the California ballot.

    Protests against the Vietnam war often included members of little Trotskyist and Maoist groups waving red flags.

    So in 1972 at least, The Cult of the Omnipotent State clearly existed and was clearly visible to many people, not just the group of mostly limited government libertarians that met in Denver and created The Libertarian Party.

  114. robert capozzi

    gb, even the most statist regimes have yet to have a claim to all-powerful “omnipotence.” And even if they did, the 88 20-something + Hospers made amending the SoP nearly impossible. So, as Tony lucidly points out, if the LP started to elect people, the claim to challenging “omnipotence” would become even more absurd.

    The SoP is a self-defeating booby trap, a gigantic kick-me sign that renders the LP to a fringey no person’s land, politically speaking.

  115. Be Rational

    The LP’s Statement of Principles starts: “We, the members of the Libertarian Party, challenge the cult of the omnipotent state and defend the rights of the individual”

    Since there is a segment of the population that desires an all powerful state, and they certainly clump together in cult-like groups, so there should be no problem in challenging them if you believe in individual liberty. When the state has the power and individuals have no rights, that is omnipotence in terms of government power. There are states like this at present, such as North Korea, and in the past, such as the USSR, China, the Eastern Block States under the USSR, and Pol Pot’s Cambodia, and there are tendencies in US politics moving us in that direction. It is inspirational and motivational hyperbole.

    The LP should not change the Statement of Principles, nor should it abandon them.

    We can run pragmatic candidates who promote incremental change while calling for a principled Libertarian future as our goal.

  116. Just Some Random Guy

    @ Andy

    What about the fact that Johnson & Weld have campaigned against the sections of the Libertarian Party’s platform on multiple occasions since becoming the nominees?

    If a candidate being in 100% in agreement with the party platform was somehow grounds for running against them, then most elections would have people running against their own party.

    What about the fact that since being nominated as the LP’s candidate for Vice President, William Weld donated money to a big government Republican candidate for Governor of New Hampshire, Chris Sununu, who has a Libertarian Party opponent in the race, in Max Abramson?

    Would someone mind providing a source for this? Yes, someone linked to that Boston Globe article, but THAT provides no source. It just says he made donations. Okay, source for that? A quick search online shows a bunch of articles that point to the Boston Globe article, which leaves me without any actual proof of this claim outside of “some person said so.” Does this come from a report of campaign finances? If so, provide them.

    What about the fact that the Seacoast Libertarians, an affiliate of the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire, unanimously passed a resolution calling for the LNC to remove Johnson & Weld as candidates for the Libertarian Party, and this resolution was presented to the LNC Region Representative for New Hampshire with the purpose of getting the LNC to vote on this issue, and the LNC has done nothing with it?

    Okay, now you’re just really stretching. A local affiliate saying something doesn’t mean the national council should immediately decide “oh boy, a small group said something, we’d better totally get on that!”

  117. Tony From Long Island

    ” . . . . . . . What about the fact that the Seacoast Libertarians, an affiliate of the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire, unanimously passed a resolution calling for the LNC to remove Johnson & Weld as candidates for the Libertarian Party, . . . and the LNC has done nothing with it? . . . . . ”

    They have no obligation to do so….. The RNC gave lip service to the #NeverTrump people at the convention, but didn’t have to do so. They lost . . . and so did the #NeverJohnson people. That’s just the way it goes.

  118. Richard Winger

    Many national LP conventions have voted on getting rid of the “cult of the omnipotent state” language. But it can’t be removed unless seven-eighths of the registered delegates vote to delete it. There is always an overwhelming vote to defeat it, but not quite enough to meet that seven-eighths rule.

  119. Andy

    The “cult of the omnipotent state” language is a part of Libertarian Party culture now, and I consider that to be a good thing. I will vote to keep it.

  120. Andy

    “Tony From Long Island
    September 30, 2016 at 21:22
    Of course you would . . . #TinFoilHat”

    Ah, the old tin foil hat smear. Next you’ll call me a “conspiracy theorist” or some other smear out of the CIA playbook.

    Is Tony posting from an IP anonymizer? He sure does sound like a government troll.

  121. Anthony Dlugos

    lol.

    Andy’s a good guy. He’s on fire with the spirit of the NAP.

    Just make sure the LP does the exact opposite of what he advises. Look at the attention our ticket, the one he opposed, has gotten this time.

    The only thing I know for sure is that, whomever the first Libertarian president is, Andy will have been on record very early denouncing her with every fiber of his being.

  122. Andy

    “Anthony Dlugos
    September 30, 2016 at 21:35
    lol.

    Andy’s a good guy. He’s on fire with the spirit of the NAP.”

    Gee, thanks.

    “Just make sure the LP does the exact opposite of what he advises.”

    If anyone examines my record, they would know that I have been right about a whole lot of things.

    “Look at the attention our ticket, the one he opposed, has gotten this time.”

    You mean the ticket that is going around misrepresenting the Libertarian Party and philosophy to millions of people, and the one that has also made asses out of themselves (and us for nominating them) in the process.

    “The only thing I know for sure is that, whomever the first Libertarian president is, Andy will have been on record very early denouncing her with every fiber of his being.”

    Not if they are in the spectrum of what I’d call a real libertarian. Reality is that we will never likely elect a real libertarian as President, but if this were to ever happen, there’d have to be MAJOR changes in this country beforehand, in order for something like this to even have a legitimate chance of every happening.

    It would not surprise me if our chances of “winning” are better using things like jury nullification, alternative currencies, tax resistance, home schooling, stocking up on guns and ammo, forming libertarian communities, etc…

    I see electoral politics as a way of getting the message out. If we can elect some legitimate libertarians to office along the way, that’s great, but sole reliance on electoral politics to set us free is a losing strategy in my opinion.

    If libertarians really want freedom now, the smart thing to do is to have libertarians move into a low population county and take it over. Elect a libertarian Sheriff and then start appointing libertarians as Deputies.

  123. Tony From Long Island

    Calling you a conspiracy theorist is not a smear – it’s just a fact of life. How many times are you going to call me a “government troll” when the only person I “troll” is you>??? You’re nothing – nobody. Why would the “government” have a personal troll for you? Don’t flatter yourself.

    My IP is from the same exactly place every single post – Bohemia New York.

    You’re just lucky that I have inventory at my job tonight and get to call you out for what you are longer than usual . . .

    Anthony: Anyone who proclaims that mass shootings are government hoaxes (that “false flag crap”) and that 9/11 was an inside job is NOT a “good guy.” He’s a piece of garbage . . . but other than that . . .

  124. robert capozzi

    br: Since there is a segment of the population that desires an all powerful state, and they certainly clump together in cult-like groups, so there should be no problem in challenging them if you believe in individual liberty.

    me: At the risk of being branded by you as a “petulant child,” I feel it’s necessary — in the pursuit of truth — to check that premise. To me, an “all-powerful state” would be something like the state described in “1984.” Government would make ALL decisions, and have the power to do so.

    I don’t know one person in America who wants such a state. Not one. Cults require more than one. And, to identify a “cult” requires (as I see it) a group who can be identified by much of the population as a grave risk to liberty.

    Now, there may be some cults like the Ba’athists and perhaps the N Korean hierarchy in places far from the US. But, even if those are existing CofOS, they pose no direct or indirect risk to the US of imposing an “OMNIPOTENT” state here that I can discern.

    Nor were there such cults in the US in the 70s, at least none that presented a serious claim to power here. (If there were, who were they?)

    Keep in mind, this is a US political party, and this CotOS statement is among the first words that it uses in its platform. This tells me and the world that this party believes that the CotOS is a real threat, but anyone paying attention recognizes that there is no such threat.

    “Ever expanding state?” “Increasingly intrusive state?” Yes, the nation is replete with statists with want to increase the size and scope of the government.

    “Omnipotent?” Nope. If there is such a cult in the US, I’ll ask again: Who are they and where did they say they advocate an all-powerful state in the US?

  125. Thomas L. Knapp

    Timothy,

    Nice try. I guess if Darryl is important enough for you to come over here and lie about him, he must be pretty important. Either that, or you’re nobody. Wonder which.

  126. dL

    “not ours as a party for nominating The Great Ape.”

    The Great Ape with some training would likely be to reel off at least one foreign leader to the press…

  127. robert capozzi

    GJ tweeted a day later that he STILL can’t think of one he admires. Fair enough.

    WW said in a recent interview that obviously GJ doesn’t do pop quizzes all that well.

    This all strikes me as fine and at least forgivable.

    I do think that Dalai Lama, or the leaders of Estonia or Switzerland, would be nice answers, too, as it would be provocative and allow for discussion of the benefits of taking the path of peace and freedom, a path that most of the world is not currently on, but ought to be.

  128. Be Rational

    He should have quickly answered that there are none that he admires and turned to those he doesn’t like any why. Surely he could have then pivoted to Putin and excoriated him, talked at length and ended that segment.

    Johnson needs practice at simple Q&A sessions. He should have had it before the campaign.

  129. Just Some Random Guy

    The Great Ape with some training would likely be to reel off at least one foreign leader to the press…

    Oh, come off it. He was asked to name one he admired. I can easily name off foreign leaders but none of them are people I admire… of course, usually a good sign that a foreign leader isn’t doing a good job is if you have heard of them.

    And the problem he was specifically having was he had someone in mind but was blanking on their specific name. Trying to turn that into “he couldn’t name any foreign leaders” is absurd.

  130. Scott Semans

    Darryl W. Perry is the sort of President a Libertarian nation deserves. Maybe Gary Johnson is the best President this country deserves. Is that, perhaps barely, reason enough to vote for him?

  131. Thane Eichenauer

    I recently contacted the Darryl Perry for President campaign and heard back from the candidate.

    My query: “I would love to read Darryl Perry’s position on the proposed DEA kratom ban.”

    http://heavy.com/news/2016/09/dea-drug-enforcement-agency-ban-kratom-deaths-opiates-heroin-united-states-penalties-testimonials-poison-control-petition/

    His response: While my knowledge of kratom is very limited, I believe it, as with all substances, should not be regulated at all! See this article I wrote in 2015: Regulate everything like tomatoes: a guide to ending the drug war

    http://fpp.cc/regulate-everything-like-tomatoes-a-guide-to-ending-the-drug-war/

    —————–
    I find his response to be excellent. I would love to hear of other electoral candidates position on the proposed DEA kratom ban.

Leave a Reply

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