LNC efforts to address ‘Snubgate’ in a deadlock

An inside source says that the grassroots effort to replace Bob Barr as the Libertarian Party’s presidential nominee, in response to “Snubgate,” has been rejected by the LNC, with not a single person on the 17-member body willing to make the motion.

Instead, LNC at-large rep Mary Ruwart supports a resolution to “apologize” to Ron Paul. The “pro-Barr faction,” led by Treasurer Aaron Starr, favors a resolution “chastising” Ron Paul — presumably for not endorsing Bob Barr and “splitting the Freedom Movement.”

Neither resolution is said to have enough votes to pass.

67 thoughts on “LNC efforts to address ‘Snubgate’ in a deadlock

  1. G.E. Post author

    They’re not “false” choices — they do in fact exist. They’re competing resolutions, neither of which seems likely to pass.

    I don’t really care anymore, having sworn off the LP (and it feels great!), but to the extent that I do care, I hope Starr’s resolution passes, thus mechanizing the LP and not allowing it to cause any further damage to the Freedom Movement.

  2. G.E. Post author

    By the way, Spence: I sent you an email at the address you used to register at IPR. I hope that’s your real one.

  3. Sivarticus

    What failure! I appreciate Ruwart’s effort, but an apology from the LP doesn’t mean much unless it comes right from Barr’s lips. The damage has already been done and there’s no way Barr will get over 1% now without help from Ron Paul supporters. Baldwin, on the other hand, might optimistically increase CP votes by a few hundred thousand and get half a percent.

  4. amyb31416

    The LP can forget about me ever supporting them. Perhaps local candidates, but even then.

    Chastise this Starr. Asshole.

  5. John P Slevin

    Silvarticus,

    “…The damage has already been done and there’s no way Barr will get over 1% now …”

    Nowhere, NOWHERE, was it evident the LP ever would achieve something like 1%.

    Some on this site often have thought Ron Paul should have done more in his primaries.

    We live in a Gulag, electorally. As soon as more people grow up and realize that the better.

    It IS NOT POSSIBLE to actually win elections standing on principle. Even IF you can raise the money the other side has it rigged so they can neutralize that.

    It takes realizing that to get around it. For that reason, the LP ought to engage in new media, new approaches, instead, it’s more of the same BOTH from the Barr side and from the LP national (same people at both).

    These people are idiots. Reject leadership at all times (not a new recommendation for any actual libertarian) and certainly reject the kind of cronyism/nestbuilding which ALWAYS has been the LNC.

    Don’t send them a dime, don’t give the Barr campaign a dime.

    Support ballot access, support true reform.

    Whatever you do, DO NOT support the next wave of criminals waiting in the wings. They are the faction headed by Mary Ruwart. Another bunch of incompetents bent ONLY on personal profit, personal aggrandizement and on the cult of one meager bookseller who only wants to sell more books. Someone who already has shown herself unworthy of support (Keaton matter).

    These people crave power. Deny them their fix.

  6. Spence

    I meant false choices in the sense that these choices are the wrong ones to be debating. “Apologizing” won’t make a difference, as Sivarticus has stated, and chastising Ron Paul is equally questionable. Keep in mind that I view both sides in this controversy very critically, though lean towards Ron Paul, and I believe that a “resolution” apologizing to him would mean as much as those he vetoes in Congress.

  7. johnlowell

    The limitations of the Libertarian Party and libertarianism generally as a vehicle for anti-system politics becomes obvious with this “snub gate” – or “schlemeil gate”, as I term it – development. There would seem to be no mind either for rethinking the problem of Bob Barr, and Bob Barr is unquestionably a problem. Paul’s supporters now will indoubtedly gravitate to Baldwin which is to be considered a positive, actually. Barr, Verney & Co, in choosing isolation from the anti-system bloc, need precisely that: To be isolated. Any further mention or publicity given the Barr campaign here and elsewhere needs to be rethought. Time for a little hardball, I’d say. If you’re not with the anti-system bloc, you’re against it.

  8. amyb31416

    I agree John, not even another mention of Barr for me. Perhaps not even the LP.

    I am so pissed off.

  9. John P Slevin

    amy31416,

    You have the right idea, wrong solution.

    Certainly support local candidates. Bust your butt doing so. That’s where it IS at.

    ALL govt money IS spent locally, THERE ARE 2 reasons the LP is stuck on the presidential elections process.]

    First, they are idiots.

    2nd, it makes them money (and the “them” are the people who receive the money deposited into those accounts).
    Those are the ONLY 2 reasons the LP has stuck with the top down model.

    Deny them this. Simply don’t support it.

    Either you understand that the purpose NEVER has been to support a strong or stronger LP or you do not.

    It’s NOT about party building. It IS about negating the powers which control us.

    You do that locally. You do it thru city councils and everything below and above LOCALLY.

    Aside from candidacies at the local level, and for my money MUCH MORE important are citizen movements. Things like local referenda are FAR, FAR more effective.

    The voters ALREADY are on our side (have been since the inception of the LP).

    It long is past the time for the LP to think “outside the box”.

    What has to happen is for the idiots who are the national LP to understand that they are not the show.

    Equally important is for principled LP members NEVER to support those who will wield power.

    EVERY LP member “of note” who strives for reform always seeks simply to replace the idiots at National instead of simply acknowledging the very obvious truth.

    The LP cannot succeed at dismantling the state as long as it structures itself in accordance with State rules.

    Defy your local central committee. Tell your State Party you will NOT give them a dime. Don’t give a dime to anything in which you have no say.

    Now, dangerously, that is a libertarian solution, and it NEVER has gained creedence among Libertarian “top dogs” but it is so obvious that anyone, anyone ought to recognize and act upon the central truth of that.

    And, finally, always remember, you have not lost as long as the locals are on YOUR side.

    ALL POLITICS IS LOCAL.

  10. Fred Church Ortiz

    Any further mention or publicity given the Barr campaign here and elsewhere needs to be rethought.

    I don’t believe we’re going to stop posting about the Barr campaign or the LP here.

  11. amyb31416

    Thanks for the thoughtful post John, helps negate my first impression of you as an angry, ranting loon. 😉

    You said: “It long is past the time for the LP to think “outside the box”.”

    Absolutely. It’s time for all Americans to think outside the box. And I will never give any organization a penny unless I’m treated well and have some say.

    Thanks, just cooling off after this little press release.

  12. AnthonyD

    While I can sympathize with the sentiment behind Aaron Starr’s resolution chastising the cowardly self-involved soft-core racist and conspiracy theorist ron paul, better to let sleeping dogs lie and leave”snubgate” behind forever.

    However, perhaps the Starr resolution was simply a tactical maneuver that would have forced the LNC members to make a choice, in case this feckless effort to replace Barr got any traction.

  13. johnlowell

    John P. Slevin,

    While a local response is to be considered appropriate, a local focus isn’t. The Perot and Paul phemonena would never have even come about without a national focus. It’s time for the Barr candidacy, now a kind of pestilence, to be dealt with where it is most clearly located, nationally. Clearly these vermin require fumigation at this point. Cut off funds locally, of course, but end the publicity, the recognition, the acknowledgements. Barr is a reptile and should be contained as one might contain a reptile. There is no better course.

  14. johnlowell

    Fred Church Ortiz,

    “I don’t believe we’re going to stop posting about the Barr campaign or the LP here.”

    The Barr campaign will remain just that much more viable, then, Fred, and we will have those that can manage no restraint to thank for it.

  15. John P Slevin

    amyb31416, wishing to preserve at all times my undeniable right to be a “loon” there are other, somewhat more pressing forces at play here.

    The LP NEVER has acknowledged the idiocy of its existence. Always, thru EVERY LNC, there has been party building and personal empire building (which is a nice way to say outright theft of donor resources).

    When someone like G.E. Smith criticizes the LNC for the theft which IS BILL REDPATH”S ENTIRE LIFE states that I get upset.

    Why? Because G.E. proposes MORE theft to solve the problem of what even he calls the “criminals” at the LNC.

    The LNC is a GOVERNMENT created body. We Must have one, but we need to structure our legal affairs in mind so that we can pay no mind to the LNC.

    Get it? Why play THEIR game?

    ALL LNC’s in history have been staffed and managed, in the main, by THIEVES.

    Is any Libertarian shocked, surprised?

    If so, I’m tired of trying to make the point.

    Still, I will keep making it.

    They ARE THIEVES. No one can look at ANY of the IDIOTS hired by the Barr campaign (restricting this JUST to the people that campaign hired away from the LP environs, and tell me ANY of these people have a truthful resume. Start with Gordon’s, and go thru the rest. These are dirtbags, pure and simple.

    Now, I don’t know Verney, or the other outsiders hired by Barr, so I cannot and will not slime them. However, anyone looking at the claims Verney makes as to his “achievements” in the past should question those….the LP never did.

    Hell, the LP officially subsidized this guy with speaker fees over the years.

    Shrewd, huh?

    How about we be shrewd enough to actually examine the resume of those who claim great achievement in their “past”.. Start with Gordon’s claims. The guy is an absolute fraud.

  16. John P Slevin

    And it does NOT say alot for Barr that he bought that fraud, but I can understand that. Gordon usurped and defrauded while at the LNC, and Barr needed that to get the nomination.

    Understand, UNLESS you are underhanded, you DO NOT get the LP nomination.

    That is EXACTLY why Mary Ruwart is doing what she now is doing.

    Those who want to control the LP are the ones we must hold AT ALL TIMES as enemies.

    THAT is why absolutely, purely, demonstrably UNACCOMPLISHED people like Ruwart, like G.E, like the Barr staff, like the LNC members and the LP staff must ALWAYS be held in contempt.

    Frankly, they DO NOT KNOW THEIR BUTTS FROM A HOLE IN THE WALL.

  17. ElfNinosMom

    This is precisely what I expected to happen. I could say something really nasty about the LNC right now, but it would be a waste of my keystrokes so I won’t bother.

    What I will suggest, however, is that everyone upset by this situation stop paying dues or otherwise supporting LP National. Your dues go only to feed the beast which both permitted and tolerated this situation, and certainly are not required in order to register to vote as a libertarian, much less vote for libertarian candidates. Send that money instead to local candidates who will appreciate it and use it wisely, and thus allow the LNC become every bit as powerless as it is irrelevant.

  18. John P Slevin

    ElfNinosMom,

    Many have said that before.

    WHEN AND IF you ALSO say there SHOULD BE NO LNC then, and ONLY then will you have my support.

    Libertarians are the first people of whom it should be assumed that state structured parties ARE NOT the solution.

    Of course we “need” an LNC to satisfy various election laws. However, we NEVER need to invest it with the kind of “importance” it holds in legal circles

    Remember, we are trying to beat the bastards. Why play by their rules?

    IDIOTS always do what the Ruwart people ALWAYS have done. You don’t get rid of the crooks by emulating them.

  19. Spence

    “The Barr campaign will remain just that much more viable, then, Fred, and we will have those that can manage no restraint to thank for it.”

    Manage restraint? You’re talking about censorship here. How is this better than the MSM?

  20. John P Slevin

    You “need LNC” and “state parties” and “county central committees” ONLY to the extent the State requires it for OUR needs.

    We need ballot access and conformance with campaign finance laws.

    Everything else is UP TO OUR IMAGINATION.

    Imagine an LP with actually proven people at the helm! Imagine an LP staffed by people who actually exist to serve the better instincts of LP members.

    In short, imagine an LP existing to serve its’ members and not to rip them off.

    It never has existed. Now is the time to create that.

    You start that process by NEVER allowing ONE PERSON who EVER has held an LP title to hold one again. You denounce ALL those people

    ALL have proven inferior simply because ALL of them, EVERY DAMN ONE OF THEM, sought power, rather than tried to eliminate it.

  21. SFMeier

    Sure seems like a catch 22… those that want the nomination shouldn’t be allowed to get it.

    I think that we need to look at how we pick our candidates. That Barr was able to run at the last moment for the nomination sugests that we libertarian voters who bothered to vote in the primaries are not counted.

    I think, at least for those states that hold primaries that the states delagits should be forced to vote proportionantly for the candidate as the voters of the state voted. For at least the first 3 ballots.

    I think that for those states that don’t have primaries that the conties should take a straw poll and the state party should talley the county straw polls and that those state deligates should be required to vote as their constituents asked for at least the first three ballots.

    As candidates are dropped durring the convention at each ballot each state deligation should reflect that elimination and repraportion themselves to reflect the will off their states libertarian voters.

  22. johnlowell

    Spence,

    “Manage restraint? You’re talking about censorship here. How is this better than the MSM?”

    Now don’t go into a decline about all of this, Spence, no one has suggested censorship. For those that are capable of exercizing some minimal personal discipline, are mature enough for it, and not likely to vere off into incontinence because of it, I’ve simply suggested making Barr persona non grata around here. Now if you find that personally repugnant, then don’t kvetch if Bob’s always the subject of future attentions. You have it in your power to help put an end to that.

  23. Spence

    No, no. You needn’t worry about that part. I’m all for destroying the LP at this point. It’s a failed brand. The people who lead it, both locally and nationally have failed in securing liberty for over 37 years now.

    Understand that I’m apprehensive anyone endorses bias or omitting certain things in order to gain a following. And since, I very much doubt that Barr’s on anyone’s list of favorite people here, even those who were planning on voting for him strictly to preserve ballot status, it seems that there is very little else you meant.

  24. John P Slevin

    Spence,

    You are correct in your suspicion. The power does reside in access to the ballot.

    However, don’t miscontrue that as an LP flaw. That is the way the system works. The STATE gives parties power, gives them ballot slots.

    I’m all for removing that power from the LP, but how?

    I am not that smart.

  25. johnlowell

    Spence,

    “…. it seems that there is very little else you meant.”

    Not that I’m overly concerned with your personal apprehensions, I’m not. I am, however, unwilling to allow you so casually to mischaracterize my statements. If you’d read and grasped what I’d said initially, I’d pointed to Barr’s expressed desire to isolate himself from Paul’s joint undertaking. If helping Barr to realize his own objectives is to be considered “censorship”, then its clearly of a self-imposed variety. A little more precision, kindly.

  26. Spence

    Casually? How dare you. Earlier you stated:

    “Any further mention or publicity given the Barr campaign here and elsewhere needs to be rethought. Time for a little hardball, I’d say. If you’re not with the anti-system bloc, you’re against it.”

    And then you said to Mr. Ortiz: “The Barr campaign will remain just that much more viable, then, Fred, and we will have those that can manage no restraint to thank for it.”

    What else would that amount to? You defend your stance simply because Barr wouldn’t share the stage, and while I don’t condone what he did, even if the whole thing seems overblown, that certainly doesn’t equate to cutting all coverage of him simply because of your interpretation.

  27. Spence

    “However, don’t miscontrue that as an LP flaw. That is the way the system works. The STATE gives parties power, gives them ballot slots.”

    It IS an LP flaw because the LP has a double standard in this situation. No one, not even the “cult of the omnipotent State” created it for them. I’ll say again: the LP is a failed brand. Time to let it collapse.

    And BTW, any change that you’re going to make will invariably have to go through the system. But that’s not such a bad thing. Realize… that you are shaped by it just as much as anyone else. If you can realize how flawed it is from the inside, then you can surely use that flaw to your advantage.

    Wherever you close the front on one issue, you open a whole new host of problems up. The LP simply has not taken advantage of any of them and now time has nearly run out on the party of principle.

    You are absolutely right though on local base building though. This is where we should be focusing, but as I’ve said, come 2010, when you thought the water couldn’t get any higher, we’ll see how intact the Libertarian line still is.

  28. Steve LaBianca

    John P Slevin says:
    Whatever you do, DO NOT support the next wave of criminals waiting in the wings. They are the faction headed by Mary Ruwart. Another bunch of incompetents bent ONLY on personal profit, personal aggrandizement and on the cult of one meager bookseller who only wants to sell more books. Someone who already has shown herself unworthy of support (Keaton matter).

    These people crave power. Deny them their fix.

    This guy Slevin is a troll. He has no clue. Mary Ruwart is not interested in power. I know for a fact that she is interesting in getting the libertarian message out.

    Regarding Angela Keaton, I agree that she is controversial and holds little back, but she is a very competent and intelligent libertarian.

    This “person” Slevin posts only slander. Ignore his words, he/she is either completely uninformed, or a troll out to slander good libertarians.

  29. John P Slevin

    Stegev LaBianca,

    “THis person Slevin” personally has put the LP on the ballot in far more states than you..

    In simple point of fact, ” this person Slevin” has done so since 1978.

    Who IS this person LaBianca?

    Who are you? Never met you. Not in ANY state.

    It IS true that “this person Slevin” has NO involvement with ANY statist created entity, including that which is the LP. That SHOULD be self-explanatory.

    Sadly, pure IDIOTS like yourself fail to see it so I will ask you the same questions.

    WHAT exactly, at ANY time, ANYWHERE, has Ms. Ruwart achieved?

    Dont’ feel it’s a trick question, it is not. The gal, lady, politician, whatever you want to call her has done literally NOTHING, anywhere.

    What she does do is promote herself. She IS the epitomy of the State. She steals for a living.

    That is Ruwart.

    Again, I ask you, who the blank are you?

  30. John P Slevin

    Or, perhaps you are of the mindset that one believes by saying one believes. In that case, I pity you.

  31. John P Slevin

    Some of us believe in LIberty, and have been there to defend it, to try and reclaim it. Then, there are the hucksters. Chief among these, at this moment (since the current Barr hucksters have been exposed and won’t be getting much more) is Ruwart.

    Chief Thief, Ruwar. Look at her current actions on LNC, and just blame her for her sitting there. No one but a thief takes a position there.

  32. John P Slevin

    I’l take all this back once one EXPERIENCED person shows me the horde of libertarian believers Ruwart has brought into actual action.

    There are ZERO. Nowhere, nohow is Ruwart interested in that. She wants power without ANY expenditure of effort. She’s NEVER done a DAMN THING to advance liberty except write, and she sto0le all that wording. Smart? es. Attractive, sure. Accomplished. NO. She’s a twerp.

  33. John P Slevin

    But don’t worry Steve,

    This all is posted on IPR, and you have no trouble here. Here ALL is pretend. All is BASED UPON absolutely NO experience, NO achievement, but it is based upon fealty to that same lack of accomplishment.

    I don’t worry about my lack of accomplishment and you don’t either, I presume. Except, you are stuck with the people like G.E. Smith, who won’t even publish under his own name because the chicken shit little shit is scared.

    That is who Mary chose to deliver her nomination. Those people, like Ms. Ruwart, are DIRT.

  34. darolew

    Hey, Slevin. I’d like to introduce you to two magnificent HTML tags that work on IPR. One of them is called “italic”, and is written <i>text here</i> which produces text here. The other is called “bold”, and is written <b>text here</b> which appears as text here.

    I’d recommend using either of those to produce emphasis in your comments. Writing words in ALLCAPS makes it sound like you’re shouting, which will not help your point, and probably contributes to the “ranting lunatic” impression.

  35. johnlowell

    Spence,

    “What else would that amount to? You defend your stance simply because Barr wouldn’t share the stage, and while I don’t condone what he did, even if the whole thing seems overblown, that certainly doesn’t equate to cutting all coverage of him simply because of your interpretation.”

    Well, one thing is plain as hell, it’s sure not going to amount to my justifying myself to some arrogant shmendrik who reads “censorship” into an approach that never contemplated it. You work out the details, chief, I haven’t got further time to waste on you.

  36. Spence

    Arrogant? I’m simply working with what YOU gave me. Fine. Excuse yourself. You did nothing to clarify yourself this whole time anyway, which leads me to believe you really did not have any grounds to make the claim you did, and then do a 180 on them when confronted with it.

  37. sunshinebatman

    She apparently converted one of the bloggers here from a bolshevik Naderite into a bolshevik Naderite. . .

    I’ll take all this back once one EXPERIENCED person shows me the horde of libertarian believers Ruwart has brought into actual action.

  38. amyb31416

    Slevin–even after reading all your posts bashing Ruwart, it just sounds like you have something personal against her.

    I’ve never met her or heard her speak, but from what I’ve read she doesn’t sound bad and sounds like she’s been a pretty solid libertarian for a while.

    Why is it bad that she’s written a book?

  39. Coming Back to the LP

    Mary Ruwart is a good, decent person and a good Libertarian. She has run for office numerous times at the request of other people, not out of any personal ambition.

    I know. I recruited her to run her very first campaign, for local office in Michigan, long ago. I was sitting there when she was talked into seeking national office at the LP National Convention in NY in 1983. (I was opposed. I thought she should wait.) And I encouraged several others who sought out Mary and begged her to run in early 2008, when the LP was faced with a poor selection of potential nominees.

    You can criticize her writing and speaking style – but, have you done better or more? You might think she’s too radical, pure or doctrinaire. But,
    Mary Ruwart is a good, honest, Libertarian.

  40. Trent Hill

    Really? I read it, and found it to be pretty weak–different strokes I guess.

    The most influential book for me was Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom.

  41. rdupuy

    I started in the LP 20 years ago. Every year you get new people, every year, they find fault in human organizations, and move off to other things they find more ‘pure’.

    Quite frankly, a solid political movement simply cannot be built on top of flightly unreasonable people. I decided a long time ago, not to try and retain people like that, they simply are not going to be the core group that will build the party.

    What most of you don’t realize, is that the LP, in the end, isn’t going to commit suicide. Thats basically what Ron Paul’s supporters are asking them to do. Subjugate the LP to Ron Paul’s C4L.

    And why bother? If you cannot make it work inside the LP, why is it going to work inside Ron Paul’s C4L. The C4L is just the shiny new organization. It will also have its own infighting. Any time it tries to make a stand, or make some decision, it will have people drop out.

    Ron Paul’s movement is already a tiny fraction of the 3 million he claims, those protest voters in the Republican primaries largely dropped out after the Ron Paul Political Report scandal, and dropped even further after McCain was selected.

    After 20 years, you see all these initiatives are about one thing and one thing only, about being ‘new’. because ‘new’ hasn’t been sullied with real world yet. But it always will, it always does. So the next new thing will be invented.

    I fully support the LP, and any change someone envisions the LP needs, just get in there, do the hard work, and make the change.

  42. rdupuy

    p.s. the LP generally doesn’t get 1% in the general election, and they had no chance to get 1% this time either. That has nothing to do with Ron Paul, just the reality of what a 20,000 member organization is able to do. Even the 450,000 votes the LP is going to get, is about a 20 to 1 representation of protest votes, over core support. The votes are just about being on the ballot, period.

    Chuck Baldwin has nothing to do with Libertarianism, no matter how many times he repeats it, and attempts to cause that confusion.
    He is a statist, the former Moral Majority staffer, and baptist preacher, is not versed in libertarianism. His party, as many have reported, is simply obsessed with the LP. And to the extent some LP members also didn’t care about libertarianism and were only looking for ‘alternative’ he may pick off a few members.

    But whatever electoral success he gets, will also be in attracting the protest vote. It’s usually as simple as misnaming the party ‘independent’ as is done in California and getting a lot of votes from confused voters who wanted to cast an independent vote.

    We so, are not even close to getting any type of endorsement from voters….and Ron Paul, well, by not endorsing anyone its going to be difficult to get good polling on what little influence he may have had on the election.

    But lets use some common sense, endorsing a ‘field of candidates’ is not going to have much impact, it basically tells his supporters do whatever you want, which is what they would have done without his guidance.

    We are reasonable people, we surely don’t honestly believe this type of endorsement has any type of impact. I don’t think anyone who follows politics for any amount of time, thinks it does.

  43. amyb31416

    The LP appears to me to be moving in the direction of being just as corrupt as the GOP. Woohoo!

    If the LP doesn’t want former RP supporters, and it appears they don’t, let them shoot themselves in the foot.

    Barr was nominated to bring more people into the LP/bring more votes in for future ballot access. Any knucklehead can see that RP’s voters are an obvious and easy way to get a lot more votes, he and his campaign have decided instead to alienate them.

    Brilliant!

  44. Erin

    John P. Slevin———
    Bingo!!!!! You hit the nail right on the head about Mary Ruwart—-good for you!!

  45. lgoldman

    Steve LaBianca is or was on the payroll of the Texas LP. He worked directly for LNC member, Wes Benedict.

  46. Steve LaBianca

    lgoldman // Sep 15, 2008 at 12:11 pm

    Steve LaBianca is or was on the payroll of the Texas LP. He worked directly for LNC member, Wes Benedict.

    What reality does “lgoldman” think he can create?

    This post is completely wrong on all counts.

    1-I don’t live in Texas. I’ve only been in the state of Texas once in the 52 years I’ve been on this planet.

    2-I’ve never worked for Wes Benedict, nor have I ever received any money or property from Wes or the LP of Texas.

    3-Wes Benedict is not an “LNC member”.

    Be gone, troll.

  47. Steve LaBianca

    John P Slevin // Sep 14, 2008 at 11:58 pm

    Who IS this person LaBianca?

    Please send Mary Ruwart an email at mary@ruwart.com, and ask her how she knows me, and what she knows about me. Then, be gone, troll!

  48. Steve LaBianca

    Erin // Sep 15, 2008 at 10:53 am

    <John P. Slevin———
    Bingo!!!!! You hit the nail right on the head about Mary Ruwart—-good for you!!

    Bingo, Erin, you know nothing about this, so you best refrain from making yourself look ridiculous. Oh, right, just listing yourself as “Erin” keeps you in anonymity! Wimp.

  49. Steve LaBianca

    John P Slevin // Sep 15, 2008 at 12:09 am

    Except, you are stuck with the people like G.E. Smith, who won’t even publish under his own name . . .

    That is who Mary chose to deliver her nomination.

    Wrong again. G.E. Smith was not someone who nominated her. My suggestion to you would be to stop the bad impressions that anyone who reads your swill will get, by ceasing to spread lies and totally wrong information.

  50. Ayn R. Key

    Chastising Paul????

    If that one passes, I’m going to ask my state LP to disaffiliate from national.

    What kind of idiot is Starr to even think of that!

  51. Erin

    Mr. LaBianca—you arrogant ass–
    I know more about Mary Ruwart than you’ll ever know—and more than I ever cared to know.
    And–no–Erin is not my real name—and that is to protect the innocent—which happens to be me.
    It wouldn’t take Mary long to know who I am—-so shut the hell up.

  52. Steve LaBianca

    Erin // Sep 15, 2008 at 2:36 pm

    Mr. LaBianca—you arrogant ass–
    I know more about Mary Ruwart than you’ll ever know—and more than I ever cared to know.
    And–no–Erin is not my real name—and that is to protect the innocent—which happens to be me.
    It wouldn’t take Mary long to know who I am—-so shut the hell up.

    Truly spoken with class . . . which really enhances your credibility.

  53. Steve LaBianca

    Well, if I’m a jerk, you’re admitting to be entertained by one. Well said, and an appropriate characterization of yourself.

  54. Thomas L. Knapp

    “The good are wavering, while the worst prevail.”

    — Line from an early draft of William Butler Yeats’s “The Second Coming,” and as accurate and concise an LNC status report as possible.

    And here’s one, usually attributed to Mark Twain, for the tarheel tease who keeps posting non-specific hints of a scandal involving Dr. Ruwart:

    “It’s not what we don’t know that hurts us, it’s what we know for certain that just ain’t so.”

  55. Erin

    WAH WAH WAH—Mr. LaBianca sounds just like some little boy at recess who got called a name. Kindergarten chaos at it’s best…………..
    Hurry and respond Stevie–so you can get the last word in—I know you want to!! I’m out of here—lunch hour is over—-back to the real world of adult issues. See Ya!!

  56. Michael Seebeck

    I don’t have the Starr one, and I just had lunch and want to keep it down.

    But here’s the LNC apology letter.

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

    September 12, 2008

    The Honorable Ron Paul
    Committee to Re-Elect Ron Paul
    837 W. Plantation
    Clute, TX 71531

    Dear Dr. Paul:

    The Libertarian National Committee understands that the campaign of Libertarian presidential candidate Bob Barr has offended you, the Campaign for Liberty, and your many supporters by:

    • Failing to attend your press conference at the National Press Club highlighting third party candidates after committing to do so;
    • Holding a press conference of its own publicly inviting you to be Barr’s Vice-President candidate (replacing Wayne Allyn Root) in spite of his personal knowledge that you have no interest in the position; and
    • Issuing statements through both official and unofficial channels that disparaged you for not endorsing Barr’s candidacy.

    Although Congressman Bob Barr is the duly-nominated presidential candidate of the Libertarian Party selected by delegates to the 2008 Libertarian National Convention, the Libertarian National Committee is deeply embarrassed by the Barr campaign’s behavior and believes it does not reflect well on the Libertarian Party.

    The Libertarian National Committee sincerely apologizes to you, the Campaign for Liberty, and your many supporters on behalf of the Libertarian Party and hopes that you, your organization, and your supporters will continue to work together with the Libertarian Party in our common fight for liberty in spite of the regrettable actions of Congressman Barr’s campaign.

    The Libertarian National Committee shares your goal of encouraging more people to vote for third party candidates and agrees with your four point statement on Foreign Policy, Privacy, The National Debt, and The Federal Reserve. The Libertarian National Committee respects your decisions to not seek the Libertarian nomination and not endorse an individual presidential candidate. The Libertarian National Committee also salutes the broad coalition of liberty loving Americans you have built through your presidential campaign, the Ron Paul R3VOLution, and the Campaign for Liberty.

    Please note that Mr. Barr had no authority to invite you to join the Libertarian Party ticket. Under the Libertarian Party Bylaws, vice-presidential nominee vacancies are filled by the Libertarian National Committee, rather than by the presidential candidate himself. The Libertarian National Committee was not consulted before the offer was extended to you.

    In addition, the Libertarian National Committee regrets that Acting Libertarian Party Executive Director Robert Kraus disparaged you in the Libertarian Party blog on http://www.lp.org. The Libertarian National Committee has reprimanded Mr. Kraus for his actions and is tightening its internal controls on http://www.lp.org blog content. We offer our sincere apology for the blog remarks of Libertarian Party staff.

    The Libertarian National Committee, on behalf of the Libertarian Party, hopes its relationships with you, the Campaign for Liberty, and your many supporters were not irreparably harmed by the actions of the Barr campaign and our staff. The Libertarian National Committee and the Libertarian Party would both like nothing more than to continue to be allies with you in the battle for civil liberties, limited government, and non-intervention.

    In Liberty,

    The Libertarian National Committee:
    Bill Redpath
    Michael Jingozian
    Bob Sullentrup
    Aaron Starr
    Angela Keaton
    Patrick Dixon
    Admiral Michael C. Colley
    Lee Wrights
    Dr. Mary Ruwart
    Tony Ryan
    George Squyres
    Mark Hinkle
    Dr. Scott Lieberman
    Rebecca Sink-Burris
    Bob Jackson
    Stewart Flood
    Heather Scott
    Dr. Jim W. Lark, III
    Berlie Etzel
    Dan Karlan
    Hardy Macia
    Julie Fox
    Jake Porter
    Rachel Hawkridge
    Steve LaBianca

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

    And yes, this is on *very* good authority to be accurate.

  57. Arthur Torrey

    I will say that I was a mild supporter of Mary, if she had started to run when the other LP candidates did, I might well have supported her instead of George – I did vote for her after George was eliminated.

    But I have been disappointed by her performance on the LNC, and will have trouble supporting her in the future because of it. She failed to support Angela Keaton recently, and while I can understand her not wanting to be the first person to introduce a motion to boot Barr, that she didn’t when nobody else did also seems to me like a negative… (I’m also surprised that Angela wasn’t willing to introduce the boot Barr motion, though she does seem rather burnt out at this point.)

    IMHO this shows, for lack of a better term, a shortage of testicular fortitude, something I want to see in a candidate.

    ART

    ART

  58. José C

    “But here’s the LNC apology letter.”

    That is interesting. What has the Libertarian Party done that they would have to appoligize to Ron Paul.

    Answer: Nothing.

    If I was a member of the LNC and the motion passed I would request and would require that my name not be listed and not be included in the letter to sent Ron Paul.

  59. Michael Seebeck

    Jose, the letter is about disassociating the antics of Barr from the rest of the LP. We do NOT want a potential ally in the C4L to paint the entire LP with the same brush as Barr. It’s damage control, pure and simple, to contain the efforts to tear down a LOT of inroads made by LP members into the RPR and C4L, inroads badly damaged if not destroyed by Barr, Verney, et al.

    The Starr letter wants to double down those antics and make it worse. No thanks!

    Since I have it now, and lunch is long digested, here it is, minus the excessive white space. Barrf bags are in the restroom.

    *******************************************
    September 13, 2008

    The Honorable
    Ron Paul
    Committee to Re-Elect Ron Paul
    837 W. Plantation
    Clute, TX 71531

    Dear Dr. Paul:

    The Libertarian National Committee is disappointed to learn that you have recently urged those in the freedom movement to vote for the likes of Ralph Nader, Cynthia McKinney and Chuck Baldwin, none of whom truly grasp the meaning of Liberty.

    More than before, we remain committed to our nominees for President and Vice President, Bob Barr and Wayne Root. We believe both of them
    boldly present the ideals of limited government, lower taxes, lower spending, and more freedom to the American people.

    We invite you to restore your commitment to Liberty by supporting the only candidates on the ballot this year who understand the Constitution and are prepared to restore our republic to what the Founders believed.

    Toward Liberty,

    The Libertarian National Committee:

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

    Now, I want to point something out to the people who mistakenly can’t read the main body of this thread: Neither of these have been passed. And they probably won’t, since there seems to be a sizable LNC contingent who think that the Party symbol is an ostrich instead of Lady Liberty or that damned penguin.

  60. gbrooks

    The LNC will be a party full of Dondero-style sycophants if they keep on this road.

    Personally, I don’t give a rat’s ass about them anymore.

Leave a Reply

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