New Hampshire’s Nashua Telegraph has a story this morning about how there may be two Libertarian options — Bob Barr and George Phillies — on the state’s presidential ballot. The newspaper notes Barr’s 10% poll showing in the state, and says that “with Phillies already earning the state party’s support, some libertarians fret that Barr might not gain enough signatures needed to even make the ballot, and if he does, the double Libertarian offering might lead voters to ignore them both.”
New Hampshire LP Chair Brendan Kelly “said Barr has supporters pounding the pavement and should acquire the necessary signatures by the Aug. 6 deadline. Potentially having two candidates on one ballot shouldn’t pose any problems, Kelly said. In fact, it benefits the party, he said.” Kelly said, “Look at the attention it’s going to draw. You can tell Libertarians, ‘Look at the ballot. You have a choice.’ And any attention is good attention.” Kelly said Phillies “could bow out and cede the ballot to Barr,” but “nothing at the moments suggests that will occur.”
The history of the LPNH nomination has been REPEATEDLY hashed out, it seems only those to slow to realize that just because someone buys the nomination of the LP (from a “for sale to the highest bidder LNC”) it does NOT mean they are a Libertarian.
Repeat of the short history – petitioning in NH is fairly difficult, and because the law allows ALL the candidates for a party to be on one petition sheet (with one sheet per signer) a drive in NH is somewhat of an “all or nothing” proposition. NH law is also VERY clear that substitution is NOT allowed – the assumption is that the person signing a petition wants THAT candidate on the ballot, not some “to be named later” unknown. The “petition window” for NH closes shortly after the Natcon, but in 2004 the LPNH held petitioning for the entire state party (while expressing concern about it) in order to comply with National’s wishes to have the National candidate on the ballot. Badnarik got nominated, and National dropped the ball, with the result that there were almost NO Libertarian candidates on the ballot in NH (embarrassing for the Free State Project state to put it mildly…)
This time around, the LPNH was determined not to get screwed over by National again, so at their State Convention late last year, they opted to nominate a presidential candidate in advance of Natcon so they could collect signatures for a full slate, and thus guarantee that their state level candidates, as well as SOME presidential candidate would be on the ballot, without having to depend on LPHQ’s proven unreliability….
Because of the way petitioning works, in NH, it does not cost anything extra to include a presidential candidate on an existing drive. LPNH was going to start their drive early regardless in order to ensure that the REST of their slate got on the ballot. They also had told National that they were only going to pay for one drive, so if they didn’t put a presidential candidate on, the ENTIRE cost of a second drive for the LP Pres. candidate would be LPHQ’s.
At that point in time, Mary had been saying she was NOT going to run, and Barr was still hiding out under his rock with the other slime creatures…
Of the ANNOUNCED candidates at the time, George appeared to be the strongest, and most likely to win the nomination. Kubby had no money, and it wasn’t clear if he could legally leave CA. W.A.R. was considered a pro-war hawk, as he hadn’t gotten his focus groups running well enough to know which way to flip-flop yet. None of the other *then announced* candidates did even as well as George, so based on the choices available AT THAT TIME the LPNH felt they made a reasonable choice.
It is also worth noting that by naming the candidate they thought most likely to get the nomination, and including him in the ballot drive that they were GOING TO DO REGARDLESS, they would have saved the LP the cost of a second drive, and looked like heroes if George had gotten the nomination.
Currently, George has the LPNH nomination, and has filed the requisite paperwork with the state. The LPNH according to my sources is no happier with Barr than the LPMA is, and has essentially taken the position that they have a candidate they are happy with, and see no need for a second one. If Barr wants to run in NH, he can do his own drive…
(FWIW, my information on this comes from BOTH George Phillies himself, and several friends who are officers and activists in the LPNH – and the two sides agree as to what happenned.)
As a second side note, I spent most of July 4th with George, my GF, and some LPNH activists at the Merrimack, NH parade and town fair working an OPH / LPNH outreach booth. We did collect a few signatures for the BARR drive, with GEORGE PHILLIES collecting the most sigs for Barr by a large margin (I didn’t get any, as the ONLY signature I will give the Barr / Root ticket is mine on a paper authorizing substitution as a Presidential Elector in Mass if required – I will NOT pledge to vote for him…)
ART
LPMA Operations Facilitator
LPMA Presidential Elector – NOT voting for Barr!
Elected Libertarian
Speaking for myself
If the LPNH gets disaffiliated over this we will gladly have them as a chapter of the BTP:)
Isn’t there a requirement for a state affiliate to list the party’s presidential nominee on their state ballot? The LPNH is risking disaffiliation and losing the right to the name “Libertarian”. Hopefully they will see how counterproductive this course of action is and support their party.
That “strong consideration” assumes that my vote for Charles Jay would be counted. Otherwise, I would definitely have voted for Phillies. He was not my first (or second or third) choice for the top slot, but I would have supported him had he won the nomination.
That all said, if George Phillies were on the ballot in Michigan, I would strongly consider voting for him, and I would definitely vote for him over Barr. Even if the two are equally unlibertarian, at least Phillies is a man worthy of respect who is a long-time big-L Libertarian; and not a cowardly abortionist neocon, lecturing gays on morality while getting divorced whenever the mood strikes.
Mike – I seem to be the only one who thinks that George Phillies is a marvelous speaker, which I have said pretty much from Day One (or at least the point at which he began improving). If he had the right views, I think he’d be an excellent spokesman for liberty. As it is, he is an excellent spokesman for liberty on some issues, and an excellent spokesman for statism and the status quo on others. I think his speaking and debating style was the best of all the candidates in the race.
Maynard writes “Fortunately, EVERY court precedent in US history has been in favor of substitutions.”
In that case, the path to Libertarian victory is trivial.
Sue to substitute two libertarians, one for McCain, and one for Obama. (8^))
One might propose, given the warnings from New Hampshire that their petitioning was challenging, that petitioning for Barr should have started on May 30 rather than July 3, but, hey, who ever listens to the folks on the ground.
Sorry, but it was just a totally amatuerish move by the LPNH to “nominate” a candidate at state level who is nominated at the national level.
Fortunantly, EVERY court precedent in US history has been in favor of substiutions. I would hate to see Barr waste money trying to undo the damage done, but it should be an easy in-and-out case should he decide to suit.
I figure that they probably wanted to make sure they had as much time as possible for petitions, but as Barr is showing, when you have a REAL candidate, someone who has actually gotten themsleves elected, they can get the petitioning done in a heartbeat.
And as for George, I kind of know him – he’s a decent enough guy, really smart, and friendly enough. The trouble is that politically, he hasn’t gotten elected to lower office yet. The office of President of the United States is NOT an entry-level position. If George wants to run for state rep, mayor, whatever, I’d support him in a heartbeat. But not President. Sorry.
It boils down to this, IMHO: If you haven’t gotten yourself elected to even city council or alderman, much less US Congree or Senate, don’t even THINK of running for President, because no one is going to vote for you.
Barr is, far and away, the most Liberty-minded qualified candidate on the ballot. Go Bob!
THANK YOU!
I’ve been asking for months why people don’t like him and the best I got was a “nasal voice”.
Thank you. Critical thinking!
“for reasons unknown.”
See above.
George has said that Mary Ruwart and Bob Barr are equidistant from “true libertarianism” — presumably by “true libertarianism,” he means his brand of anti-free trade, anti-immigration, pro-Fed, pro-post New Deal judicial activism, and extraconstitutional libertinism.
I think George is a good fellow, but I would turn his statement around on him and say that he and Barr are equidistant from “true libertarianism” as exemplified by Mary Ruwart.
“The people of New Hampshire deserve a libertarian candidate on their ballot, and George provides one.”
Right, because we need libertarian candidates who think abolishing the Federal Reserve and withdrawing from the U.N. are right-wing conspiracies. We need libertarian candidates who endorse state-defined marriage. That’s exactly what libertarians stand for.
George Phillies should NOT bow out in NH!
I’ve never had that big of a problem with Phillies, even though most libertarians hate him with a passion for reasons unknown.
“Charles Jay is still more libertarian than both Barr & Phillies combined in my opinion.”
I concur.
A few weeks ago, I looked at the New Hampshire LP website, trying to find some state officers. They were nowhere to be found.
I am glad that Brendan Kelly responded to the press. The “two candidates for President,” actually makes the New Hampshire Libertarian Party, and the Libertarian Party look like fools. I recently read a post by a New Hampshire Libertarian who insisted that unless the national LP candidate was on the ballot in New Hampshire, he would have nothing more to do with the LP.
Of course, my first thought was… why wasn’t that individual better informed about what was happening in his state, and making direct efforts to fix the problems.
Anyway, Kelly’s passive construction stating that maybe Phillies will withdraw, but that doesn’t look likely to happen suggests a serious deficit of leadership. It is the New Hampshire Libertarian Party’s responsibility to get Barr on the ballot and to demand that Phllies withdraw.
If I lived in NH, I would vote for neither. Charles Jay is still more libertarian than both Barr & Phillies combined in my opinion.
I am a great fan of this action by George Phillies. The people of New Hampshire deserve a libertarian candidate on their ballot, and George provides one. With Barr on the ballot, the people of NH will just have one more racist social conservative war enthusiast.