Boston Tea Party’s Charles Jay to appear on Fox News

Charles Jay, the presidential nominee of the Boston Tea Party, will appear on Fox’s “America’s Election Headquarters” this Sunday, September 21. The live interview is scheduled to air at 12:45 p.m., Eastern, on Fox News Channel.

34 thoughts on “Boston Tea Party’s Charles Jay to appear on Fox News

  1. G.E. Post author

    Hopefully someone will YouTube it. I canceled my cable last month — best decision I’ve ever made in my entire life.

  2. G.E. Post author

    Fair enough, considering he’s lacked sufficient supporters to serve as electors in the vast majority of states.

  3. JimDavidson

    That’s a snarky comment, GE. Charles Jay has had sufficient supporters to serve as electors in every state where we’ve organised a ballot initiative. We’re on in the three states where we tried to get on.

    It is fair to say that we’re not on in 47 other states, nor in DC, nor in the territories. We did get started very late this year. But, how were we to predict the LP would nominate an evil war monger CIA agent drug war prosecutor?

  4. Vin

    Charles Jay is my blog’s second third party political feature (first was Terry “Tee” Barkdull). Interested to see where he stands on things other than gambling, since unless I’m mistaken, his campaign website doesn’t really get into issues.

  5. TheOriginalAndy

    The Boston Tea Party could have obtained ballot access in more states if they had started earlier. They should have started right after Barr won the LP nomination.

  6. Thomas L. Knapp


    Barr won the nomination on what, May 27th?

    The Boston Tea Party turned in its Colorado ballot paperwork about 20 days later — 24-48 hours after we nominated our slate.

  7. TheOriginalAndy

    The Boston Tea Party could have taken advantage of all of the Libertarian who were disgruntled with Bob Barr and tried to get on the ballot in more states that have low signature requirements, such as New Jersey (800 signatures), Rhode Island (1,000 signatures), Vermont (1,000 signatures), Minnesota (2,000 signatures), and Wisconsin (2,000 signatures),, to name a few.

  8. Thomas L. Knapp


    When you say “the Boston Tea Party could have,” you’re making certain assumptions that aren’t necessarily safe ones.

    Keep in mind, the Boston Tea Party’s national committee is bylaws-forbidden to raise more than $4,999. Not $4,999 a year, or $4,999 a month. $4,999. Ever.

    There’s are REASONS for that. If you want to see one of them, take a good long look at the disfunctionality of the Libertarian National Committee. If you want to see another, see the truckload of red tape that gets dumped on top of a party committee by the FEC as soon as it has raised $5,000.

    We don’t do “top-down,” we don’t do “central planning by national committee,” and we don’t do “build a bureaucracy of our own to handle filing the paperwork the government’s bureaucracy wants.”

    In the BTP, things get done from the grass roots, or they don’t get done at all.

    In the BTP, the money gets raised by the candidates, campaigns, and state affiliates, or it doesn’t get raised at all.

    The presidential campaign and the local members raised the money, recruited the electors, hired the petitioners, etc., to get on the ballot in Colorado, Florida and Tennessee. Our volunteers in Alabama made a hard run at gathering signatures through volunteer effort alone. We had a spot of bad luck in Louisiana when the guy we were counting on to round up electors decided to round up said electors for another candidate (Ron Paul) instead.

    Do I wish that we’d been able to drum up the money to run ballot access campaigns in other states? Yes, I do.

    Is it as simple as “the Boston Tea Party could have?” No, it’s not.

    We did what we could, and we tried to concentrate on doing what we could do well rather than trying to do more than we could do well and end up dropping the ball.

    I expect that in 2012, we’ll be able to do much more than we were able to do this year. I also expect that word will get around among petitioners that in Tennessee, we negotiated the contract, paid like a slot machine and stayed the hell out of the way instead of playing the kinds of bullshit games the LP has apparently played with petitioners this year.


  9. G.E. Post author

    Jim – Snarky but true. I’m pissed. I wanted to vote for Jay but the Michigan BTP was able to get together just two electors. I wasn’t even asked. I’m very disappointed that my vote will not be counted for liberty.

  10. G.E. Post author

    And also, it’s great news that Jay will be on Fox. I hope he gets a chance to diss Barr.

    Jim – Please don’t mistake me. I think Jay is a good person and a great candidate, and I think the BTP is a wonderful pro-liberty organization.

  11. Mike Theodore

    So Jay’s only objective will be to rail at Barr? The majority of folks don’t give a damn about our inter-fighting (even as I don’t think he was ever with the LP, and even ran against Badnarik).

  12. G.E. Post author

    Where do you get this?

    Me saying “I hope” something doesn’t mean that it IS, or especially that it IS the ONLY.

    They don’t teach logic at public schools anymore, do they?

  13. Jason_Gatties

    To be fair, I asked GE and you informed me you could get your wife to be an elector.

    Just saying…

    We had a few for Jay, just not enough. There’s still time I believe but time is running thin. I would still serve as a Jay elector even though I’m barely involved with the BTP and not involved at all at the State Level.

  14. Mike Theodore

    Today just isn’t my day.
    Have to turn on, got a debate in 9 hours!

    Ok, a chance, sure. But I don’t think the whole thing should be about it, which it could be. I remember when Sonny Landham was being interviewed following the racist comments, the debate was on the comments, then him and Todd Andrew Bennett got into a debate about the Boston Tea Party and the LP. That pretty much took the spotlight off the comments (although it revealed unlibertarian positions in other areas).

  15. G.E. Post author

    September 5 was the deadline.

    And you didn’t ask me; I asked you.

    But, uh… I don’t want to go into this any deeper in public, Jason.

  16. G.E. Post author

    MT – Internecine conflicts aside, Jay needs to distinguish himself from Barr in order to sell himself to liberty-minded voters.

  17. Mike Theodore

    Ya, but people tend to drown out continuous drawling about BTP-LP differences. Even I was getting bored versus Barnett v. Landham, and I obviously have nothing else to do.

  18. G.E. Post author

    Jason – I remember it differently, but I’ll take your word for it, Jason. Sorry.

    I guess I was asked to be an elector for Jay.

  19. Jason_Gatties

    You conceded defeat too early damn it GE!

    I’ll just publicly state that I’m also on pain meds half the time for my back problem and GE may have been correct as well.

    Back to the subject…Congrats Jay. Good to see him get some media coverage.

  20. JimDavidson

    The Boston Tea Party could have taken advantage of all of the Libertarian who were disgruntled with Bob Barr and tried to get on the ballot in more states that have low signature requirements, such as New Jersey (800 signatures), Rhode Island (1,000 signatures), Vermont (1,000 signatures), Minnesota (2,000 signatures), and Wisconsin (2,000 signatures),, to name a few.”

    Andy, at this time we do not have a Boston Tea Party state affiliate in any of those states. We did once have the appearance of a New Jersey affiliate, but I was not able to validate the residence of any of its members.

    Personally, I don’t think we’ve taken advantage of any LP members. So far, about 320 people have joined our party, many of them also now or formerly members of the LP. Some gruntled, some disgruntled, some yet to gruntle. When I joined the BTP, I was 30th. So, I’ve grown the party nearly eleven-fold.

    Growing the party, forming state affiliates, and getting dozens of candidates endorsed, along with a number of admin functions, has taken quite a bit of my time. Tom pointed out on another thread (maybe on another site?) that the Boston Tea Party is on in more states with our first presidential candidate than the LP was on in 1972.

    GE, I don’t live in Michigan. I don’t know why you and Jason and Todd didn’t go to the local colleges, or bars, or political rallies, or Ron Paul Meetup groups, to find electors. I was never asked to find electors in Michigan. I never expected we would meet Michigan’s signature requirement. And, like I say, I’ve been a little busy.

    We are in the process of adding our twelfth formal state affiliate. Earlier today I was informed by e-mail that on the state of Washington’s Facebook group, I noted it was the 26th such group, but there aren’t but 20 listed on our social networking page at – and the Evergreen State is not one of them! Yep, there are missing Facebook groups, built and lost in cyberspace. So, there’s another task, gathering in the lost sheep.

    Point being, we have created a whole lot of stuff for people to use to get themselves organised in their several states. It is my job as national chair of the party to say, “yes, you can,” and invite people to join. I’ve invited a whole lot of people to join, and over 455 have joined our main Facebook group – out of some 1200+ that I’ve personally invited.

    It isn’t my job to pay for the wet T-shirt contest in Alabama. It isn’t my job to pay for the ballot access work. It isn’t my job to get the Boston Tea Party on the ballot in your state.

    It is my considered opinion that by the end of the party’s national convention in October we’ll have about 15 recognised state affiliates and about 15 in some stage of formation. I think we’ll have on the order of 500 members on our national site, and somewhat more on Facebook. I think we’ll have about three dozen candidates endorsed. (At one time, there were about two dozen candidates to be found on the web site, my goal has been to do better at endorsing LP candidates and publicising them on our site than the LP had done by the end of the convention in May.)

    Is it good enough? No. It is not. I am not satisfied that everyone who wants to be free is able to live free. Therefore, our work is not done.

    But that’s all I’m willing to do. That’s when my turn as chair ends, and someone else can do some work.

    Is the Boston Tea Party going to survive into 2010? I think it should. I think we have a critical mass of interested people, enough state affiliates, and enough activists to make it go. But, I tell you quite plainly, right here, if it does not, that isn’t my problem.

  21. TheOriginalAndy

    I wasn’t aware of the Boston Tea Party having such a unique set of rules. Still, it is a shame that the party won’t be on the ballot in more states.

    Are there any plans for the Boston Tea Party to do anything for 2010 or 2012?

    Hopefully in 2012 the Libertarian Party will have a Presidential candidate that appeals to more of the Libertarian base and there won’t be a need for a Boston Tea Party Presidential candidate.

  22. Jason_Gatties

    Well I can’t speak for anyone else Jim, but Jason….little busy running a campaign and making babies. And for you to assume that I didn’t GO TO A COLLEGE AND ATTEMPT TO RECRUIT ELECTORS WHEN I’M RUNNING FOR A SEAT ON A COLLEGE BOARD OF TRUSTEES IS FRANKLY IGNORANT.

    I hate people who assume.

  23. G.E. Post author

    Jim – I never said it was your job.

    I said that Mike Theodore’s comment that Jay might not have a supporter to put up a YouTube of his Fox News appearance was “fair,” considering he did not have enough supporters to fill an electoral slate in my — or many other — states. The former is an opinion, the latter is a fact. It is unfortunate that more people are not excited enough about liberty. No matter what Jason or Todd did, I’m sure they didn’t deny people who asked to be electors. If Jay had a huge supporter-base, enough people would have sought out the job. So Theodore made a snarky comment, and I was just saying that although snarky, it was “fair” in my estimation. No need for any further discussion on the matter as far as I’m concerned.

  24. G.E. Post author

    And when I said “I’m pissed,” I wasn’t saying I was at you, at Todd or Jason, or anyone else, but at the situation. I want my vote for Charles Jay to be counted.

  25. paulie cannoli

    I also expect that word will get around among petitioners that in Tennessee, we negotiated the contract, paid like a slot machine and stayed the hell out of the way instead of playing the kinds of bullshit games the LP has apparently played with petitioners this year.


  26. TheOriginalAndy

    I hope that somebody records the Charles Jay appearance on FOX News and puts it on YouTube. Anybody out there planning to do this?

  27. VTV

    Hey G.E. Just an FYI, I will be passing out Scotty Boman’s flyers at Voter Polooza in Port Huron today. Wish me luck, I get to debate the Democrat and the Green. Looks like the neo-con Candice Miller chickened out at the last minute.

  28. Mike Theodore

    G.E., I wasn’t being snarky or anything. I don’t go around doing that to people I have nothing against. It’s just that the failure to Youtube stuff has been a consistent problem for third parties, more so for small ones.

  29. G.E. Post author

    Well, if I was being snarky for defending your comment, I would assume that you were being snarky for saying it in the first place.


  30. FreeMarketeer

    So did anyone watch Jay’s FN interview? I saw it. He did okay, but he didn’t seem too impressive on my TV screen.

    Anyway, I did record his interview with my DVR, but I have no idea how to make a YouTube out of it. I’ll just have to wait until FoxNews posts it on its website.

    Did anyone happen to record it by the way?

    Yours in Liberty,

    Todd Andrew Barnett
    Vice Chair, Boston Tea National Committee

Leave a Reply

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