Austin Petersen Dumps LP, Runs as a Republican

Austin Petersen ex-L (R)

In an editorial titled “Why I’m running as a Republican for U.S. Senate” published earlier today by the Kansas City Star, former Libertarian POTUS candidate (not the nominee) explains his decision as follows:

“Although I ran for president in 2016 as a Libertarian, I intend to make this run for the Senate as a Republican. I have made this change in large part because after personally reaching out to over 4,000 of my supporters, more than 98 percent of them said that the party of Lincoln was the best fit for my pro-life, pro-liberty, pro-Constitution stands”

The full editorial can be read HERE.

 

128 thoughts on “Austin Petersen Dumps LP, Runs as a Republican

  1. Darcy G Richardson

    Speaking of 2016 Libertarian presidential candidates, it looks like the party’s mountain-climbing “Abominable No Man” of American politics isn’t quite finished. Gary Johnson and his campaign manager Ron Nielson announced a couple of days ago that they’re re-launching their Our America Initiative website — a non-profit organization that’s even less transparent than the ex-governor’s campaign finance reports during the past two presidential campaigns. (Readers should check out the organization’s 2013, 2014 and 2015 IRS filings — it’s Form 990 — if they have any doubts.)

    In any case, Johnson enthusiasts probably shouldn’t get too excited about this news. It probably has more to do with Nielson’s desire to keep the lucrative income stream generated by the former New Mexico governor’s 2012 and 2016 presidential campaigns flowing than any serious attempt by Gary Johnson to repair the self-inflicted damage that he created last year while blowing one of the biggest opportunities for a significant third-party breakthrough in American history.

    Happy Fourth of July!

  2. Anthony Dlugos

    Comical, everyone who ran for the LP nomination for President who claimed that Governor Johnson was just trying to use our ballot access for his own purposes was, in fact, just trying to use our ballot access for their own purposes.

  3. George Phillies

    @7:06 I do not believe this is a correct statement about Darryl Perry or John McAfee.

    However “pro-life” and “pro-Constitution” are dog whistle words, showing that Petersen was right to switch to the Republicans. Permanently.

  4. NewFederalist

    Can anyone really be very surprised at this? He appeared quite superficial from the outset. His candidacy is likely going nowhere anyway but in the off chance that he actually got elected he would probably be better than 90% of the other members of the senate.

  5. Jeff

    The editorial appears to have disappeared from the Kansas City Star’s website.

  6. Chuck Moulton

    Petersen will receive far less support as a flipflopper if he seeks the LP presidential nomination again in 2020. I certainly woupdn’t vote for him in convention then, though I voted for him at the 2016 convention.

    This is the same reason I couldn’t (and can’t) support Perry: his wildly inappripriate speech at the 2010 convention purportedly nominating himself for LP chair during which he encouraged everyone to join the Boston Tea Party.

    We need libertarians who actually support the Libertarian Party and want to see it grow and succeed, not self-serving cults of personality who dump the party on a whim.

    Do I hope Petersen succeeds in the Republican Party? Yes. But he shouldn’t have a revolving door with no consequences.

  7. Anthony Dlugos

    Sadly, I suspect this is not the last we’ve heard from the self-aggrandizing man-child. He already went after Weld in his “Why I am running” editorial, in addition to trotting out the libertarian frat boy line of wanting “gay men to be able to defend their marijuana plants using automatic weapons.”

    This tells me he has no delusions he can win the GOP nomination, nor no intentions of staying there. My guess he is going to use whatever support he gets in the primary as “proof” he is the best candidate in 2020 when he unctuously slithers back to the LP.

    Mr. Phillies,

    Am I wrong to suggest that every candidate in Orlando, other than Johnson and Weld, has either run against Johnson and Weld after losing fair and square, left, or threatened to leave the party since the convention? I’m just curious. The only one I can think of is Ms. Dearn.

  8. Just Some Random Guy

    The editorial appears to have disappeared from the Kansas City Star’s website.

    Yeah, the link doesn’t work for me either.

  9. Andy

    “George Phillies
    July 4, 2017 at 08:57
    @7:06 I do not believe this is a correct statement about Darryl Perry or John McAfee.”

    I have generally positive opinion of McAfee, but even so, do not forget that he was originally running for President under the party banner of a party that he created, in the Cyber Party, and he only switched to Libertarian Party AFTER it became clearly apparent that he would not be able to get on the ballot in that many states, and that if he ran as a Libertarian, he’d have a much better chance at getting on the ballot in all 50 states plus DC. I personally know one of the primary people who recruited McAfee into the Libertarian Party. This person was trying to get McAfee to join the LP back in the summer of 2015, and McAfee was resistant, as he wanted to get on the ballot as the Cyber Party candidate.

    I do think that McAfee would have been a better candidate for President than Gary Johnson, but then again, so would any of the other candidates who made the debate stage.

  10. Andy

    “Anthony Dlugos
    July 4, 2017 at 12:51
    Sadly, I suspect this is not the last we’ve heard from the self-aggrandizing man-child.”

    Are you talking about Gary Johnson, or Bill Weld, or their campaign manager?

  11. Andy

    Chuck Moulton said: “This is the same reason I couldn’t (and can’t) support Perry: his wildly inappripriate speech at the 2010 convention purportedly nominating himself for LP chair during which he encouraged everyone to join the Boston Tea Party.

    We need libertarians who actually support the Libertarian Party and want to see it grow and succeed, not self-serving cults of personality who dump the party on a whim.”

    I don’t think that Darryl Perry left the Libertarian Party during his tenure with the Boston Tea Party, or the New Hampshire Liberty Party.

    I think that Perry was using the Boston Tea Party to push the Libertarian Party into sticking to its principles, as in, “If the LP continues to stray off course, come to the Boston Tea Party.”

    The New Hampshire Liberty Party was formed (by Ian Freeman, of Free Talk Live fame), due in large part because the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire lacked a platform plank that was explicitly in favor of New Hampshire seceding from the union. Darryl supports secession and that was his stated reason for involvement in the New Hampshire Liberty Party.

    The Boston Tea Party and the New Hampshire Liberty Party have both gone defunct. It was Perry that pulled the plug on the Boston Tea Party.

    I’m pretty sure that the LP of NH has since passed a pro-secession plank.

  12. Andy

    I see the Libertarian Party as a tool, or vehicle, for fighting for liberty, but it is not the only tool. I think that it is a good tool, in spite of its internal dysfunction, but it is not the only tool. If somebody wants to fight for liberty by running as a Republican, or a Democrat, or an independent, or under some other minor party banner, then I am not opposed to it, as long as their principles are good, and they actually uphold them if they get elected to anything. I am also supportive of people fighting for liberty through the ballot initiative, referendum, and recall process, or by filing law suits, or lobbying government, and I am also supportive of those who fight for liberty outside the political system.

    So if Austin runs under a pretty strong pro-liberty platform in his campaign for the Republican Party’s US Senate nomination in Missouri, I don’t think it is necessarily a bad thing, although flip-flopping back and forth repeatedly between the Libertarian Party and the Republican Party does lead to confusing some of the public about what a libertarian is, and why there should be a Libertarian Party, so this would be a negative, but this could be offset to the extent that Austin uses this campaign to promote the cause of liberty, which I see as being more important than any organization.

    Political parties and other organizations can become corrupted, and/or ineffective, and they can also do things that are stupid. This is why ones first allegiance ought to be to PRINCIPLES, and not to any party or organization.

    Having said this, I think that Austin’s party hopping (he’s gone from Republican, to Libertarian, back to Republican, back to Libertarian, and now back to Republican again), is probably not going to help his chances if he comes back to the Libertarian Party in the future seeking to be nominated to something (like as a presidential candidate in 2020), but who knows, maybe he will wow a lot of people so much with his US Senate campaign, that he could come back to the LP a lot of people would still nominate him to run for some high level office as a Libertarian Party candidate.

    I doubt that Austin will win the Republican US Senate nomination, and even if he did, I doubt that he’d win the general election. If Austin really wants to get elected to something, he should have run for a lower level office, like a seat in the state legislature, or US House, or maybe even a city or county office.

    IF Austin were to be elected to the US Senate under the Republican Party’s banner, and IF he went to the US Senate and maintained a pretty strong pro-liberty voting record, this would be a good thing, and I say that as somebody who has never been on the Austin Petersen bandwagon.

  13. Joseph Buchman Post author

    This is VERY odd. That link to the Kansas City Star was working last night when I published this article (wish I’d done a screen capture) — AND at the bottom of the working link in the post directly above (THANKS “just some random guy”), there is a link which states: “Originally published in The Kansas City Star” which is likewise broken.

    Did the Kansas City Star withdraw this op-ed?

    Joe

  14. George Phillies

    Mr. Dlugos,

    I have not kept track. Perry is currently the LPNH chair. McAfee says he is a Libertarian. I have no idea if Petersen has actually switched parties or if this is a publicity stunt. I have no idea about Dearn.

    Sorry I can’t be more helpful,

    George

  15. Joseph Buchman Post author

    I have, FYI, submitted the following inquiry to the Editorial Board of the Kansas City Star. I will let you know in the comments below if I receive a reply.

    I’m writing to inquire about what happened to the following editorial

    http://www.kansascity.com/opinion/editorials/article159554424.html

    published last night and now apparently withdrawn.

    FYI I wrote about this in an article published by

    http://independentpoliticalreport.com/2017/07/austin-petersen-dumps-lp-runs-as-a-republican

    You might also note that the website

    https://www.austinpetersen.com/why_i_m_running_as_a_republican_for_u_s_senate

    states at the very bottom of that page the following:

    “Originally published in The Kansas City Star”

    Is that accurate? Was the above actually published by the Kansas City Star, and if so, was it withdrawn? and if so, can you let me know why?

    Thanks,

    Joseph G. Buchman, PhD
    Contributing Editor
    Independent Political Report

  16. dL

    Is that accurate? Was the above actually published by the Kansas City Star, and if so, was it withdrawn?

    FYI: The status code for that url returns 410==content removed.

    The google search link
    https://www.google.com/#q=http://www.kansascity.com/opinion/editorials/article159554424.html

    gives you the article title, the blurb, but unfortunately not a cached copy, which can be verified by directly querying the google cache(returns empty)

    http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://www.kansascity.com/opinion/editorials/article159554424.html

  17. dL

    I originally brought up Austin Peterson’s likely run for the Senate as a Missouri Republican

    http://independentpoliticalreport.com/2017/05/austin-petersen-libertarians-the-military-ft-larry-sharpe/#comment-1601741

    to explain why he came out so forcefully for the immediate removal of Arvin Vohra. I imagine it was partly a pure CYA maneuver on Peterson’s part to deflect future accusations from his republican competitors that he previously fraternized w/ anti-military hippies(a major right-wing PC sin). Of course, Peterson’s rationale was that stuff like this is what precludes the LP from being taken seriously as a winning party. The easy rejoinder to that proposition is why should anyone then take advice on winning from a revolving door politician?

    It is a legitimate debate whether the LP should serve merely as an educational platform or as a entity focused primarily on winning elections. However, if one comes down on the latter side, one thing is absolutely clear: that entity necessarily is a partisan entity. And partisan political parties do not tolerate revolving door politicians. Obviously, a partisan party will gladly take defectors. However, it will not suffer opportunists. To the extent that ostensibly partisan parties tolerate a revolving door, then obviously there is a third option at play RE: the role such a party.

  18. T Rex

    Petersen always seemed to have a something a bit neoconny about him. I guess this explains it. Like Wayne Allyn Root, he wanted to be a Republican figurehead all along–to be invited onto echo chambers with Laura Ingraham, Mark Levin, etc. I’d wager that his appearance on Glenn Beck’s show made him realize that was a more lucrative/promising path than being a principled libertarian.

    I bet that some of his ultra-libertarian statements (eg, saying in the LP debates you shouldn’t need a driver’s license) will be used against him in the process and he’ll run from libertarianism even faster than Rand Paul. Just a prediction. We’ll see.

  19. langa

    I have made this change in large part because after personally reaching out to over 4,000 of my supporters, more than 98 percent of them said that the party of Lincoln was the best fit for my pro-life, pro-liberty, pro-Constitution stands…

    The fact that Petersen apparently views “party of Lincoln” as a compliment just demonstrates that he never really understood libertarian principles, or that he simply never agreed with them. Of all the Republicans to have been elected President, Lincoln was the worst, from a libertarian perspective. Maybe next Petersen will run as a Democrat (“in the party of FDR”).

  20. Thane Eichenauer (@ilovegrover)

    The government schools that be laud Abraham Lincoln. Society by and large prays to the demi-god President Abraham Lincoln. I am willing to accept the premise that Abraham Lincoln was an awful political official. The 2018 election isn’t the venue for blackening the reputation of Abraham Lincoln (unless you as a candidate want to loose).

  21. Rebel Alliance

    Wow. And I’d been starting to like Peterson after his post-election comments, despite his previous skepticism toward the NAP which I’d thought he was starting to come around on.

    This shows that the LP still has a serious problem and that we need to get these fake Republi-cons out. Principles aside, it’s a classic failure of branding and marketing. JOB ONE in promoting a new brand is to show that it is clearly different than, and superior to, any competitors. But hacks like Bill Weld and John Moore have been actively undermining this. And like Rand Paul, by keeping one foot in the GOP and one in the LP and trying to draw support from both groups, he has drawn support from neither. The LP must clearly differentiate itself from BOTH the Big Two to be seen as a contender in its own right.

    langa: “The fact that Petersen apparently views “party of Lincoln” as a compliment just demonstrates that he never really understood libertarian principles”

    I agree. Lincoln was, by far, the most authoritarian president in US history.

  22. dL

    The 2018 election isn’t the venue for blackening the reputation of Abraham Lincoln

    Agree…not interested in re-litigating/rehashing that topic

    This shows that the LP still has a serious problem and that we need to get these fake Republi-cons out. Principles aside, it’s a classic failure of branding and marketing. JOB ONE in promoting a new brand is to show that it is clearly different than, and superior to, any competitors.

    Agree….if the LP is a partisan political party(that is, one of its primary objectives is to try to win elections), then party brand differentiation is essential. Now, if the LP is just an educational platform, then who cares. But the very definition of a Losertarian Party is one that ostensibly sets winning as a standard for success but then tolerates revolving door politicians making statements that the Rethugs are better vehicle for the liberty message.

    My biggest issue with Peterson is that he tried to get an effective vice chair sacked on the pretense of that the vice chair’s statements were counterproductive to the goal of winning elections. But he made that accusation while planning to bolt to another party. And I have issues w/ people like Nick Gillespie who does not want for handing out advice to the LP on how to be a “serious party”

    http://reason.com/blog/2016/05/30/there-aint-no-party-like-the-libertarian

    using Peterson as an opportunity to promote the idea that the Rethugs are a viable platform to deliver the libertarian message.

  23. langa

    The government schools that be laud Abraham Lincoln.

    There’s a reason for that…

    Society by and large prays to the demi-god President Abraham Lincoln.

    …and there it is.

    I am willing to accept the premise that Abraham Lincoln was an awful political official.

    It goes beyond the fact that his policies were awful, and that they increased the size and power of the federal government to an unprecedented degree. The real problem, as you ironically alluded to, is the “Great Emancipator” myth, which is one of the essential sacred cows upon which the supposed necessity of the state is based. It is vitally important that people believe that slavery was a creation of the Evil Free Market, and that we were only saved from it by the “Great Emancipator” Lincoln, riding in on the White Horse of Government. Perpetuating this myth, as Petersen does, in no way helps the cause of liberty.

    The 2018 election isn’t the venue for blackening the reputation of Abraham Lincoln…

    When did I say it was? I’m not suggesting that Petersen campaign on his opposition to Lincoln. What I’m questioning is why he mentioned Lincoln in the first place. What purpose did it serve, other than acting as a signal that he has no interest whatsoever in challenging the reigning orthodoxy of the status quo?

  24. robert capozzi

    dL: But he made that accusation while planning to bolt to another party.

    me: Is there evidence that AP was planning to bolt while engaged in intra-LP debate? Is it possible that he decided to bolt BECAUSE he decided that the LP is not a viable vehicle for him due to the issue he was debating?

  25. robert capozzi

    AP: As I’ve said elsewhere, my vision for America is one where gay married couples can defend their marijuana fields with fully automatic machine guns.

    ME: near 0 chance of winning the R nomination or the general.

  26. Tony From Long Island

    I say au reviour and adios to this smarmy bloviator. LP members shouldn’t be sad to see him go. His condescending way of speaking to people isn’t a personality trait I would ever look for in a candidate. I found him immediately unlikeable.

  27. Tony From Long Island

    If by some miracle he gets the Republican nomination, Claire McCaskill will eat him for lunch.

  28. TomP

    Either his main Republican opponent, or McCaskill herself (If he gets that far) will pull out a video clip of the 2016 Libertarian Presidential candidate debate and focus on the driver’s license question and Petersen’s answer to that question. His opponent will use that clip to paint him as a wacko. It will be hard for him to overcome that.

  29. Anthony Dlugos

    rcapozzi,

    “AP: As I’ve said elsewhere, my vision for America is one where gay married couples can defend their marijuana fields with fully automatic machine guns.

    ME: near 0 chance of winning the R nomination or the general.”

    lol…we certainly have a similar political frame of reference. That’s the line I zeroed in on too, realizing nothing has changed with AWP’s infantile banter as he tries to nail down the Frat Boy Right faction of the electorate.

    Now, let’s everyone be reasonable here. Despite my disagreements with some of you, the level of discourse at this site is certainly higher than other places, for example Facebook, where one has to periodically deal with AWP’s “ninjas, who I think honestly believe he has a chance to win the GOP nomination in Missouri.

    The field of prospective Republican candidates includes multiple sitting members of the US House, the Speaker of the Missouri House of Representatives, a couple Missouri state senators, and the Attorney General of Missouri, who went to Yale Law School, incidentally. (per wikipedia on all that).

    In other words, Petersen is gonna get his ass kicked into next Christmas in the primary. Whatever near zero chance he had will approach absolute zero if ever his “opponents” start digging into even just his recent past, which they probably will have no reason to do anyway.

    In fact, considering the fact that he went after someone with significant connections in the GOP like Governor Weld in his editorial on why he is running, and dropped his dopey like about automatic weapons and cannabis growing gay couples tells me he is under no illusions that he is going to win the GOP nomination for the seat, and is in fact attempting to use this run to build a larger base of support from which he will attempt to run for the 2020 LP nomination when he slithers back, touting his eventual 4 or 5 percent in the GOP Senate primary as “proof” he is the best candidate in the LP field. I’ll note that in his un-Farewell letter to the LP, he concludes by saying he is leaving…”for now.”

    Given his total lack of experience in office, and given the unfortunate predilection amongst Libertarians to not just ignore candidates’ resumes/previous experience but to actually go so far as to look at such things as negatives, I can’t say that Austin’s strategy, as I see it, is the worst one in the world. Why should he bother getting some entry-level public office in his local community and working his way up when he has people in the party telling him, post-2016 Convention, that with a few tweaks in his campaign he could have won the nomination?

  30. NewFederalist

    I agree with Anthony Dlugos above. My only point of departure might be if ALL those GOP folks jump into the race (like five or six elected pols) then Peterson could look even stronger if he doesn’t come in at or near the bottom in the primary. If he can appeal to libertarian-ish Republicans (and there are a few) he might not win but a second place finish in a 5 or mare way fiesl would really strengthen his position for 2020.

  31. Anthony Dlugos

    re: revolving door.

    There’s nothing per se wrong with a revolving door from the dinosaur parties. All third parties that became major parties became major parties in large part because of a revolving door from whichever major parties existed at the time. Sure, you want the revolving door to slow to a trickle at some point, but even the Democrats and Republicans deal with defections from time to time.

    If ensuring there is no revolving door at the Libertarian Party “border” is your primary objective, why not just change the platform to including condoning pedophilia and human sacrifice? I can assure you you will not have a problem with a revolving door then.

    The way to ensure the revolving door slows to the trickle I referred to is not to so narrowly define the Party platform to make it untenable to anyone but the lunatic fringe. Its to define the platform to be as inclusive of libertarian-leaning people as possible, so that support grows and no one wants to leave.

    Now, as far as seeing Austin walk out through the revolving door…who gives a sh*t? He’s a douche canoe. His leaving helps.

  32. Anthony Dlugos

    NewFederalist,

    “My only point of departure might be if ALL those GOP folks jump into the race (like five or six elected pols) then Peterson could look even stronger if he doesn’t come in at or near the bottom in the primary.”

    I’ll concede that Is should never say ” never,” but what you are talking about would be near unprecedented. He has zilch in the way to legitimate connections in the Missouri Republican infrastructure. The only way someone like him would have a chance to make an end run around said infrastructure would be to be independently wealthy with at least some name recognition. The going rate to by a Senate seat is $10,000,000, and that doesn’t include outside funding. Someone without connections in a party would probably have to be worth, what…maybe $50-$100 million to be able to self-fund?

    Its typical of Libertarians to think of an election in terms of even-up battles between different variations of political philosophies, with a dollop of the election “horse-race” calculations (who has which faction in their back pockets, who knocks who out, who is then left, etc) . The reality is that stuff is incidental when compared to funding and connections to party infrastructure in a particular state. These other folks who AWP will be running against have been building those connections for years. AWP will be trying to compete with that by sending a bunch of “ninjas” on the road throughout Missouri in their used cars, with breathless reports via Facebook Live! with 5 youngster packed in a car showing other youngsters the great time they are having, accomplishing nothing. It isn’t even about the Missouri seat for Austin. Its about building his 2020 campaign.

  33. Anthony Dlugos

    But, yes, a second place finish in a 5-way race would get me concerned, mainly because, as I said, we have a substantial number of people who see previous experience in office as a negative, not a positive.

    An Austin Petersen with no experience in office and a second place finish in a Missouri primary would be potentially dangerous, because he would be a blank slate resume-wise with a demonstration of “support” in an electoral contest. To the Gullible Caucus, that’s like black-tar heroin.

  34. dL

    me: Is there evidence that AP was planning to bolt while engaged in intra-LP debate? Is it possible that he decided to bolt BECAUSE he decided that the LP is not a viable vehicle for him due to the issue he was debating?

    http://independentpoliticalreport.com/2017/05/austin-petersen-libertarians-the-military-ft-larry-sharpe/#comment-1601741

    AP: As I’ve said elsewhere, my vision for America is one where gay married couples can defend their marijuana fields with fully automatic machine guns.

    ME: near 0 chance of winning the R nomination or the general.

    just needs to qualify it w/ an assurance that they would be shooting democrats

  35. dL

    All third parties that became major parties became major parties in large part because of a revolving door from whichever major parties existed at the time.

    Revolving door refers to back and forth. We had this discussion back in May and could only produce 2 examples of successful revolving door politicians: Ron Paul and George Wallace.

  36. paulie

    Why should he bother getting some entry-level public office in his local community and working his way up when he has people in the party telling him, post-2016 Convention, that with a few tweaks in his campaign he could have won the nomination?

    Going NSGOP is not one of those tweaks. Sorry, but the revolving door stops here. Defectors are one thing, revolving door is another.

  37. paulie

    There’s nothing per se wrong with a revolving door from the dinosaur parties. All third parties that became major parties became major parties in large part because of a revolving door from whichever major parties existed at the time.

    You are confusing two different things. Defectors can come to the LP from establishment parties and that is fine. If they go back to their establishment party that’s unfortunate but also not uncommon. It does not become a “revolving door” situation until at least the second time they try to go back to the LP at which point we need to just say no.

  38. Anthony Dlugos

    A) If the party is strong enough, the fact that the door revolves is irrelevant.

    B) “Revolving door refers to back and forth. We had this discussion back in May and could only produce 2 examples of successful revolving door politicians: Ron Paul and George Wallace.”

    “Sorry, but the revolving door stops here.”

    Yea, we did have that discussion. Now a douchebag leaves and we’re once again worried about defectors? How thin is our skin here? The guy is a self-aggrandizing flim-flam man. Who cares if he defects? I prefer it.

  39. dL

    Yea, we did have that discussion. Now a douchebag leaves and we’re once again worried about defectors? How thin is our skin here? The guy is a self-aggrandizing flim-flam man. Who cares if he defects? I prefer it.

    The only rats ass I give about AP is the fact that he influenced a move to sack an effective sitting vice chair while simultaneously plotting a move to the ReThugs. I also give another rats ass about the fact that way too may self-described libertarians are closet reThugs.

  40. Anthony Dlugos

    “The only rats ass I give about AP is the fact that he influenced a move to sack an effective sitting vice chair while simultaneously plotting a move to the ReThugs.”

    Fair enough. I don’t see the two as connected. Or, maybe more precisely, getting rid of the Vice Chair is one thing I happen to agree with AP on, and that has nothing to do with the fact that I also want AP gone.

  41. paulie

    Dana Loesch has had my vote for a long time.

    Non-sequitur as far as I can tell.

    A) If the party is strong enough, the fact that the door revolves is irrelevant.

    Strong parties don’t have revolving doors.

    Who cares if he defects? I prefer it.

    Austin can do what he deems best, but if he attempts to run in the LP again after this, this will count against him. Probably more than he realizes.

  42. Joseph Buchman Post author

    Paulie @ July 5, 2017 at 15:19 wrote:

    “Austin can do what he deems best, but if he attempts to run in the LP again after this, this will count against him. Probably more than he realizes.”

    I wonder. Probably more likely to depend on who his competition is.

    In the context of what Darcy G Richardson @ July 4, 2017 at 06:02 wrote at the beginning of this thread, I wonder if it were just AP and GJ if AP wouldn’t come out ahead.

    As for the transparency issues raised by Darcy in the comments above, I asked a similar question of LNC Chair Nicholas Sarwark in his AMA a couple of weeks ago. One has to remember in the context of any answers provided by anyone associated with the GJ2016 campaign or OAI, that there are almost certainly contractual “non-disparagement” clauses impacting their answers.

    I’d love to see AP and others take on GJ and his campaign consultants on that issue in any kind of Libertarian Convention debate.

    Joe

  43. robert capozzi

    dL,

    I’m not huge on AP’s approach, as I find his rhetoric caustic and accusatory. I often liked his ideas, though.

    With that said, it’s conceivable that regardless of his electoral intentions, he sincerely felt the VC’s stance was injurious to the cause of liberty and the LP.

    I, for ex., lapsed as a L member because I am not a NAPster, and the NAPster “depth charge” (the 7/8ths rule) makes it all-but-impossible for this non-NAPster to be comfortable in a party where I was a second-class citizen, in effect. I still vote L when the candidate is not on the fringe, and I still share and comment on LP goings on. I’m more interested in seeing liberty maximized than I am in promoting NAPsterism (or even promoting liberty so long as there is no rhetoric used that violates the NAP plumbline.) It reminds me too much of torture! 😉

    I participated in de-fringing the LP’s platform while I was having doubts about the institution’s ability to promote liberty maximization. In a sense, this is similar to AP’s defection (although an important difference is that he went to another team while I became a free agent.)

    So I narrowly defend AP’s motives up to his defection. I also understand his defection, but I don’t support it except to the extent I support his right to do so. It actually is fairly similar to RP1’s return to the Rs, except that RP1 had been an elected R MC, and he stood a greater chance of success. His move worked for him. AP, I predict, will once again fail in part due to his penchant for outlandishness.

  44. NewFederalist

    I find it somewhat amazing and amusing that we have spent so much time and bandwidth on this guy. I guess we really DON’T have enough to worry about!

  45. Thomas L. Knapp

    I don’t expect Austin to come back to the LP looking for its presidential nomination.

    There are several things about him that I don’t like, but he doesn’t strike me as stupid.

    He knows his chances of winning the GOP primary are larger than zero, but that they have a lot of zeroes after the decimal point and the digit “1.”

    Therefore, he’s not running in the expectation of winning the GOP primary or of being the next US Senator from Missouri.

    Nor is he running in the expectation that racking up single digits in a GOP primary is going to make him the front-runner for the LP’s presidential nomination.

    He’s running for purposes of turning the tools at his disposal — he punches well above his real political weight when it comes to media savvy and being able to get attention — into a career path.

    He will fight primary, and when he loses he will whole-heartedly endorse the winner and go to work campaigning for that winner.

    That sets him up to get party support for a later run for lower office (perhaps state legislature) or perhaps a minor appointment of some kind, from which he can work his way up.

    Or to get noticed by some heavyweight Republicans and start working up the campaign or party organization ladder.

    Reince Priebus only ran for political office once (Wisconsin state legislature). He lost. Then he went on to become chair of the Wisconsin GOP, then chair of the RNC, then chief of staff to the president.

  46. Anthony Dlugos

    Thomas,

    Your appraisal of Petersen’s intentions is a reasonable proposition, your example of Priebus a good one.

    I find him unctuous and immature, but like you, I also don’t think he’s stupid. Frankly, I hope you are right and his mission meets with success in some way and he never comes back.

    But, lets be honest…Priebus has a JD from the University of Miami in addition to having clerked in several courts, both in Wisconsin state court and federal court. He also became a partner in a Wisconsin law firm. This is a hell of a lot heftier resume than Petersen.

    My concern is that he doesn’t appear to have the discipline and patients for the long game you describe, he will find his experiences in the LP count for nada in GOP circles, and without a Priebus-like resume, he will come crawling back and indeed argue that his single digit performance in the Missouri primary does indeed make him the most qualified candidate for the 2020 LP nomination.

    My hope is that he catches the eye of someone at Fox News or Glenn Beck decides to give him a shot on his network. I think getting doted on in a makeup chair and bloviating on a dopey Fox News show surrounded by newsporn chicks is probably his nirvana.

  47. Thomas L. Knapp

    Well, he’s got a background at Fox and has been interviewed by Beck. I wouldn’t be surprised at all for him to parlay a Republican Senate campaign into some kind of media gig. That’s one of the possible career paths for him coming out of all this depending on how well he does (not in vote totals, but in productive participation in his new party’s operations).

    While I personally find “liberty Republicans” to be a counter-productive idea that damages whatever opportunity the LP might have to achieve the real thing instead of a shoddy dollar-store version of liberty, I understand why some people disagree and act on that disagreement.

  48. dL

    With that said, it’s conceivable that regardless of his electoral intentions, he sincerely felt the VC’s stance was injurious to the cause of liberty and the LP.

    No, revolving door politicians are injurious to the cause of the LP. I do find it interesting that those who toot the horn of “electorally serious party” are the ones who seem to have least problems w/ LP revolving door politicians. An obvious contradiction.

  49. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    Anythony. Such a delightfully withering analysis of Mr. Potorson.

  50. Andy

    Thomas Knapp said: “He will fight primary, and when he loses he will whole-heartedly endorse the winner and go to work campaigning for that winner.”

    If Austin ends up endorsing, and campaigning for some shitbag Republican, I will lose respect for him.

    My current view on Austin (and note that I have never communicated with him, and the only time I saw him in person was at the convention in Orlando) is that he’s pretty good on issues for the most part, and he’s a good speaker, and he can handle himself pretty well in interviews and in debates. I have a few disagreements with him, most notably on his disregard for the NAP, and his dismissal of so called “conspiracy theories” and those who talk about them (like 9/11, etc…/although I found it to be ironic at the when he brought up the sinking of the Lusitania during the main debate at the nation convention, since that was a conspiracy theory, although now it is pretty much regarded as being a historic fact that it was a set up). Since I have never communicated with him, I can’t really comment on the guy personally, beyond saying that I know that some people like his personality and others do not. I’m not sure that he can be trusted, but I would not go so far as saying that he is necessarily a bad guy.

  51. Thane Eichenauer (@ilovegrover)

    I hope that Petersen qualifies for the ballot, prevails over all the other Republican candidates in the primary and is elected US Senator from Missouri. Rand Paul needs some competition for least awful US Senator.

  52. robert capozzi

    me: With that said, it’s conceivable that regardless of his electoral intentions, he sincerely felt the VC’s stance was injurious to the cause of liberty and the LP.

    dL: No, revolving door politicians are injurious to the cause of the LP.

    me: Consider the possibility that both can be true. Nothing precludes that being the case, correct?

    To be clear, I don’t care for the revolving door phenomenon. I do note that it — on net — was liberty-positive in the case of RP1 and mildly consequential. BB’s was completely inconsequential. WAR I’d say was liberty-negative, given his wacky pronouncements. AP runs the risk of following the WAR path. The propensity for making infantile statements is high.

  53. Thomas L. Knapp

    I pretty much assumed that Petersen’s particupation in the Vohra tantrum was part and parcel of setting things up for his departure from the LP.

    That way if the departure turned acrimonious, he could harrumph a little bit and lecture us for being insufficiently worshipful of costumed government employees — Republicans eat that shit up.

    Given the sources of the tantrum — it originated with and was pushed by our authoritarian nationalist would-be hijacker faction — that could have backfired on him, which may be why he went with the more polite exit strategy.

  54. paulie

    To be clear, I don’t care for the revolving door phenomenon. I do note that it — on net — was liberty-positive in the case of RP1 and mildly consequential. BB’s was completely inconsequential. WAR I’d say was liberty-negative, given his wacky pronouncements. AP runs the risk of following the WAR path. The propensity for making infantile statements is high.

    I don’t regard any of those as revolving door. If any of them come back to the LP to run again they would then be revolving door. They are more like temporarily disgruntled Republicans.

  55. Anthony Dlugos

    To be clear, my concession that a revolving door is inevitable and probably necessary (at least at the beginning of a period where the LP becomes a possible threat for major party status) should not be construed to mean that I want professionals going back and forth repeatedly between the LP and the GOP or Dems. (How many times can any professional politician do that anyway? Twice? Once to the LP and once back to their original party?)

    It DOES mean that I don’t want sitting officeholders considering the switch to think that the LP is the political party version of Hotel California. I can’t think of a better way to ensure they don’t bother switching at all.

  56. robert capozzi

    pf, OK, please define and give an example of a revolving-door candidate.

  57. paulie

    I think I made it clear before that I have no problem with people coming over to the LP, and if it they find it is not for them, I have no problem with them leaving. Off the top of my head I am not coming up with any examples of those who have switched to the LP for the second time to run for office. However, Austin would sort of fit that category if he comes back to the LP after this. Although as far as I know this is his first run as a Republican, and the presidential campaign was as far as I know his first LP run, he has somewhat of a revolving door history: worked on Ron Paul Republican campaign, worked at LP national office, supported Rand Paul campaign (even after announcing himself!) and reportedly even refused to sign LP ballot access petitions, ran for LP presidential nomination, now running as a Republican. If he comes to the LP again after all that I would say he is unquestionably “revolving door” of the sort that is at that point excessive.

  58. robert capozzi

    pf, so you need 3 party changes as a candidate to be considered an example of a “revolving door” candidate. Thanks.

    As far as we know, there have been none that fit the PF def. AP could be the first, if he runs in the future as a L.

    I wonder if others have a different definition?

  59. Anthony Dlugos

    “…worked on Ron Paul Republican campaign, worked at LP national office, supported Rand Paul campaign (even after announcing himself!) and reportedly even refused to sign LP ballot access petitions, ran for LP presidential nomination, now running as a Republican. If he comes to the LP again after all that I would say he is unquestionably “revolving door” of the sort that is at that point excessive.”

    a) after all that back and forth, considering the pittance (if anything) that he was paid, I’d say the LP may have come out on the plus side of the exchange between the Party and AWP.

    b) otherwise, I agree that the revolving door (if he tries to come back) in this case would be excessive. Then again, maybe he comes back in 15 years after a couple terms in some office. Then the calculation about taking him back might be different. I don’t want him coming back in 2 years after garnering 5% in the Missouri GOP primary, expecting the red carpet to be rolled out.

  60. Thomas L. Knapp

    I wouldn’t call the revolving door thing a hard and fast rule a la …

    … but rather an estimation that each has to make for himself. The concept is pretty simple — we don’t want people wandering back and forth, on our team one day and an opposing team the next, then next week with us, then the week after that another team. It’s not conducive to trust, and it tends to tarnish the brand perceived as weaker in the same way that the girl in high school who was perceived as easy got little respect.

    To the best of my recollection, this is Austin’s second run for office. He ran for the LP’s POTUS nomination. Now he’s running for US Senate with the GOP. If he came back and said “OK, I had to give the GOP a try, that sucked, I’m back,” I wouldn’t see anything wrong with it (although I wouldn’t think that getting 2% in a GOP Senate primary would qualify him for the LP’s POTUS nomination next time around, either; the opposite, in fact).

    But of course, I’ve always been of the opinion that he’s more suited, both temperamentally and ideologically, to the “liberty Republican” camp than to the LP. That’s just how I see it, without rancor.

  61. Anthony Dlugos

    “But of course, I’ve always been of the opinion that he’s more suited, both temperamentally and ideologically, to the “liberty Republican” camp than to the LP.”

    Agreed.

  62. robert capozzi

    tk,

    I like what you say about hard-and-fast rules. In so many things, achieving general agreement is often easy. However, we often have differing views on the specifics.

    Of course, I’d say the same about L-ism, and whether only NAP non-violators are the “real Ls.” 🙂

    Here I was a big supporter of AP’s. I liked his approach to policy generally. His WAR-like style, however, was for me a non-starter.

  63. langa

    RC thinks anyone who dares to step outside the “Overton Window” comes off like a raving lunatic. But I would think he would like Petersen, who, after all, praised the GOP as the “party of Lincoln.” You can’t get much more mainstream than publicly sucking up to the ultimate Establishment hero, right?

  64. Anthony Dlugos

    “On his worst day, Petersen doesn’t have one-tenth the crazy huckster persona that Root does.”

    No he does not.

    I am, however, concerned that he does not comprehend how much he’s gonna have to tone down his shtick to make it in the GOP. His opening salvo of “gay married couples defending their marijuana fields with automatic weapons” tells me that he does not.

    Either he doesn’t know or doesn’t care (i.e., its intentional), which in either case ups the likelihood that he comes slithering back to the LP.

  65. robert capozzi

    tk,

    Yes, WAR displays far more uncivilly to me than AP. AP’s on that path, he just doesn’t go quite so far.

    L,

    Let’s not confuse style with substance. On a substance basis, I like AP’s edge positioning. It seems most likely to elicit electoral and policy success in the direction of liberty. His propensity for personal attacks and cavalier public discussion of “pussy pyramids” and such undermines his otherwise positive public stance.

  66. Thomas L. Knapp

    Well, I’m not sure how his schtick will play in a Senate race from Missouri, but it’s not like there aren’t wild men in Congress already from the GOP. Steve King. Peter King. Maybe he should change his last name to King?

  67. robert capozzi

    tk,

    My guess is that AP’s form of wildness will not play in MO, and a name change would not help him.

    OTOH, iirc, you hail from the Show Me State, so you may have better insight on how Missouri Rs will take to his brash style.

  68. Thomas L. Knapp

    RC,

    Offhand, I can’t think of any really similar people to AP at the congressional level from Missouri. Mel Hancock was a little wild and blunt back in the ’80s and ’90s, and Jim Talent and Todd Akin both had a habit of saying stupid shit because, well, they were stupid, but no authentic wild men that I can think of.

  69. robert capozzi

    tk,

    Thanks. Infamous pussy grabber DJT did win MO in 16 handily, so perhaps AP will break MO’s habit of Danforth-like pols. Not holding my breath…..

  70. Chuck Moulton

    Steve Stockman had a flair for getting media with over the top statements, but that was mostly thanks to our own Donny Ferguson, who was his campaign manager and communications director.

  71. Stuart Simms

    RC,
    “… Infamous pussy grabber DJT did win MO in 16 handily,..’
    Very punny!

  72. robert capozzi

    cm,

    Over the top rhetoric CAN garner media attention. As I recall, Invictus got disproportionate coverage. Whether such coverage aids in enhancing liberty is another matter. Has SS leveraged his rhetoric into enhanced liberty?

  73. Chuck Moulton

    Well, he got elected to Congress on a shoestring budget. And his votes were pretty good in general. And he got a lot of media attention with his stunts that drew more attention to various issues (e.g., inviting Ted Nugent to the State of the Union drew attention to 2nd amendment issues).

    Incidentally, during Stockman’s first term in Congress 20 years earlier, I believe I saw in LNC minutes that he addressed them at one point.

  74. paulie

    I think there was also some speculation about him as a possible independent or Constitution Party candidate at some point,

  75. NewFederalist

    I think the Constitution Party was interested in him but I forget what presidential election that was.

  76. NewFederalist

    After thinking about it I believe it was 2008. The CP went with Virgil Goode after Stockman passed on the “opportunity”.

  77. robert capozzi

    cm,

    I guess inviting Nugent was attention getting, although I note that 2A has a very large built-in constituency. This is quite a bit different than actually saying some of the more outrageous things Nugent has said.

    I mean, saying: “”What’s a feminist anyways? A fat pig who doesn’t get it often enough?” doesn’t feel liberty enhancing. Or “I told [Obama] to suck on my machine gun” for that matter.

    I suppose outrageousness can play to one’s base. DJT certainly did so…”we’re gonna bomb the shit out them” played well with the knuckle-draggers, for ex. I’m skeptical about whether that’s the optimal path toward peace and liberty.

  78. NewFederalist

    Senility! You’re right. Goode was 2012. I haven’t even had a drink…yet! 😉

  79. Anthony Dlugos

    “I haven’t even had a drink…yet!”

    Try the Johnnie Walker Double Black. Good stuff.

  80. NewFederalist

    Thanks for the tip! I’ve got a couple of martinis chilling down in the freezer right now. Perhaps tomorrow! 🙂

  81. Thomas L. Knapp

    Austin sustained two major blows to his aspirations today.

    1. Kiss of life for a primary opponent: The Kansas City Star reports that US vice-president Mike Pence called state attorney general Josh Hawley over the weekend, likely to encourage him to run. Hawley’s name has been talked up as the likely GOP candidate and seems likely to get the White House blessing.

    2. Kiss of death from someone likely to carry negative weight: He’s been endorsed by Bob Barr.

  82. Anthony Dlugos

    re: #1) I think any reasonable person had to realize that, in a Senate split 52-48, the GOP was not going to entrust one of 33 available contests to a “Pyramid of Pussy” theatre major.

    re: #2) lol

  83. dL

    re: #1) I think any reasonable person had to realize that, in a Senate split 52-48, the GOP was not going to entrust one of 33 available contests to a “Pyramid of Pussy” theatre major.

    Right, they only entrust that to the important contests, like POTUS. lol

  84. Andy

    Thomas Knapp said: “2. Kiss of death from someone likely to carry negative weight: He’s been endorsed by Bob Barr.”

    LOL! This certainly does not increase my confidence in Austin Petersen.

  85. Andy

    :Thomas L. Knapp
    July 10, 2017 at 07:39
    I pretty much assumed that Petersen’s particupation in the Vohra tantrum was part and parcel of setting things up for his departure from the LP.

    That way if the departure turned acrimonious, he could harrumph a little bit and lecture us for being insufficiently worshipful of costumed government employees — Republicans eat that shit up.

    Given the sources of the tantrum — it originated with and was pushed by our authoritarian nationalist would-be hijacker faction — that could have backfired on him, which may be why he went with the more polite exit strategy.”

    Tom, do you consider Larry Sharpe to be among that faction?

    I like Mr. Sharpe, but he was among those who called for Arvin to resign for having harshly criticized people who join the military.

    I recently posted a video here of Larry Sharpe, Arvin Vohra, and Adam Kokesh, discussing this issue on Vin Armani’s show. It seems that Sharpe and Vohra have come to a common understanding on this and gotten past this issue of contention.

  86. Anthony Dlugos

    “Right, they only entrust that to the important contests, like POTUS. lol”

    come on now, dL, you’re not in that crew that suggests that, since a guy with 40 years in the public eye and essentially 100% name recognition got elected President (whilst losing the popular vote badly), that means the GOP is gonna get even stupider and nominate a 36-year old blogger with less than 1% name recognition for a Senate seat?

  87. Just Some Random Guy

    I like Mr. Sharpe, but he was among those who called for Arvin to resign for having harshly criticized people who join the military.

    Was he? I know he criticized Arvin Vohra for it but I did not think he actively asked him to resign.

  88. Andy

    “Just Some Random Guy
    July 11, 2017 at 21:27
    ‘I like Mr. Sharpe, but he was among those who called for Arvin to resign for having harshly criticized people who join the military.’

    Was he? I know he criticized Arvin Vohra for it but I did not think he actively asked him to resign.”

    He did, but I think that they have since patched up their differences.

  89. Thane Eichenauer (@ilovegrover)

    Knapp lists
    >2. Kiss of death from someone likely to carry negative weight: He’s been endorsed by Bob Barr.

    You may not like Bob Barr but I imagine the people that comprise the Republican Party in Missouri have a much different opinion of Bob Barr than you do.

    As far as the above comments about about the GOP choosing a nominee, in this case the GOP is all those people that are eligible to vote in the primary which in 2016 was 663,586 people according to Ballotpedia. A majority of those folks might not care who Mike Pence supports.

    https://ballotpedia.org/United_States_Senate_election_in_Missouri,_2018
    http://www.thegreenpapers.com/G18/MO

  90. Thomas L. Knapp

    Andy,

    No, I don’t think Sharpe is part of the authoritarian nationalist hijacker faction. In fact, he’s more or less apologized for letting them play on his natural inclinations as a veteran and dupe him into aiding their attempts to weaken the party on their behalf.

  91. Thomas L. Knapp

    Thane,

    You write:

    “You may not like Bob Barr but I imagine the people that comprise the Republican Party in Missouri have a much different opinion of Bob Barr than you do.”

    It’s not about whether or not I like Bob Barr.

    Most Missourians will likely barely remember him, and to the extent that that dedicated partisans do remember him, both Republicans and Democrats will have reasons to remember him in negative terms.

    Democrats will remember that he was the House manager of the Clinton impeachment effort (Clinton carried Missouri in both 1992 and 1996).

    Republicans will remember that he’s a lightweight who couldn’t carry his own congressional district in a party primary after eight years in office, who then turned party coat and nearly cost John McCain Missouri in the 2008 presidential election (McCain only carried the state by 0.14%; Barr knocked down 0.39% of the vote), and who doesn’t seem to have accomplished anything substantial since returning to the GOP.

    I suppose it’s possible that the Barr endorsement is only a small net negative for Petersen, but it IS a net negative for him, especially to the extent that it can be used to highlight his former and very recent Libertarian affiliation in a Republican primary.

  92. paulie

    Barr is not popular among Republicans. He lost the primary when his district merged, and lost again when he tried to come back after his LP run. To the extent that they remember him Democrats certainly don’t like him. His LP supporters have mostly either left the LP or come to see their support of his nomination as a mistake. I don’t know of any significant group of people for whom a Barr endorsement is a plus.

  93. robert capozzi

    I would think that in R and D circles, endorsements are used in high-end fundraising efforts. In certain circles, some biggish money may find a Barr endorsement somewhat positive.

    Otherwise, BB is pretty much a has been of little-to-no consequence.

  94. Thomas L. Knapp

    “In certain circles, some biggish money may find a Barr endorsement somewhat positive.”

    And in certain other circles, some biggish money may consider it a huge flashing neon “stay away from this, it will harm the GOP’s chances in the race” sign.

    Not along the lines of, say, a David Duke endorsement, but not too far off from a Ralph Nader or Darrell Castle endorsement. That is, an endorsement that says Petersen is part of a divergent/rebel strain rather than in line with the Republican mainstream.

  95. robert capozzi

    tk,

    Agreed. The whole AP effort seems quixotic on so many levels.

    I suspect that this biggish money universe of L-leaning Rs is somewhat significant. Perhaps if AP can tap into that universe, he can fund this folly for a time. That’s about it.

    Hard for me to imagine how he parlays this into something bigger. He already got enough vids, he speaks in Fox-style, and he looks the part. Losing a Senate primary fight seems like a set back for him to me.

  96. Thomas L. Knapp

    “Losing a Senate primary fight seems like a set back for him to me.”

    That depends on how he loses it. If he loses it gracefully while running a positive campaign (with respect to his primary opponents) and busts his ass for the guy who beats him, he’s got a good setup for any number of things. He might run for state legislature and have the support of the winner and of the party establishment. He might get a staff job with an officeholder or party organization. He might have additional material to use as an in to be a talking head at e.g. The Blaze.

    If he flames out trying to take the eventual winner down with him, he’s back to independent/third party territory and on his own.

  97. Tony From Long Island

    dL: One of those is still a member of the LP. He doesn’t belong with the other three.

  98. Anthony Dlugos

    “That depends on how he loses it. If he loses it gracefully while running a positive campaign (with respect to his primary opponents) and busts his ass for the guy who beats him, he’s got a good setup for any number of things. He might run for state legislature and have the support of the winner and of the party establishment. He might get a staff job with an officeholder or party organization. He might have additional material to use as an in to be a talking head at e.g. The Blaze.”

    I agree with TK here and elsewhere: AWP certainly punches above his weight political speaking, and a graceful loss/positive campaign could certainly get him plugged into the Missouri GOP establishment.

    The thing is, he hasn’t show any recent desire at all to do the sort of unheralded, anonymous work involved in something like a staff job with an officeholder. He has done low-profile volunteer work for the LP in the past, but does he have it in him to do it again? He might be addicted to (some level of) limelight by now.

  99. Anthony Dlugos

    re: Barr endorsement.

    As some of you may know, data shows that endorsements usually have no effect on the outcome of a race, save the exception of an unusual endorsement, for example one that crosses party or ideological lines. This Barr endorsement of Petersen really isn’t one of them.

    AWP’s real problem is that he has no infrastructure in Missouri, no access to GOP insiders in the state that can get such an infrastructure up and running quickly. Sending a bunch of “ninjas” on the road packed five to a car knocking on doors just ain’t gonna cut it.

    Then again, as TK pointed out, he may already know he can’t win and just set his sites on a more realistic goal, say 15% or something.

  100. robert capozzi

    dL,

    I don’t see BB as a Rainmaker at all. Are you just kidding, I hope?

    Or is this some sort of wild overreaction?

  101. Thomas L. Knapp

    Kind of an irrelevant poll, since Petersen has almost no chance of “representing the liberty agenda (or any other agenda) in the Missouri US Senate race,” while Dearn’s chances of doing so are pretty good.

    That is, Petersen is about as likely to win the Republican Senate primary as I am to be proclaimed by the United Kingdom King Thomas I, by the Grace of God King of this Realm and of his other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith; while Dearn’s chances of winning any Libertarian primary and appearing on the November ballot are quite good.

  102. Thane Eichenauer (@ilovegrover)

    I have admitted many a time that the only poll that counts is the one on election day.

    Mental note to self, check on opensecrets.com for Kid Rock and Austin Petersen on January 1st, 2018 to see how much money they have raised.

  103. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    Anyone know when he made this (evidently) pod cast? Used as anti-libertarian attack in this youtube site. I assume it was sometime between June of 16 and his leaving the party. https://youtu.be/qAKkv8OS0MY

  104. dL

    interesting related article (liberal rant)
    http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/07/dems-can-abandon-the-center-because-the-center-doesnt-exist.html

    Graphical data “there are almost no libertarians in the United States”)

    George, this was discussed in part back in June
    http://independentpoliticalreport.com/2017/06/open-thread-for-june-2017/#comment-1619468

    My Conclusion at the time: There is no David Boaz/Nick Gillespie libertarian-leaning/centrist voting coalition begging for service. A libertarian candidate would win simply b/c:
    (1) that candidate sufficiently fund raised to win
    (2) managed to portray himself/herself as on the side of the voter while negatively attacking opponents as not on the side of the voters

Leave a Reply

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