Motion to remove Barr as LP nominee has been written

Despite the blackout by third-party media outlets sympathetic to and/or controlled by the Barr campaign, there is a serious effort under way to remove Bob Barr as the Libertarian Party’s presidential nominee. In order for the issue to be taken to a vote among LNC members, only one rep need make the motion and another second it. The motion has been written, and at least one LNC rep has expressed a willingness to make it. Below is the text of the motion.

REMOVAL MOTION

WHEREAS, Article 12, Section 5 of the Libertarian Party’s bylaws provide for the suspension of the party’s presidential candidate by the Libertarian National Committee; and

WHEREAS, said bylaws provision requires a 3/4 vote of this body;
BE IT KNOWN that Bob Barr, the Libertarian Party’s 2008 presidential nominee, is hereby suspended on the basis of the following causes:

– Failure to appear, with little or no notice, at a major media event to which he had been invited and to which he had committed to appear;

– Vicious public attacks by his campaign staff on the character and reputation of the event’s host (1988 Libertarian Party presidential nominee Ron Paul) and sponsor (Campaign For Liberty);

– The disrepute and discredit which the aforementioned misbehaviors have brought upon the Libertarian Party.

The committee advises Barr that he has seven (7) days to appeal this action to the party’s Judicial Committee. Absent a successful appeal, his nomination will be deemed null and void and he will be replaced as the party’s presidential nominee.

183 thoughts on “Motion to remove Barr as LP nominee has been written

  1. Fred Church Ortiz

    Is the committee member that expressed willingness the same person that wrote this?

    Is the committee member the same one you said was over it yesterday, or is someone else on board?

  2. G.E. Post author

    I cannot comment on the authorship of the motion.

    The person who originally said he/she would bring the motion, later changed his/her mind, and now has again expressed a willingness to do so.

  3. svf

    Failure to appear, with little or no notice, at a major media event…

    Uh… you’re kidding right? “Major media event”…?

    Please show me scans of all the articles in actual print media and video on non-cable news networks about this “major announcement”.

    Your anti-Barr crusade has reached new heights of absurdity and is actually diminishing any legitimate criticism of the campaign you may have once had.

    IPR is turning into a good ol’ fashioned lynch mob. “Are you now or have you ever been associated with the Barr-barian??” “Step forward!”

  4. G.E. Post author

    Uh, the motion is not IPR’s doing, moron. We’re just reporting. Unlike those other sites. (LFV excluded, which is a heroic site).

  5. Fred Church Ortiz

    Yes of course, I’ll just go through my 50 newspaper subscriptions and my nightly news VHS collection to get that for you.

  6. svf

    The disrepute and discredit which the aforementioned misbehaviors have brought upon the Libertarian Party.

    Pure bullshit. Other than those already prone to ranting and raving about Barr’s “conservative takeover” of the LP here and elsewhere on the same old websites, I find evidence of no such thing in the real world. If anything, Barr’s “stunt” offering Ron Paul the VP slot got more positive press attention for him than he would have gotten simply standing there next to Nader, Baldwin and McKinney at Ron’s event.

    FAIL

  7. svf

    I’ll just go through my 50 newspaper subscriptions and my nightly news VHS collection to get that for you.

    Don’t bother, because it wasn’t in any newspapers or nightly news broadcasts.

  8. richardwinger

    Ironically, Libertarians who want to remove Barr have not always been supportive of the various Libertarian Party lawsuits to give the party the right to substitute.

  9. Fred Church Ortiz

    Pure bullshit. Other than those already prone to ranting and raving about Barr’s “conservative takeover” of the LP here and elsewhere on the same old websites, I find evidence of no such thing in the real world.

    The fact that both the Barr campaign and the LP felt the need to respond to what they themselves called “many” LP members isn’t evidence?

    If anything, Barr’s “stunt” offering Ron Paul the VP slot got more positive press attention for him than he would have gotten simply standing there next to Nader, Baldwin and McKinney at Ron’s event.

    The two things were not mutually exclusive. Barr could have still delivered his bluff offer and held his own press conference bragging about it even while acknowledging it wasn’t likely – and according to some, already rejected.

  10. G.E. Post author

    svf – Are you on the Barr payroll? I’m just asking. Are you a real libertarian who someone can vouch for?

    What an Establishment shill you are to think that “if it isn’t mentioned in the neocon press, it didn’t happen.” Well, Snubgate was covered — in all its anti-glory — in the Washington Post. So suck on that, shill.

  11. G.E. Post author

    Richard – Two totally different things. And no one opposes the “right” of substitution. It’s about the LNC criminal gang acting like Lincolnites and forcing states into compliance.

  12. Coming Back to the LP

    This is really getting silly.

    The Barr campaign’s decision not to attend Ron Paul’s little media event was a strategic campaign decision and, even if you think it was a bad strategy, it is does not constitute grouds for removal from the ticket.

    Bob Barr is currently getting more media attention than all previous LP Presidential candidates COMBINED. So, it would be hard to claim that his campaign strategy is wrong.

    Bob Barr has been polling higher than any previous LP Presidential candidate, including Ron Paul.

    Everyone calling for Barr’s removal should go out and run a winning campaign for some other significant office instead. Show us how you can do better. Find an LP state rep candidate and get him or her elected.

    Can’t do it?

    The you should really stop being so foolish.

    This is still the year that the LP can break out of the zero plus a decimal point results column.

  13. svf

    The fact that both the Barr campaign and the LP felt the need to respond to what they themselves called “many” LP members isn’t evidence?

    “Many” LP members means probably 20-30.

    Regardless, I agree that Verney and the LP were mistaken to jump into this ridiculous fray and stir up the pot. They should have just kept quiet and forged ahead. Whatever. Not grounds for removing Barr from the ballot and torpedoing the entire 2008 campaign.

  14. Fred Church Ortiz

    Ironically, Libertarians who want to remove Barr have not always been supportive of the various Libertarian Party lawsuits to give the party the right to substitute.

    Not always. Though in at least one substitution case, the deeper question was the manner in which the case was brought together – including not informing all LNC members that a lawsuit was about to be filed in their name, and not informing the LNC’s counsel.

  15. G.E. Post author

    Wow. You think there are only 20-30 LP members upset about this? Let me explain: Each person who expresses outrage at Barr represents ONE full person. I know the Barr shills have multiple screen names to inflate their numbers, but it isn’t true of his opponents.

  16. Jason_Gatties

    hahaha! Trust me, its WAAAAY more than 20-30 people. I’ve had nearly that many contact me in the past couple of days over this (as well as the Keaton incident).

    Face it, people aren’t happy, and not just “radicals” either.

    As far as running a winning campaign goes, perhaps I could if Bob Barr would stop pissing off my volunteers.

  17. G.E. Post author

    There’s really no reasoning with these people, Jason. They tell us to “go help libertarians” but then they can’t point to any previous or current activism they’ve done themselves. They can’t point to one libertarian who knows them in real life.

  18. Coming Back to the LP

    The number of LP members who would get upset at the maybe 50 anti-Barr people would be a hundred times larger than the antis – if they actually knew about this tempest-in-a-chatroom.

    There must be almost 100 people who click here 50 times every day.

  19. Thomas L. Knapp

    I’m of two minds about “having Barr removed.”

    On the one hand, I don’t think it will happen.

    On the other hand, the LNC actually taking up the motion and arguing it would at least be an effective censure and a display of teeth. It might cause him to straighten his ass up a bit.

    On the third hand (I’m a mutant), every day that the LNC doesn’t get serious about addressing Barr’s antics is a boost to the Boston Tea Party’s fledgling claim to be its de facto replacement as the representative party of libertarianism in the arena of electoral politics.

    So, I’m torn. Part of me wants the LP to get its act together (which removing, or at least credibly threatening to remove, Barr would be a big step toward), part of me is sitting here saying “keep the Russian Roulette going, LNC — what are you up to, four or five chambers now?”

  20. svf

    svf – Are you on the Barr payroll? I’m just asking. Are you a real libertarian who someone can vouch for?

    What an Establishment shill you are to think that “if it isn’t mentioned in the neocon press, it didn’t happen.” Well, Snubgate was covered — in all its anti-glory — in the Washington Post. So suck on that, shill.

    Here we go again. As to my “real identity”, I’ve been over that here with the lovely Steve LaBianca before and all you have to do is click the link on my screenname if you really give a damn.

    Am I a “real libertarian”? Does serving as an officer in my local LP for many years count? Being a delegate at the 2000 LP convention, maybe? How about donating too much of my hard-earned cash to this lost cause over the past 10 years? Standing around at state fairs and tax day protests and gun shows handing out LP flyers? Editing a Libertarian newsletter (published on actual paper!)? Supporting state, local, and national candidates for LP office since 1996 with both my time and money? Ditto for the Ron Paul campaign?

    You, however, G.E. “Step forward!” — I have no idea who the hell you are. You hide behind your online moniker and gleefully hurl your inflammatory rhetoric while laughably claiming to be a “journalist.” Real journalists don’t hide behind aliases. Unless they have something to hide, I suppose.

    As for being on the Barr payroll — I am still waiting for my first big paycheck. Bob, come on man — help me out here!

  21. G.E. Post author

    Sorry, anonymous shill: Over 6,000 unique visitors today.

    The disinfo campaign is truly amazing. It’s just 50 people… Um, yeah, right! Barr only offended 50 people by his antics…. NO, he offended THOUSANDS, many of whom will now NEVER vote LP ever, no matter what.

  22. Jason_Gatties

    This is not a diss towards Ron Paul supporters, but let me paint a quick picture of the position I’m in.

    1. Most of my volunteers are Ron Paul supporters

    2. Bob Barr shits on Ron Paul

    Jason Gatties & Bob Barr are both Libertarian Party members and candidates.

    Bob Barr=Bad

    Jason Gatties=must be bad too

    And thus, as of this morning, a few of my volunteers have stated that they can no longer support any Libertarian Party candidate (and I put that in a nice way, I got a few nasty emails).

    So…thanks for nothing Bob…

  23. donald raymond lake

    GE, there is no reasoning with ‘these people’ because they lie and are as illogical as you!

    On one hand harray for the Greens and Libs for having the ‘light bulbs over their heads’ turn on as far as getting head liners on the ballot instead of party loyalist no names. Hey, it is a POPULARITY CONTEST! I mean ‘Cobb’ and ‘Bararack’ in P2004?

    On the other hand Bob Barr and Cindy McCinney appear to be their own worst enemies……..

  24. G.E. Post author

    svf – My bad. I should have just clicked on your screen name. There has been a proliferation of anonymous people who’ve registered for the sole purpose of “defending the undefendable” (but who have no doubt NOT read that classic book). I was just seeing if you were one of them.

    As for my identity: It’s well known. Virtually everyone here knows who I am and several have met me. I use a moniker for the same reasons as many people do, to stay out of job-compromising Google searches.

  25. richardwinger

    G.E. is wrong to say no Libertarian opposes substitution. Independent Political Report has publicized the activity of one Libertarian to damage one of the Libertarian Party’s substitution lawsuits. The damage could be undone, however. G.E. himself might be in a position to help undo the damage, and I hope he will.

  26. G.E. Post author

    I support the right of substitution, but not substitution being foisted on a state against its will by a criminal gang.

  27. G.E. Post author

    Oh, you mean Art?

    He has a RIGHT as an elector to exercise his free speech.

    Presidential elections are supposed to be about electors, Richard, and you know that.

    Art Torrey = American Hero.

  28. Coming Back to the LP

    There was a “big” movement to remove Ed Clark from the ticket in 1980 for being “unlibertarian” as well.

    Of course, we all know that it failed.

  29. svf

    Well, Snubgate was covered — in all its anti-glory — in the Washington Post. So suck on that, shill.

    Third-Party Candidates Choose Clown Makeup Over Pig Lipstick

    Sounds to me like this guy is ridiculing all the candidates, not just Barr… and is really just interested in finding a “clever” new angle about lipstickgate.

    Whoop de doo.

    “Thus did the short-lived third-party unity movement of 2008 go in the trough.”

    News flash — there never was a 3rd party unity movement, whether Barr showed up or not.

  30. Mike Gillis

    “The Barr campaign’s decision not to attend Ron Paul’s little media event was a strategic campaign decision and, even if you think it was a bad strategy, it is does not constitute grouds for removal from the ticket.

    How about his muddled statements about the drug war and possible military intervention in South America?

    Or his backpedaling in an interview about bailing out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?

    Or his VP’s dickish and borderline racist blog posts?

    Or his flip flopping on the Defense of Marriage Act?

    Or his press releases praising George Bush and Jesse Helms?

    Add those to spitting in Ron Paul’s face in front of reporters and the insulting and disengenuous offer to his sidekick, after promising that he’d join his press conference?

    This “Snubgate” response isn’t an isolated thing. It appears to be the straw that broke the camel’s back, where Barr’s repeated snubbing of his base time and time again just went one step too far.

  31. Mike Gillis

    svf,

    If you read that article, it’s Barr that comes out looking like a dick.

    But because of Barr’s arrogance, the writer laughs at all of them. Even the writer calls what Barr did to Paul arrogant and insulting.

    Thanks, Barr.

  32. G.E. Post author

    Mike – These people firmly believe in ignoring, apologizing, rationalizing, and smearing — NOT reading.

  33. sunshinebatman

    SVF – Dana Milbank is Skull & Bones. Most of his articles for Washington Post are just like this one. His job description consists mostly of doing hit pieces on political outsiders.

  34. rdupuy

    I was in the LP for many years, I can confirm there are a lot of ego’s who make absurd, self-destructive motions like this.

    Ron Paul is not that important, and has done very little to promote liberty. He has built an ephemeral support that just doesn’t translate into real volunteers and real money, and especially for the LP, and presumably this is an LP director with the LP organizations interests at heart.

    He’s done absolutely nothing for that organization since 1988.

    And even if you crunch the dismal numbers, and somehow you read into them, some surge in support coming from Ron Paul’s camp…sorry, I almost laughed….even if you imagine that such a thing is occurring, this would then just fall into the realm of an error.

  35. Coming Back to the LP

    Mike Gillis // Sep 12, 2008 at 5:06 pm

    “Or his VP’s dickish and borderline racist blog posts?”

    Hey, you can remove the VP candidate, he really is a lose cannon and a doubtful libertarian, but for the sake of the cause of liberty, it’s best to just pretend he doesn’t exist.

    Essentially, in the real world, the LP’s former VP candidates don’t exist and never did.

    I won’t even mention his name.

  36. Trent Hill

    “He has built an ephemeral support that just doesn’t translate into real volunteers and real money”

    Ummm,you are kidding right? How about the most active base of any major party candidate in 2008 plus raising $34 million!?

    what has Barr done? A couple hundred activists (who are quickly dissapearing) and 800k.

  37. svf

    you can remove the VP candidate, he really is a lose cannon and a doubtful libertarian, but for the sake of the cause of liberty, it’s best to just pretend he doesn’t exist.

    Hey, here’s an idea… how about Ron Paul as the VP candidate! What the hell — Barr might as well ask him… what have we got to lose?

  38. Mike Gillis

    Paul’s respect for one. It’s insulting to ask that he step down to be the Robin to Barr’s Batman.

    If he wanted to make even a REAL fake offer, he would have offered to be Paul’s VP.

  39. richardwinger

    G.E. has contradicted himself. He says he supports the right of political parties to substitute a new nominee for an old one (which would be essential if the LP National Committee did want to replace Barr with someone else), yet then he says the person who is injuring the substitution lawsuit is a hero. Emotion trumps reason in G.E.’s mind.

  40. amyb31416

    rdupuy is an anti-Paul troll from another forum that I frequent. Someone posted a link to this article and he’s hoping you’re all very stupid and will believe him.

  41. svf

    Gillis – Barr asked Paul to be the LP Pres nominee last December.

    Not to mention… if Ron had wandered into the LP convention on day one and declared his candidacy, all the others including Barr (but maybe not Phillies) would have immediately dropped out and handed the nomination to him on a silver platter.

    As one who invested a fair amount of time and money in RP’s poorly-managed but nevertheless exciting campaign, I can understand the frustraition of Barr and “many” other LPers as we watch his vibrant (if overzealous) “movement” fizzle out into a futile and directionless “Campaign for Liberty” within the GOP, while at the same time diluting his message by appearing with the likes of Baldwin, Nader, and McKinney (!) at a joint press conference…

    Have you checked out the loonies at Ron Paul Forums lately? It’s amazing how many of them are now declaring support for Nader since Bob Barr is now the Great Satan, Baldwin ain’t on enough ballots, and Ralph sat next to Ron on CNN.

    Useless.

  42. G.E. Post author

    Richard Winger thinks that “ballot access” “rights” trump everything else. There is no “right” to be on a ballot. I do not contradict myself at all. Arthur Torrey is not taking an aggressive action — he’s exercising his LEGITIMATE rights as an elector. He’s not standing against the principle of substitution, he’s withdrawing his support for this particular substitution.

    Winger doesn’t contradict himself because he puts statist ballot access above all other principles, which is the most ridiculous ideology one could imagine.

  43. Trent Hill

    “G.E. has contradicted himself. He says he supports the right of political parties to substitute a new nominee for an old one (which would be essential if the LP National Committee did want to replace Barr with someone else), yet then he says the person who is injuring the substitution lawsuit is a hero. Emotion trumps reason in G.E.’s mind.”

    Richard—GE’s statements are logically consistent, just not confined to THIS situation. GE supports substitution, as do I, if the state party wants to replace said nominees. However, if an elector does NOT want the candidate replaced, then we have some level of disagreement on which candidate should be substituted.

  44. G.E. Post author

    Trent – The right for a central political authority to control taxpayer-funded ballots is the ultimate end in Richard’s philosophy.

  45. Coming Back to the LP

    Richard Winger is correct about the substitution argument. This ballot access issue is much more important than the petty bickering by a handful of whiners.

    If Art Torrey was serious about working for Liberty, he’d realize that the long term freedom benefits from securing the substitution rights of 3rd parties far outweighs the Barr campain and Torrey’s own bruised ego.

    Really, GE, when it comes to most ballot access issues, it takes an amazing pair to disagree with Richard.

    I’ve known Richard for nearly 3 decades. He’s serious, dedicated, loyal … and you should support this effort for substitution.

    (And Torrey, I think I gathered a lot of signatures for you in the past. This is a team effort – no matter what you think of Barr, today – the future is more important.)

  46. Trent Hill

    GE,

    I dont believe that–im sure Richard would endorse private ballots.

    What say you Richard? They existed before 1964…what about now?

  47. Trent Hill

    for the record: I agree that in THIS situation, Torrey SHOULD suck it up and not cause any trouble regarding substitution and such. Because of the nature of the state we live in, the LP may not get another chance to overturn this bad law.

    But, I also agree with GE in GENERAL–meaning I support the right of the elector candidates to support or not support some candidate(s)–I just think that in THIS situation, that elector would do better to go along with the plan instead of rocking the boat.

  48. G.E. Post author

    Yeah, Richard Winger cannot be questioned or challenged. I’ve learned this already. But he’s trading on the reputation he earned over three decades to give unflinching support to Bob Barr and Bill Redpath, who have been thoroughly exposed as charlatans.

    Torrey is not committing an act of aggression. He is not speaking out against the principle that a party should be able to substitute. He is merely OPPOSING THIS PARTICULAR substitution.

    I’m not questioning the veracity of anything Winger is saying. He’s a peerless expert. I’m merely stating a different set of moral values — the libertarian set — as opposed to the taxpayer-funded ballot “rights” set.

  49. VTV

    “Bob Barr is currently getting more media attention than all previous LP Presidential candidates COMBINED. So, it would be hard to claim that his campaign strategy is wrong.”

    As far as CANDIDATES, this is false. Mike Gravel had more press coverage, not to mention was on stage with Obama and Hillary more then Barr ever will be in debate.

    As far as nominee’s, maybe. But this is not the kind of exposure the LP wants. Bob Barr’s neo-con rhetoric are destroying our parties reputation as the alternative.

  50. svf

    I don’t know whether G.E.’s increasingly reckless hyperbole is some kind of Tony Clifton-esque performance art stunt or what…

  51. G.E. Post author

    I don’t know whether G.E.’s increasingly reckless hyperbole is some kind of Tony Clifton-esque performance art stunt or what…

    Another hollow, content-less smear.

    These people have nothing to say, and yet they keep talking.

  52. richardwinger

    The ACLU of Massachusetts took an election law case for the first time in decades, to help us. The ACLU of Massachusetts found one of the leading law firms in Massachusetts to represent us. It is a cardinal rule that we, the clients, not backstab our own attorneys in the back, but G.E. says this behavior is “heroic”. It is not too late to undo the damage, and I still hope that the damage can be undone, and G.E. could help, if he would.

    For a client to make a hurtful communication to the enemy, and not go thru the attorneys on our side, is horrible. But it is not too late to undo the damage. It can be repaired.

  53. Coming Back to the LP

    VTV // Sep 12, 2008 at 5:59 pm
    “As far as CANDIDATES, this is false. Mike Gravel had more press coverage, not to mention was on stage with Obama and Hillary more then Barr ever will be in debate. ”

    Sorry, get a dictionary.

    Mike Gravel was never an LP candidate for any office.

    He was however a candidate SEEKING the LP nomination so as to become an LP Presidential candidate, specifically for the year 2008.

    To be the candidate of a party, you generally have to be nominated by that party.

    As far as coverage, Mike Gravel’s coverage came while he was seeking the nomination of the Democratic Party. So he wasn’t even a candidate seeking the NOMINATION so as to become the LP nominee at the time.

  54. G.E. Post author

    So you got a group of statist attorneys who fight for the “right” of welfare recipients to collect their checks to represent you in your “right” to substitute the name printed (at taxpayer expense) on government-approved ballots? So what.

    Art Torrey is not “backstabbing” anyone in the back. He is saying he personally does not support removing George Phillies, a long-time Libertarian; and replacing him with Bob Barr, a conservative usurper. That is his right. No libertarian would think that Art Torrey is obligated by your “right” to substitute, or obligated to care how his actions might affect future substitutions (though I’m not saying he doesn’t care). Rights do not imply obligations. Art Torrey has a legitimate right to act in a non-aggressive manner and to exercise his free speech. You do NOT have a legitimate right to censor his free speech (though you do have the right to not cover this ballot-access story at your blog, which you’re not).

    It is Bob Barr and the delegates who voted for him in Denver who stabbed the LP in the back, Richard. Art Torrey is merely (figuratively) responding in kind.

  55. richardwinger

    So, I was right. G.E. lets his emotions override his reasoning. He says he wants the LP to be free to choose a new presidential candidate, yet he cheers on someone who helps a hostile elections official deprive us of that ability. One can’t simultaneously be arguing in favor of the LP National Committee replacing Barr, and then celebrate when the party suffers a setback in that part of the law.

  56. G.E. Post author

    Richard – I can’t help you if you don’t understand libertarianism.

    As Trent pointed out, there is no logical inconsistency in supporting a party’s “right” to change a candidate’s name on the ballot, and supporting an elector’s right to FREE SPEECH. There is no inconsistency there.

    Just because you support the “right” of someone to do something does not mean you support the exercise of that “right” in all cases. You, for instance, believe that it’s a woman’s “right” to butcher a fetus in her womb. But you don’t think that women should be forced to do this, do you? And I’m sure you’d applaud certain instances when a woman did not make that particular choice.

    Art Torrey’s right to free speech trumps your “right” to taxpayer-funded ballots.

    Bob Barr being “removed” from the ballot and thus healing the wounds he has caused with the Ron Paul Freedom Movement, trumps “setting a precedent” favorable to the rigged statist ballot system.

    And to clarify: I support a resolution disavowing Bob Barr as the national candidate, and freeing the state parties to substitute him if they’re able or interested in doing so.

  57. G.E. Post author

    Yes, and now Richard is engaging in the same type of actions as his fellow shills for Barr: Ignoring substantive and logical arguments and attacking non-existent “inconsistencies.”

    I support Richard’s right to use his private property, B.A.N., as he sees fit: Including NOT covering the Massachusetts story or the removing Barr story, both of which are serious ballot-access matters. I don’t endorse how he chooses to “exercise” his rights in this particular instance, though. See… There’s a difference.

  58. johnlowell

    I find only one defect in the resolution: It fails to mention that Barr is a shmendrik which is fundamental to understanding the deeper motives behind his misbehavior. I’d recommend amending the specifications along these lines:

    – Failure to appear, with little or no notice, at a major media event to which he had been invited and to which he had committed to appear, and by not so appearing has made of himself an unalloyed shmendrik in the eyes of those in a position to judge;

    Now there is a specification with real meat on it bones. Anyone say aye?

  59. Thomas L. Knapp

    GE,

    You write:

    “The right for a central political authority to control taxpayer-funded ballots is the ultimate end in Richard’s philosophy.”

    I do not believe that is an accurate description of Mr. Winger’s philosophy at all.

    I’m sure Mr. Winger will correct me if I am wrong, but I believe he supports elimination of the “Australian ballot” system in terms of completely open ballot access (i.e. parties and canddidates pre-print, or voters manually generate, their own ballots with no “access” issues at all).

    In point of fact, his whole approach on substitution is against a PARTICULAR “central political authority” (the state) controlling what candidate a party may put on the ballot under the current “Australian” system.

  60. Coming Back to the LP

    Art Torrey’s “rights” as an elector means he gets to vote in the Electoral College, should his Party’s ticket win, and choose whomever he wishes to vote for at that time.

    However, the Libertarian Party of Massachusetts and the LNC have the right to place their candidate on the ballot and substitute candidates.

    Art Torrey does not have the right, as an elector, to prevent substitution. He has the right to vote as he wishes, he has the right to resign as an elector, he has the right to speak out.

    However, Art Torrey, by speaking out, is assisting the Fascist State in its attempt to deny substitution rights to political parties.

    Would Art Torrey’s free speech rights give him the right to reveal the whereabouts of a young Jewish girl hiding from the Nazis? Could he use his freedom of speech to write them a letter revealing her location?

    Maybe.

    But, what kind of a human being would he be then?

  61. G.E. Post author

    Torrey has a right to express his desire that there be no substitution in this case.

    Comparing that to helping the Nazis? No. The closest thing to a Nazi in this case is the Barr campaign, which told me to “give thanks to God” for the life and work of racist Jesse Helms.

    Richard – Is what Torrey’s doing here on par with Nazi collaboration as your friend here says?

  62. Deran

    G.E. is a bolshevik, a maximimalist, very much like the Black Blocers. Except his anarchism means only corporprations, no social institutions to ameliorate or mitigate the rapacity of “free markets.”

    Richard Winger, on the other hand, favors securing as fair and open elections as can be provided in this corporate controlled state we live in. Winger seems to believe even wayward Leftists such as my self deserve access to the ballot.

    Private ballots, before ’64, were tools to exclude people from voting, and access to being voted on as candidates, they were a part of segregationism. Or a mechanism for one party monopolies.

  63. G.E. Post author

    Okay, Richard… Do you believe in private ballots or welfare ballots? Tom says the former, Comrade Deran says the latter. Which is it?

  64. Thomas L. Knapp

    GE,

    I’m not sure I understand Richard’s characterization of your position, so I doubt that I can correct it. But I’ll try to puzzle it out.

    Arthur Torrey is an elector in Massachusetts. Torrey is pledged to vote for George Phillies in his state’s Electoral College meeting up on Beacon Hill if Phillies carries the state. Phillies’s name was on the petitions circulated to gather the signatures which gained Torrey his status as a designated elector.

    There is a lawsuit to substitute Bob Barr’s name for George Phillies’s name on the ballot. Apparently one of the conditions under which the suit can move forward with any prospect of success is that the electors who are pledged to Phillies agree to accept Barr as a substitute.

    Torrey, for reasons he deems good and proper, has now declined to accept such a substitution, which apparently either makes the suit moot, or a losing prospect, or at least damages its likelihood of success.

    Richard, for reasons he deems good and proper, considers the suit an important matter which would benefit third parties immensely if it succeeds. He regards Torrey’s position as contrary to the interests of the LP and of third parties in general, and wants Torrey to agree to the substitution for that reason.

    Here’s where I weigh in on Richard’s side again, NOT versus Torrey, but simply to the extent that I believe Richard’s position is honestly held as explained above, not in some capacity as a shill/proxy for Bob Barr, Bill Redpath, or anyone else. This is an issue he considers important. He’d consider it just as important, at least theoretically, if it was the Socialist Party suing to replace some “placeholder” candidate with Brian Moore.

    GE, on the other hand, places greater importance on other issues, and considers Torrey heroic for e.g. following his conscience, standing up against an overbearing central LP “authority,” holding a prize the Barr campaign wants hostage to better behavior, etc.

    I don’t see that anyone is being unprincipled here. Overheated, yes. In a complex argument, yes. Unprinicipled, no. Hopefully you’ll all be able to have a beer and laugh about it in December.

  65. Trent Hill

    “Private ballots, before ‘64, were tools to exclude people from voting, and access to being voted on as candidates, they were a part of segregationism. Or a mechanism for one party monopolies.”

    Wow.

  66. svf

    Hopefully you’ll all be able to have a beer and laugh about it in December.

    December? I’m having a beer and laughing about it right now.

    I am now convinced that G.E. is the Tony Clifton of Libertarianism. Sit back and enjoy the show!

  67. G.E. Post author

    Richard, for reasons he deems good and proper, considers the suit an important matter which would benefit third parties immensely if it succeeds. He regards Torrey’s position as contrary to the interests of the LP and of third parties in general, and wants Torrey to agree to the substitution for that reason.

    Too bad.

    Now how am I being hypocritical, again? If Richard makes false statements about my character, I think I’m well within my rights to label him an unflinching shill for the Barr campaign. What else would drive him to say I’m a hypocrite?

  68. Arthur Torrey

    1. Richard – Up until this week, I had had ZERO direct communication with either the LP’s or the Mass. Secretary of State’s attorneys.
    I had made it clear in most places (except your blog where I was censored) that I did not support Barr, would not vote for him in the general, and if he won Mass. would not cast an electoral vote for him. This is NOT a surprise, I’d been saying the same thing since before Denver. However I WAS at that point willing to sign off on substituting as long as I didn’t have to (falsely) pledge to cast an electoral vote for Barr. After our e-mail and phone conversation where we discussed your killing my post, I respected your wishes and did not comment directly on the case, and did not include my usual signature lines of not supporting Barr.

    I did INSIST that the LP’s attorneys be aware of my position so that they did not operate under erroneous assumptions.

    When the LNC started trying to remove Keaton, in part because of slanders about her allegedly coming from the Barr campaign, I decided that I would not sign the statement requesting substitution that was being prepared as part of the case – I was NOT the only elector who did not sign it.

    After Barr’s stunt of trying to see how many potential RP supporters he could chase away, I finally decided that I’d had enough of his crap, and officially stated that I will NOT support substitution even if allowed.

    I immediately informed George Phillies (In his role as LPMA State Chair, not pres. candidate) of my decision, and asked his advice on how to handle the fact that I was going to announce it in a way that would do the LEAST harm to the substitution case. It was his suggestion that I send the letter that I did to BOTH SIDES, as well as publishing it…

    Incidentally, the copy that was supposed to go to the Secretary of State’s office BOUNCED – so as far as I know, they did NOT even get it…

    Anybody reading the text of the letter would have seen that I was clearly supportive of establishing the right to substitute, just not doing so in THIS INSTANCE…

    2. “Coming Back to the LP” – I don’t know who you are, but I can be pretty sure you didn’t gather any signatures for *ME* – I am an elected Libertarian, but as I’ve said before, my office of Town Meeting Rep is just about the bottom of the political food chain… I’ve only needed about 20 sigs per race, and have collected all of them myself. I’ve also run for Planning Board, again, I gathered my own sigs.

    3. As to the person who accused me of having a “bruised ego” – sorry it isn’t that fragile… No bruises, just maintaining the same position I’ve had since this whole mess started…

    ART
    LPMA Operations Facilitator
    LPMA Presidential Elector – NOT substituting Barr

  69. Thomas L. Knapp

    GE,

    … sigh …

    Keep in mind that my bread is buttered on the side of Arthur pranging the substitution suit. The BTP has endorsed Phillies in Massachusetts and New Hampshire. If either of those LPs spin off the LNC hub completely, I expect a positive reception to any request they make to become their states’ BTP affiliates.

    You guys are kicking each other in the nuts at the moment over things that you both consider important. I agree — the things you both consider important are important. Hopefully you two can stop kicking each other in the nuts over them, though. GE, Richard is not a statist. Richard, GE is not a hypocrite — even if he is confused, which it is not obvious he is, he’s being honest about his positions and sees no contradiction in them.

  70. George Phillies

    I have had the extremely challenging task of trying to keep my state party committee and electors together on this. I had actually done so, I think, through last weekend, when the LNC conservatives started the salami slice purge of the radicals, and the radicals proved they did not understand what was happening.

    I view the importance of the suit as settling th process for making substitution. I hope out fine attorneys win. They did a superb job. I would view any reasonable outcome binding on future elections as acceptable.

    If anyone tells you that the difficulty in MA at this point is at this point with a single electors, I can promise you that the person in question has not polled my electors and is pulling facts out of his backside.

    And that was before the very interesting telephone call I had this afternoon from a highly competent newspaper reporter .

  71. richardwinger

    I do appreciate IndependentPoliticalReport for giving us all a forum. I did not say G.E. is a hypocrite. I said he was not being logicial, that he was letting his emotions override his logic.

    Pretend that you are passionately devoted to replacing Bob Barr with someone else. What do you do? You first win two-thirds of the National Committee to your position. Then you start talking to the state election officials. If we had already won the Massachusetts lawsuit by now, it would be far, far, far easier to replace Bob Barr. It is counterproductive for anyone who is against Bob Barr, to injure the Massachusetts lawsuit!

    To me that is simplicity itself. Every Libertarian, regardless of their feelings about Bob Barr, should be pulling 100% for winning this case!!!

  72. G.E. Post author

    Why do you not cover the Torrey case on Ballot Access News, Richard? It’s worthy of you making several comments here.

    I’m not “passionately devoted to replacing Barr.” I have no hope whatsoever that a removal motion would pass. I am passionately devoted to there being a vote on removal, which is the firmest rebuke of Barr politically possible. It shows the real libertarians in the Ron Paul movement that not all Libertarians are anti-libertarian like Bob Barr and his followers who hijacked the LP. It’s damage control.

    Real Libertarian candidates across the nation are losing volunteers and supporters on the basis of Barr’s actions. They don’t care about substitution — they care about their own campaigns and the damage that Barr has caused them. The LP should entirely disavow Barr, but since your friend gun-grabber Bill Redpath and his coterie of crooks have a stranglehold on the LNC, that won’t happen. A vote on removal will at least show the RP people how angry many Libertarians are over this.

    Torrey, as an elector, is free to speak his mind. I hope the case fails on the basis that the substitution lacks unanimous support among the electors. That would not necessarily establish a precedent that substitution was invalid in cases where there is unanimous support among the electors.

    Also, Richard: Do you support private ballots?

  73. G.E. Post author

    The word you used, Ricahrd, was “contradict” not “hypocrite.” You said I contradicted myself, which is what hypocrites (and idiots) do, and I did not.

  74. G.E. Post author

    Tom Knapp said that Mr. Winger supported private ballots.

    Socialist Deran said that Mr. Winger did not.

    I’m just asking him if he does or not to clear up the misrepresentation one of these men inadvertently (I assume) engaged in. What’s wrong with that?

  75. richardwinger

    My policy preference is to have constitutional protection for equal ballot access for everyone (it could be state constitutions or US Constitution). I believe the 9th amendment has that guarantee, but no judge has ever said that.

    But if we can’t have that, then private ballots is far, far superior to what we have today in states like Oklahoma, where people who don’t want to vote for the Dem or Rep nominee for president, completely lose their vote.

  76. johnlowell

    Fred Church Ortiz,

    You don’t like shmendrick for Barr? How about schmegeggie or yukel, then. Very roughly the same meaning but maybe it goes down better?

  77. Libertymom

    Thanks for letting us know about the Motion. I couldn’t be happier than to see Barr removed as nominee – though I’m hardpressed to believe it will happen.

    I was really looking forward to voting Libertarian this year (though my first choice was Ron Paul), but now with Barr as the nominee, I just can’t bring myself to do that.

    Please keep us posted. Thanks.

  78. G.E. Post author

    I’m against government-printed and taxpayer-funded ballots. They are not only the product of coercive taxation, but are guaranteed to be preferential to the parties that control the government. History has shown this.

  79. davyrockett

    Barr did drop the ball.
    However Liberty must prevail.
    We need to focus on building the liberty and constitution movement, win in 2010 and 2012 taking over Congress first, then we will elect a president.

  80. richardwinger

    So I answered G.E.’s queston. He still hasn’t answered mine…does he want the Massachusetts lawsuit to win, or doesn’t he?

  81. G.E. Post author

    I don’t know enough about the case to give a yes or no answer.

    I think that, under the horribly oppressive statist system, parties should be able to change their nominees, as per their bylaws, up until the latest possible date.

    But I also hope Bob Barr gets the fewest votes possible.

  82. G.E. Post author

    Oh, and what do you mean that I could “help” this case? How? By refusing to publish news pertaining to it?

  83. carolm62

    Wow oh wow….

    What is it about libertarians that they don’t actually want to accomplish anything…? I swear, the moment they start getting somewhere they head into self-sabotage mode every time.

    Now that Barr is bringing the largest number of votes that the LP ever had, including when Ron Paul ran as the standard bearer, which could quite possibly result in even greater traction in the future , forces in the LP now want us OFF the ballot.

    After spending vast amounts of time and money battling for ballot access across the country it is now forces within the LP that want us off the ballot!

    And why…? Because they personally feel that a guy they happened to like more got snubbed.

    Well, you know what…? I happen to have committed a vast amount of resources to the success of the Libertarian candidate this year, and I don’t appreciate having my efforts negated by a bunch of personality disordered whiners bent on being as ornery, difficult and curmudgeonly as possible because that is the impossible-to-please self-righteous holier-than-thou “Libertarian Way.”

  84. Lance Brown

    Removing a presidential candidate because of a perceived tactical blunder would set an astonishingly bad precedent. This motion as reported here strikes me as childish and wildly unproductive.

    It’s very possible I would feel differently if the motion were based on matters of substance, like Barr’s positions, or even a series of citations on how his campaign had failed to deliver on promises made prior to the convention vote, but bad press conference etiquette (or “misbehavior”) is just nowhere near sufficient cause to remove – or even reprimand – a presidential candidate. The general petition to have him removed, which centers largely around the Ron Paul snub, is misguided in the same way.

    There are much better ways to diss Barr’s campaign than attacking or tearing at the LP. People need to get their heads out of their asses and think about the fact that the LP is not Barr, or Redpath, or Keaton, or any individual personality, or incident, or convention vote. The LP is a vehicle, and you don’t destroy a vehicle because of its driver, or passengers, or wrong turns it may have made. The propensity for LP supporters to hunt for a reason to divorce themselves from the party is unbelievable. Un-fucking-believable even. If we could bottle that amazing force, and feed it to people who know how to build up, rather than tear down, we could take over the country in 2 years.

  85. Lance Brown

    G.E.,

    Torrey is not committing an act of aggression. He is not speaking out against the principle that a party should be able to substitute. He is merely OPPOSING THIS PARTICULAR substitution.

    Torrey is directly asking the state to use its power against Bob Barr, is he not? How is that not aggression?

    And where has Richard Winger said something that makes him not a libertarian?

    And where in the world do you get off denouncing anyone for using “smears” against you? The undisputed master of labeling people evil, etc.? You can attack anyone you want with whatever label you want, true or not, but if anyone calls you out on becoming the raving rabies dog that you have become, they are immediately discredited. If that’s the case, then you best file me into your ever-growing enemies of freedom camp, or whatever, G.E.

    And BTW, how can you on one hand say that IPR has gotten lots of new visitors since “Smeargate” began, and on the other hand claim that most of the people here know who you are? I’ve been a regular on this site since it launched, and I don’t know who you are.

    Lastly, I question whether an op-ed piece equals “coverage” (re: WashPo/Dana Milbank). To suggest that the Barr/Paul incident has substantially affected the political world beyond the supporters of Barr and Paul is questionable though, I think. (To claim that the “WaPo says Barr went ‘hog wild'” is just false, as I see it. Milbank does not speak for WaPo.)

    And more lastly, the shame here is that in your effort to make IPR the undisputed king of all media tearing down the Barr campaign, you have done a major disservice to the other side of the story, IMO. You wanted your readers to see the event from a pro-Paul, anti-Barr viewpoint, and so that’s the story you told, every couple hours for two days.

    Where’s the story about how Ron Paul has pissed away and hopelessly diffused what was once a powerful movement? Where’s the one about how he used “Ron Paul” movement support to support socialist candidates? Or the one about how Paul staffers or backers had spread rumors that Barr was backing out of the race prior to Paul’s conference? Maybe those stories are in here somewhere, amongst the forest of anti-LP, anti-Barr screed-stories here but they are overpowered (to say the least) by a different narrative on IPR.

    Coming Back to the LP,

    >To be the candidate of a party, you generally have to be nominated by that party.

    I disagree, and I think virtually every media outlet in America’s coverage disagrees too. All of the pre-nomination candidates were called “Democratic [or whatever] presidential candidate such-and-such”, while they were battling with each other for the nomination. Likewise, LP candidates competing against each other in primaries are all considered candidates of their party.

    Your sentence is correct if you replace “candidate” with “nominee”.

  86. richardwinger

    G.E. and IndependentPoliticalReport are doing very good work for giving us all a forum to hash these things out. I respect G.E. and feel kinship with him.

  87. G.E. Post author

    Lance – We have ten or so writers, and trust me, none of them were prohibited from telling the “other side” of the story. In fact, we DID tell the “other side” — what are Barr’s pitiful press releases. What do you want us to do? Where is the “other side” news we didn’t cover? THERE IS NONE. There is no other narrative to be found anywhere on the Web, because it does not exist.

    People call me out all the time. That’s fine. But stating untruths about me (like alleging I wrote the WikiNews article) or drawing illogical conclusions (saying I “contradicted” myself in this thread) is not cool. But do I censor my opponents? Of course not! That’s what the BARR CAMPAIGN and its sycophants do. So what are you complaining about?

    If you want to know who I am, it’s not hard to find out. I don’t like my name showing up in Google searches because it’s bad for my career. But you’re right, with the massive influx of new people, my “most people here know me” line is no longer true. But that’s really besides the point: I’m not an antonymous troll. That’s my point.

  88. Lance Brown

    G.E.,

    What do you want us to do?

    I’d like you to post things with an eye for reporting the news, and no other agenda. I’d like you to be objective and journalistic. I’d like you to be equally energetic about telling both sides of the story. (And if you think you were those things re: the Barr/Paul snafu, then I don’t know how I can help you see it differently.) I’d like you to be more careful with the facts. I’d like you to be more careful (and objective) with your headlines. I’d like you to quit tagging each story about Barr or the LP with a first-comment “disgraceful”, or “criminals”, or whatever. Real journalists don’t post a news story and then immediately comment on their own story so as to effectively footnote it with a heavy dose of completely-unjournalistic spin.

    And aside from what I’d like IPR/the G.E. Show to do journalistically, personally speaking, I’d like you to back the fuck off my party. You have become (or maybe always were, since I don’t know who you are or where you came from) an anti-LP attack dog, and it is largely unjustified. Barr is not the LP, Redpath is not the LP, the LNC is not the LP, the 2008 delegates are not the LP. You may have decided that the LP is a done deal, or ruined, or evil, or whatever, but those aren’t the facts. You seem to have a hunger for making mountains out of molehills, esp. as pertains to Barr and the LNC, and you have gleefully fed the corresponding hunger among Libertarians to hate and/or eat their own. The cumulative effect has, I believe, been destructive for the freedom movement, even though I suspect your intention is the opposite.

    But you’re right, with the massive influx of new people, my “most people here know me” line is no longer true.

    And yet you said it, earlier in these comments.

    But that’s really besides the point: I’m not an anonymous troll. That’s my point.

    I ran an online forum for 9 years; in what ways do you think you’re not an anonymous troll? Aside from the fact that you’re one of the site’s co-managers and content-generators, your behavior in the comments area of this site fits all the anonymous troll criteria I can think of. You think the fact that people know you somehow undoes that? You use a fake name so that your real life person doesn’t have to live with the consequences of your pseudonym’s statements or actions; you constantly attack one certain group or type of people, and seek to expand your pool of targets whenever possible; you constantly use the same tired slams and insults and canards (see: Bill Redpath), often as the first poster in a thread…I guess the only key “troll” criteria I can think of that doesn’t apply is being unwelcome – but of course, that also doesn’t apply to the folks who you are implicitly (or explicitly) accusing of being trolls.

    To everyone else:

    I like G.E. too, as far as anti-LP hatemongers go. But I think at a place that is supposed to be a news site, the content-generators should focus on providing news (with all the highest ideals that can be attached to that term). G.E. has an agenda, and his focus on forwarding that agenda has overtaken his news-providing function. IPR, which ironically accuses ThirdPartyWatch of being a pro-Barr tool, is rapidly (and proudly) distinguishing itself as one of the preeminent anti-Barr sites on the web.

  89. G.E. Post author

    Lance – I don’t care enough about you to “question” your credentials. No one need challenge your status as a Grade-A Asshole and liar.

    START YOUR OWN WEB SITE.

    We’re doing just fine without your advice.

  90. Hugh Jass

    “Where’s the story about how Ron Paul has pissed away and hopelessly diffused what was once a powerful movement? Where’s the one about how he used “Ron Paul” movement support to support socialist candidates? Or the one about how Paul staffers or backers had spread rumors that Barr was backing out of the race prior to Paul’s conference? Maybe those stories are in here somewhere, amongst the forest of anti-LP, anti-Barr screed-stories here but they are overpowered (to say the least) by a different narrative on IPR.”

    How has he pissed away his movement? His movement is stronger than ever, with over 100,000 members of the Campaign for Liberty. Ron Paul doesn’t support Nader or McKinney, but he encouraged people to vote for them becasue they all agree on his principles issues: foreign interventionism, civil liberties, debt, and the Fed. By the way, while we’re talking about socialism, it is worth mentioning that, unlike Barr, neither Nader nor McKinney support the government bailing out financial institutions. Paul cannot be held responsible for what his supporters speculate could happen at a conference. Barr is responsible for what his campaign does and says.

  91. langa

    I find it very ironic that Lance Brown is accusing someone else of being a troll. This is the same Lance Brown that shows up on any thread where Ron Paul’s name is mentioned (even in passing)for the sole purpose of highjacking the thread by taking gratuitous potshots at Dr. Paul and his supporters, right? Or is there another Lance Brown?

  92. bedr1

    Dr. No needs to be Dr. Yes on this one.

    Our forefathers are rolling over in their graves. Dr. Paul made a huge mistake and needs to apologize and recant.

    For Dr. Paul, an elected official, to tell people NOT TO VOTE is akin to telling people not to eat and go on a hunger strike. No Dr.Paul was wrong, wrong, wrong and he needs to reverse what he said. Its one thing for people not to vote, but its a whole other for an elected official to tell people to do such a thing. Its political assisted suicide. I spent everyday from the time Dr. Paul announced his campaign until our State Convention trying to convince people Dr. Paul was worth voting for and make sure you get registered, and now Dr. Paul comes out with this. How does he ever expect us to get people involved in the next election cycle – there will be people who will actually say they even heard its okay to protest and not vote because of Dr. Paul, and that is what they will do.

    It one thing for Dr. Paul to not want to put himself on the line and not choose one of the alternative candidates over McCain and Obama, but he should have never told or encouraged people not to vote. Barr was correct to stay away from that line of thinking if thats what he saw in the official press release beforehand.

  93. G.E. Post author

    When did Ron Paul tell people not to vote?

    Not voting is the rational thing to do. We are all sick with the disease known as politics. I envy those who’ve found a cure.

  94. BrianHoltz

    What G.E. is not telling you is that he is Jason Seagraves, a self-employed freelance writer who recently held the (presumably paid) position of “Ron Paul Field Coordinator and Flint Office Manager; Ron Paul Coordinator for Saginaw County”. Four years ago he was 26 years old and a self-described “liberal” who was then converted to anarcholibertarianism by Mary Ruwart. He gave one of her nominating speeches in Denver and bitterly opposed Barr’s nomination. In a contretemps between the nominee of the Party of Principle and Ron Paul’s new Campaign For Protest Voting, it’s not hard to figure out which side Jason’s reporting will favor. Don’t expect much critical reporting from Jason on either Ron Paul or his friend Chuck Baldwin, a former leader of Jerry Falwell’s Moral Majority.

  95. G.E. Post author

    Holtz – My identity is well established and my history is well known — by most, at least. But thanks for summing things up concisely (and accurately, I might add) for those who don’t know. I use the name “G.E.” because I don’t like my posts showing up in Google searches made by potential employers.

  96. BrianHoltz

    Ron Paul said at his press conference (http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog/?p=483):

    RP) Since a principled non-voter sends a message, we must count them and recognize the message they are sending as well. The non-voters need to hold their own “election” by starting a “League of Non-voters” and explain their principled reasons for opting out of this charade of the presidential elective process. They just might get a bigger membership than anyone would guess. […]

    The strongest message can be sent by rejecting the two-party system, which in reality is a one-party system with no possible chance for the changes to occur which are necessary to solve our economic and foreign policy problems. This can be accomplished by voting for one of the non-establishment principled candidates—Baldwin, Barr, McKinney, Nader, and possibly others. (listed alphabetically) […]

    For me, though, my advice—for what it’s worth—is to vote! Reject the two candidates who demand perpetuation of the status quo and pick one of the alternatives that you have the greatest affinity to, based on the other issues. (RP

    What a stirring call for us to cast our vote for Liberty….

  97. carolm62

    As much as I admire Dr. Paul, I am also disappointed in the direction he has chosen to take things. I too think he pissed away the huge momentum that had been built — and let me add here — this momentum was in part built by others FOR him — and for the benefit of the liberty movement.

    The Campaign for Liberty has been a disappointing fizzle and no one is sadder about that than me. It appears that large numbers of Paul supporters won’t vote for the Liberty candidates because they are not Dr. Paul. Since these candidates have actually committed sins against liberty in their past lives like everyone else on earth — well — “Woe Unto Them!”

    It is disturbing to see that large numbers of Paul supporters are quite willing to sum up a candidate’s entire life and character by one or two actions — with no regard for the context or the reasons — entirely disregarding the rest of the picture. That makes the future of the liberty movement look pretty darn bleak, IMO — unless y’all know of an immaculate conception somewhere , where the test-tube sinless progeny of Dr. Paul and Ayn Rand is being raised in a sterile environment to be brought forth in the future as our messiah.

    The liberty movement has somehow bred a culture where it is considered OK to cast outrageous judgments upon others — to reduce complex human beings into simple caricatures. This is so freaky weird to see, especially when the Prime Directive of Libertarians is non-aggression. What is with that…?

    One source of the Culture of Judgment may have been Ayn Rand herself. She was a pretty harsh judge of people. But this was one her failings, not one of her virtues. What should be noted is that this penchant for harsh judgment did not work for her! By the end of her life she had alienated almost everyone and ended up alone. I don’t think it is wise for libertarians who revere her work to emulate that particular trait.

    One of the things that Ron Paul said (paraphrasing) is that liberty operates within the realm of reason. Well, these judgments and caricatures of people are not “reason.” They are the product of some very irrational thought processes.

    I’d like to see more reason from libertarians — less all-or-nothing thinking; less attribution of motives; less emotional reasoning.

  98. Jim Rongstad

    carolm62 said “The liberty movement has somehow bred a culture where it is considered OK to cast outrageous judgments upon others — to reduce complex human beings into simple caricatures. This is so freaky weird to see, especially when the Prime Directive of Libertarians is non-aggression. What is with that…?”

    Yes, all too true.

  99. G.E. Post author

    Reducing people to simple caricatures is NOT any form of aggression.

    Ever heard of “sticks and stones”?

  100. G.E. Post author

    Jim – I’m not saying it is. But there’s a difference between being unproductive and being aggressive. It’s the difference between being a jerk and being a criminal.

  101. carolm62

    G.E.

    I disagree with you. I think attacks to a person’s character are aggressive. After all, is the intent not still to harm them…?

    Any person in an emotionally abusive relationship would likely state the emotional abuse was just as destructive, if not more so, than the physical abuse.

    It’s all aggression. Whether or not it is legally recognized as such is not really the point. Morally, it is aggressive. I’ll go as far here as to say that aggression towards a person’s property, a person’s physical body, and a person’s emotions/mind all have the same root — enmity — so I would like to see libertarians take the moral high ground in this regard.

    I am NOT saying that we cannot disagree with one another on points of difference — only that this business of casting Almighty Judgment upon an entire person as being EVIL, when it is a few policy points we differ with, is pretty emotionally aggressive.

    I would bet that you could tell the difference yourself if you experimented on this for awhile. How about saying, for example, that you think person B is mistaken on an issue, instead of saying that he is the Spawn of Satan…? I am betting that after awhile you would find yourself feeling less…. aggressive. 🙂

  102. langa

    Intent is irrelevant. Conflating “emotional” aggression with physical aggression not only trivializes the latter, it is also used as justification for things like hate crime laws, sexual harrassment laws, and all sorts of other evil laws. No one has the right to not have their feelings hurt.

  103. G.E. Post author

    Carol – You don’t believe in free speech?

    Libertarianism is against the initiation of physical force. It is NOT a P.C. Nazi speech-police code.

    That is NOT to say that “aggressive” verbal behavior is a good thing. You are free to shun and think less of people who engage in it. But it is NOT contrary to libertarianism, which is a philosophy of how humans relate to one another and the state in terms of physical aggression only.

  104. Lance Brown

    langa,

    I find it very ironic that Lance Brown is accusing someone else of being a troll. This is the same Lance Brown that shows up on any thread where Ron Paul’s name is mentioned (even in passing)for the sole purpose of highjacking the thread by taking gratuitous potshots at Dr. Paul and his supporters, right? Or is there another Lance Brown?

    Believe it or not, in my small county of 100,000 people, there’s actually not only another Lance Brown, but he has my same birthday, year included. Nutty, eh?

    Anyway, I’ve never accused anyone of being a troll, including in all the time I ran the online forum. I think it’s a ridiculous term, and I was only using it because G.E. specifically said he wasn’t one. So I compared him to what I understand are the commonly-accepted characteristics of being an “anonymous troll” on website discussion threads. I was attempting to use G.E.’s meaning of the word, which I assume he was using like most people would use it. While I don’t initiate the use of that term – which is a ridiculously degrading way to talk about another human being, BTW – I’ve certainly observed its use, literally thousands of times.

    I also dispute whether anyone can be accused of hijacking a thread at IPR at this point. Thread drift of extraordinary proportions is often the norm here (I’m not complaining, G.E. – please don’t beat me). I can’t imagine I’ve ever brought up Paul when he wasn’t already in discussion, but maybe I’m wrong. And trust me, I’ve withheld 99.9% of my vitriol against Paul the movement-smasher during the time he’s been making waves over the past year or so. (At least until the past few days, when I probably let out another 9.9% of my frustration or so.)

    And if I’ve taken gratuitous potshots against anyone other than G.E., I’d be surprised. And I don’t take potshots at G.E. because he’s a Paul supporter; I guess I do it because he’s a bully, and bullies need to be stood up to. Most people he attacks probably will never even post here. Which means that people who are willing to risk the blowback that comes from calling him out when necessary are all the more needed to step up and represent. Particularly since we’re all liars and scoundrels and paid Barr operatives. Us CIA shills need to stick together. 😉

    Seriously, unless it’s on a point of fact, I generally dig into G.E. because he is so hard-hitting himself. He’s out here, swinging his fists around frenetically, and it only makes sense to give him a jab here and there. It’s all the more tempting because of how it initiates a predictable pattern of attack from G.E. I think in part I truly did feel left out in that G.E. hadn’t attacked my character, accused me of not being a libertarian, said I was a liar and asked me to leave. I consider that a badge of honor of sorts.

  105. Lance Brown

    Although unfortunately I’m not even significant enough for him to decide if I’m a legitimate L/libertarian or not. Come on, G.E….can’t you fulfill my last requirement so I can earn my full G.E. Disapproval badge? Just say I’m not a libertarian. It’s easy.

  106. G.E. Post author

    If I’m a “bully” then what are the people who censor comments at TPW, RonPaulForums, etc.?

  107. G.E. Post author

    The term “libertarian” has been sullied beyond repair to the point that I will, I’m stating right here and now, NEVER say someone isn’t a “libertarian” ever again.

  108. langa

    Lance,

    I apologize if I misinterpreted your post or jumped to conclusions. It seemed to me that you were calling GE a troll. Of course, it’s not like GE needs me to defend him, so I probably should have minded my own business.

    Also, I wasn’t calling you a troll. Rather, I was just pointing out that some of the “troll criteria” that you applied to GE (picking fights, taking potshots, making the same arguments on many different threads) could be applied to you as well. However, if you weren’t actually calling GE a troll, then I apologize.

  109. Lance Brown

    (Holy shit – God bless Firefox, sorta. I was writing this big, mostly conciliatory post, when South Park crashed Firefox, and I wasn’t able to copy my post before the crash. But I restarted Firefox and the message is here in the text box. Pretty sweet!)

    People shouldn’t get me wrong. (Ironic how libertarians can be such aggressive debaters and yet be so touchy sometimes.) I like IPR, and have been a more-or-less daily reader since the LP Convention. In contrast, nowadays I glance at TPW once or twice a week, and almost never dig in further or comment. I like this site, I appreciate the forum that’s offered to us, etc. But that doesn’t mean I’m not going to be critical when I think it’s due. It’s not a matter of controversy that G.E. has made mistakes in reporting facts; he has conceded doing so,ka dn worked to fix them, on more than one occasion. Lots of news sites struggle with fact-checking and objectivity, and IPR is no different. And prickly as G.E. may be against folks who challenge him, it’s also clear that he’s working harder to be more accurate, and, at least in his story content, objective. It doesn’t mean there aren’t still problems with the reporting, or that IPR has not become anti-Barr, or that G.E. is not a bully. There are, it has, and he is. I have nothing to gain by saying that, other than to hopefully motivate further improvements in IPR’s journalistic standards, and a less hostile and divisive atmosphere in the discussion area.

    Also, there have been several references to how IPR does not censor or whatever. I’ve never accused IPR or G.E. of being censors or censoring anything. I’m not sure what gave that impression.

    G.E.,

    I’ve been an online forum bully myself, as a site moderator, just like you. (Though like you, I didn’t censor anyone’s posts.) You may not be aware of it, but in most people’s eyes your posts automatically carry substantially more weight than others, and many people will decline to counter or otherwise challenge you, out of deference to “the management”. Or to avoid being seen as unappreciative. Or because they -justly or not – fear censorship or removal.

    I’ve seen many waves of forum participants (at my old site) come in from many different sites and backgrounds, and they all had the above fears and deference, etc. built in. Despite years of 100% non-censorship, people still automatically bestowed extra presumed power upon me whenever I entered a forum. If I spoke against someone, it was seen as a general pronouncement. If I took a stand on something, many wouldn’t speak against it just because it was me, the forum owner. People were loathe to complain, despite having complaints. Not everyone behaved by those assumptions, but lots of people did. Lots more than I even know about, because the response of those people is almost universally silence (naturally). Often I would only hear about it from someone who was comfortable enough with me as a regular person to tell me. And again, this is despite the fact that my site had an explicit and well-known no censorship, no banning policy. (And despite the fact that when I joined discussions or was provocative, it was in hopes of fostering discussion, not stifling it.) And it wasn’t just me – it was that way across the online forum universe. As I mentioned, people came to the site with the preconceived notions (that they got at other places) in tow.

    You’d probably still be a forum bully, even if you were a regular civilian here (and I may well be too), but the fact that you’re part of management gives you even more power and weight, whether you realize it or not. I can 100% guarantee that’s true for a significant amount of people who read this site. Most of whom you will never hear from. (Not the least because you’ve also probably harshly derided them with some sweeping pronouncement.)

  110. G.E. Post author

    “Bully” to me indicates a threat of violence, or, in an online setting, a threat of taking some kind of action against someone (i.e. banning them?)

    I’m not sure how my behavior fits the term “bully,” but many people here will atest to the fact that I behave no differently here than I did at TPW before that site sold out and I created this one.

  111. carolm62

    G.E.

    Where did I say that “There ought to be a law” against verbal aggression or free speech? I don’t think there “should” be laws about such things but that is not to say that you therefore “should” do them.

    There ought not to be laws against drugs but that does not mean that you “should” do drugs.

  112. G.E. Post author

    I didn’t say you said “there out to be a law.” You said that verbal “aggression” was inconsistent with libertarianism, and I said that libertarianism deals with the initiation of force — i.e. things that SHOULD be illegal (physical force).

  113. G.E. Post author

    There ought not to be laws against drugs but that does not mean that you “should” do drugs.

    But doing drugs is completely consistent with libertarianism — just as being a jerk is.

  114. carolm62

    I suppose some libertarians might think that doing drugs is OK since it harms no one but themselves (though that is debatable), but I actually consider it a crime against one’s own agency. If someone values their right to choose above all else, then why would one put himself in the position of becoming a slave to a substance…? Why would one intentionally reduce one’s capacity to make choices…?

    Drugs, alcohol and tobacco seem seem like the most anti-liberty things going — though I of course support anyone’s right to enslave himself….

  115. Lance Brown

    “Bully” to me indicates a threat of violence,

    Bully to me means the stronger overpowering the weaker, to the advantage of the stronger and disadvantage of the weaker.

    And anyway, do we not refer to some online postings as “attacks”?

    What you threaten people with is to many folks worse than physical pain. You threaten them with public scorn, ridicule, humiliation, derision, character attacks, and more. If someone challenges you here, they can expect to have their character called into question for doing so. All of which is legal (aside from the libel), and that’s fine and good, but that doesn’t make it not bullying. In case you haven’t noticed, there is no physical violence in online discussions, ever. Does that mean there is no intimidation? Words are the weapon of choice in online discussions. And they can be used well or hurtfully, constructively or destructively, etc. Just because none of it leaves physical marks doesn’t make it insignificant.

    I suppose you think you haven’t been bullying or attacking Dodge Landesman for example, G.E., just because it’s only words.

    Anyway, again, it’s all legal, and totally your prerogative how to deal with others. But this is a little society here, and the type of society it becomes depends largely on what happens in these comment areas. I think that you are (perhaps unwittingly) abusing your power a bit within the society – with one of the substantive effects being that the site has effectively become part of the anti-Barr movement. Which may also be a direct consequence of the rivalry between IPR and supposedly pro-Barr TPW. The end effect, though, is to increase division among the freedom movement, and to increase hostility on these here discussion threads. Maybe that’s also part of the rivalry. When I go to TPW, the threads seem intolerably hostile. Maybe this site is just catching up to the market.

  116. G.E. Post author

    Are you a scientiologist, Carol? What drugs? Should cancer and AIDS patients not take drugs? Or do you mean non-government approved drugs? Why should the government decide which drugs are “good” and which are bad?

    Value is subjective. It’s pretty arrogant to characterize the users of drugs you deem to be “bad” as “enslaving themselves.” Who are you to judge what’s best for others?

    By the way, do you drink coffee? Eat chocolate? Drink soda/pop? Do you engage in any activities that are habit-forming, like… posting on blogs?

  117. G.E. Post author

    Okay, I’ll question your libertarianism, Lance. The kind of bullshit you’re purveying above is pure pinko liberalism.

    Absurd to say that what I do — whatever that is — is “worse than physical violence.”

    What you’re doing is trying to “bully” me into second-guessing every word I type. It won’t work. I’m through defending myself from your lies and smears.

  118. Lance Brown

    BTW, my definition of bully above leaves much to be desired. There’s more to it than that. My point was more than it doesn’t require acts of violence; it’s more about the strong abusing their strength.

  119. Ross Levin

    I’ve got to say, I’m agreeing with a lot of what Lance is saying.

    It’s not that you should second-guess everything you type, but maybe take a look in the mirror every so often.

  120. Lance Brown

    Absurd to say that what I do — whatever that is — is “worse than physical violence.”

    I didn’t say it’s worse, I said to some people its worse. (Not to me.) If you don’t think that there are people who fear humiliation far more than violence, then you have a lot to learn about people.

  121. G.E. Post author

    Of course you do, Ross. You’re a liberal. You think the “strong” such as the owners of property, can “bully” by abusing the “weak” such as the users of that property. That’s bullshit. I’m not bullying anyone. If anyone doesn’t like IPR, they can leave. Period. I won’t follow them.

  122. darolew

    This thread of conversation is depressing. To be cliché–can’t we all get along?

    Then again, if that truly were the case, we’d have no need for politics at all.

  123. carolm62

    G.E.

    It seems you misunderstand where I was going….

    Of course we don’t want laws governing every aspect of our lives, which is the whole point of libertarian thought. It would seem to me that libertarians, in being consistent with the spirit of non-aggression, would freely choose to be less aggressive verbally — even if they don’t have to.

    The thing about verbal aggression is that it is a move towards harm — even if it is not actual physical coercion.

    If I am verbally aggressive with you, I have likely departed from the realm of reason or from attempting to persuade you through my impervious logic :-).

    If I am verbally aggressive, I have instead descended into the realm of trying to manipulate your tender and vulnerable emotions — basically trying to make you do what I want by playing against your deepest fears. At their core, these fears are usually embedded in survival issues, which is why emotional attacks and manipulation are so effective.

    So verbal aggression may not be something that should be illegal, but it is not something I aspire to either….

    I think libertarians can do better, especially since we’ve already got the other piece figured out.

  124. G.E. Post author

    darolew – Yes, that was Lance’s apparently objective, and I’m not taking part in it.

    Carol – Okay; I get what you’re saying and agree. My only point is that libertarianism, as a philosophy, deals with force and fraud, not hurtful words.

  125. Ross Levin

    GE, I don’t think you’re a “bully”, but I do think that sometimes your comments are pretty strong, and to someone who doesn’t know you that might come off as offensive.

    The main thing I agreed with Lance about is the divisiveness. We should try to be inclusive here, and I know you and the rest of us contributors are trying very hard to be inclusive. However, on occasion you take it a bit too far (and you’re not the only one guilty of this). That might just be the cost of a news organization that’s also advocating a cause. I’m not sure.

    I just think that because of what you did in starting this website and managing it, it’s become something great. And while it is our duty to call people out and we’ve been doing that, we should be careful not to cross the line.

  126. G.E. Post author

    But it should be noted that what I’m generally reacting to with “divisiveness” is the divisiveness of others!

  127. carolm62

    G.E.

    The term “doing drugs” is usually understood as the use of recreational drugs of an addictive nature — not drugs that are taken for medicinal purposes.

    As for enslaving oneself with drugs, well, hey, if someone has become addicted to a substance to the point he can no longer choose NOT to take a substance, I suppose the shoe fits. He has become a slave to it, hasn’t he…? He is not free. The drug is the master. I think that is very tragic situation and I personally think it is something to be avoided — but if it lights your fire GE, well, go ahead. I won’t be voting for drug laws any time soon.

    Umm, actually I don’t drink coffee but I do post on blogs…. 🙂

  128. Ross Levin

    Carol – I’m not saying I endorse this view, but when Mike Gravel was running for president, he said he was for legalizing hard drugs so that the government could regulate them and addicts could be treated as medical patients rather than criminals. They would go to rehab instead of prison. So it’s not like everyone who wants to legalize drugs is for it just so everyone can do whatever they want all the time. Some see it as an opportunity to help addicts, lessen the problems we see in our prisons, and make society a more intelligent and better place.

  129. John P Slevin

    Lance Brown is absolutely right on in everything he’s posted here.

    G.E. Smith is a moron.

    I’ll go beyond what Lance says.

    Again, G.E. Smith lies, repeatedly, and in a huge percentage of his posts. MOST of what the idiot writes is LIES.

    VERY little is based on fact. Read back thru the idiot’s ravings on ballot access for the LP and Barr. The guy has NOTHING RIGHT, for the last 2 months.

    Just over the last few days, this TWIT, has slimed Richard Winger, George Phillies, Lance Brown…. ANYONE who didn’t back Ruwart for president (for those of you who don’t know Mary Ruwart, she’s the LP candidate who filed “at the last minute” when Ron Paul made it clear he wouldn’t run, and she, Mary, NEVER has formed any following, ANYWHERE, to be elected EVEN to the level of dogcatcher).

    ALL of his targets FAR precede his own involvement in OUR cause. See, this idiot, G.E. Smith, was a Green till months ago.

    More recently, he backed Ron Paul (so did I, but I did it as a longtime Libertarian).

    G.E. did it as a FAILED GREEN…Now, this former GREEN wants to tell George Phillies who is right and who is wrong on the FED.

    OK>>>>>

    Follow that shit, and you get the G.E. Smith (who also is a TRUTHER, btw) view on world events.

    He’s also just today (and yesterday) written pieces that said ANYONE joining the US military is a murderer…or, a wannabe murderer.

    G.E. Smith specifically says you can’t join the military if you don’t want to murder people.

    Good writer? Hell yes. Articulate, no problem there. Pretty, yeah, that too. And I think that is G.E.’s problem.

    I’m not going to say that G.E. is stuck on Ruwart, I’m just going to say that the moron slimes any who stand in Ruwart’s way to the nomination.

    There is absolutely no reason in hell for some TWIT who never was a Libertarian, and who just months ago was a friggin’ Green, to be listened to by ANY self-respecting Libertarian..

    Not that I don’t like the Big Tent…I do.

    But G.E. wants the “HIS TENT”. Only those approved by the TWIT shall be allowed in.

    Ask yourselves, or, ask G.E., what has become of the GIANT organization he built for the Greens, or for Ron Paul?

    He didn’t.

    He used tactics like these. He slimes people.

    The guy who started 3rd Party Watch and this blog used to show some standards.

    It’s not like that now. Now you get TWITS like G.E.

    For anyone who doesn’t know, G.E. doesn’t exist. He’s a liar, and a wimp who won’t even publish his smears under his own name.

    MORON.

    Austin used to have some scruples. I guess those went out the window…huh?

  130. G.E. Post author

    See, this idiot, G.E. Smith, was a Green till months ago.

    Lie. Well… Not if you consider FORTY-TWO months ago to be “months” ago. I quit the Greens in February, 2005. Joined the LP later that year.

    Follow that shit, and you get the G.E. Smith (who also is a TRUTHER, btw)

    Lie. Not even remotely true, if by “Truther” you mean that I believe 9/11 was an “inside job.” No basis in fact whatsoever to claim that of me.

    The guy who started 3rd Party Watch and this blog used to show some standards.

    Huge contradiction. Afterall, I AM THE GUY who started IPR. Austin Cassidy didn’t join until later.

    So look how many facts you got wrong here. Now PLEASE point out where I’ve lied in posts. I’d like to see it and make the corrections.

    I did not “slime” Richard Winger, you fool. We had a disagreement. I don’t think Richard appreciates the way you zombies put him on a pedestal like a golden calf. He’s a man and errs like all of us. He is not above criticism, nor is any man who has ever walked the face of the earth. So STFU.

  131. G.E. Post author

    For anyone who doesn’t know, G.E. doesn’t exist. He’s a liar, and a wimp who won’t even publish his smears under his own name.

    I do in fact exist and I don’t post on blogs under my own name for the same reason that many others don’t — for employment reasons.

    Despite the fact that he titled the entry untruthfully, Brian Holtz — NOT my friend — “exposed” me in this bio here. MOST people who post here already knew all there was to know about me, including my name, but here you go:

    http://more.libertarianintelligence.com/2008/09/what-jason-seagraves-wont-tell-you.html

  132. carolm62

    Ross:

    I totally agree with you. I once listened to a lecture by some representatives from LEAP (law enforcement against prohibition) and their presentation about the failure of the drug war was absolutely compelling.

    So, while I am personally opposed to the use of drugs in my own life for my stated reasons, and counsel my children to stay away from them for their own health, I also recognize that government interference in the matter “for our own good” has created a nightmare. Drugs need to be decriminalized.

  133. darolew

    “OK>>>>>”

    I see your quickly-written libel couldn’t even spare its gratuitous use of the Shift key long enough to properly type out a string of periods. Nice job.

  134. Ross Levin

    John P Slevin – you don’t seem to know what you’re talking about. GE started this blog, GE manages this blog, and he does a damn good job. He has strong opinions, but he gets over them. And the fact that I write here just goes to prove that. Because I don’t think GE and I could be farther apart on the political spectrum.

  135. Steve LaBianca

    John P Slevin // Sep 14, 2008 at 12:07 am

    ANYONE who didn’t back Ruwart for president (for those of you who don’t know Mary Ruwart, she’s the LP candidate who filed “at the last minute” when Ron Paul made it clear he wouldn’t run, and she, Mary, NEVER has formed any following, ANYWHERE, to be elected EVEN to the level of dogcatcher).

    Mary Ruwart declared for the LP nomination on March 21st, fully 2 months before the start of the LP convention.

    NOTE: Bar declared on May . . . hmmm, I don’t remember the exact day but I think it was May 12th, less than 2 weeks before the LP convention.

    Mary Ruwart’s book Healing Our World was on the best seller list of political books in 2003. Contrary to what you say, Mary Ruwart has a very strong following . . just ask Ian Bernard, the host of Free Talk Live who his hero is! Mary Ruwart was also endorsed by the Detroit News for her campaign for the Board of Education in Michigan in the 1990’s. Mary has credentials of running for office like very few Libertarians have.

    In short, John P. Slevin has no idea what he is talking about, whether it is G.E., Mary Ruwart, or much of anything else for that matter.

  136. John P Slevin

    Strong support?

    Show me ONE meeting on ANYONE, ANYWHERE, at ANYTIME where Ruwart turned em out.

    Show me that 1 example?

    Ruwart has proven herself ZERO on having the ability to produce a following. She NEVER has backed ONE winning campaign.

    Nor, has she EVEN BEEN INVOLVED IN 1 Serious effort.

    NONE.

    Now, tell me again about the book you read, you TWIT.

  137. John P Slevin

    Being an Author is ZERO qualification for elective office. Get it? ZERO. It gets you people like G.E. the person who doesn’t have the balls to name himself in the posts he makes sliming others.

  138. John P Slevin

    Plus, Mary never has been anywhere near any actual work I’ve seen in the LP. She likes the stage, she’s nowhere near actual work.

    Her stand on the Keaton matter spells out who she is.

    Ruwart is a person who wants recognition. She has NO principle other than her own profit.

    Oh, I should say, since I don’t know her personally (just like about ANYONE who actually does any actual campaign work also could say) Mary might actually be a real nice person…except, she has no gumption (again, witness the Keaton matter, and her absolutely disgusting put down of the LP nominee, which the worthless lady delivered on national TV.

    I NEVER would support Ruwart till she apologizes for sliming all those Barr supporters.

  139. John P Slevin

    Finally, she DID have G.E. nominate her. That about does it for me…ANYONE that desperate for a nominating speech has NO LP support…I mean come on. A GREEN?

  140. John P Slevin

    Steve LaBianca,

    I do mass voter contact campaigns.

    Let me assure you, no one in the country (save you, me, and some other desperate LP junkies know who Ian Bernard is…NO ONE).

    No one knows who Mary Ruwart is…NO ONE.

    Time for LP people to put away the books…sure as shit it’s long past time they stop honoring the people who produce MORE books, and get on with the facts of life, electoral life.

    Knock on some doors. Want to learn? I’ll tell you how to do it.

    Grab ’em on the street, I’ll teach you that too.

    Or, you can go thru yet another campaign watching the Obama and McCain campaigns do it right in front of you and not even notice it.

    The campaign is NOT what you see on TV.

    It’s NOT what you hear on the radio or read in the papers.

    That’s all bs and pablum (and nothing a decent marketing crew couldn’t do as well for the LP or for any other decently funded 3rd party).

    The difference in election results comes down to organization. They’ve got it and we have people like you, Mary and G.E.

  141. John P Slevin

    When G.E. slimed Richard Winger, he slimed someone who singugularly helped make it possible for there even to be a ballot qualified Green Party (G.E.’s former home—before he followed Mary Ruwart, stalwart Libertarian first to Ron Paul then to the LP).

    That’s shit for reasoning ability and shit for intelligence.

    Also, there is the FACT of the Ron Paul’s nomination in 1988. Now, I know G.E. was a youngster then, but I actually was in position to donate a campaign swing thru Northern Cal. for him then.

    What was G.E. doing…? Sucking on some lollipop?

    For that matter, when the efforts which made G.E. a 3rd party home were fought, G.E. wasn’t even BORN.

    How dare he slime his betters.

    Shit, the IDIOT never even found us till just a few months AFTER Mary Ruwart decided to return her few to the fold.

    That’s the story. That is the truth.

    Again, I ask for clarification. If ANYONE, ANYWHERE has truth to tell about Mary actually being a political force ANYWHERE, I will listen.

    But, she couldn’t get even so many as 5 followers to any convention at any time in any way before National, so I am doubtful 🙂

    And I will be damned if someone like G.E. will mile Austin’s name like this.

    Come on Austin, you once created a great blog. Now, you have G.E.

    Not EVEN a real person

  142. Trent Hill

    John P. Slevin,

    I dont often get involved in the squabbles between other commenters or even between the other posters on this site. As a young guy, and a non-LPer, I dont often have a dog in the fight.
    However, you are lieing. Not fibbing, nor smearing the truth—you are lieing. I dont care who you are, where you come from, or about your years of activism, you are lieing right now.

    GE is a friend, perhaps a “Political ally and acquaintance” would be a better description. I have respect for him, because he shows the same to me. He is a powerful thinker, but given to emotional overshadowing and verbal bellicosity. With all of that said, I wont stand by and let you defame, and lie about, a friend I respect.

    “When G.E. slimed Richard Winger, he slimed someone who singugularly helped make it possible for there even to be a ballot qualified Green Party (G.E.’s former home—before he followed Mary Ruwart, stalwart Libertarian first to Ron Paul then to the LP).”

    GE and Richard Winger disagree on the issue of Bob Barr–and not on too much else. They are on good terms, you needn’t find Richard’s fights for him, he is a big boy and doesnt hold anything against GE. Furthermore, your timeline is wrong. GE was a Green almost two years ago,but has been a member of the Libertarian party for at least a year and a half now. The Ron Paul campaign came in the middle of this–but GE was a big L, Libertarian all along.

    “For that matter, when the efforts which made G.E. a 3rd party home were fought, G.E. wasn’t even BORN.”

    I believe this is a lie, but nonetheless–it doesnt prove anything. The fact that you are older, or have been involved in the LP longer, does not make you anymore (or less) right. Eric Dondero has been in the LP since 1987 (at least)—is he “more right” than anyone who has joined since?

  143. John P Slevin

    What is the “lie”?

    My purpose here is not to defend Richard or George or any of the LP people slimed by G.E. (G.E. being a phony name for a dirtbag who doesn’t ahve the balls to speak in his own name).

    “powerful speaker” you say? OK. Let him speak in his own name, the witless, accomplishmentless zero, let him speak in his own name.

    I could care less about how many months, or years, he can show an LP card.

    He’s roughly 30 and I signed my first card about 1978 or ’79. I helped put the LP on the ballot in 1979-80 in California, when much younger than the 30 year old TWIT you defend…so did ONE HELL OF ALOT of other people, ALL of whom he, and YOU, slime when you allow some DIRTBAG to say that Libertarians believe it is wrong to joined the Armed Forces.

    We do not believe that. G.E. is a DirtBag. Anrelenting DirtBag. The kind of DirtBag who cannot be tolerated.

    I just want his on the record. G.E. is a DirtBag.

  144. John P Slevin

    I’ve also helped put the Greens where they were LONG before where G.E. glommed onto them.

    Fact is, some people have principles, other people find them in following turd people who, often, write books to get followings.

    Not mentioning any names (Mary Ruwart) and others we all can name in common. Bob Barr is such a name as well (not book oriented, but a competiter to Mary’s sales, so he became G.E’s enemy).

    G.E. is a simpleton.

    Do you get it?
    I NEVER bought into Barr, nor into ANY of the absolute TURDS running in the last LP convention. We used to have decent people run…now, we have booksellers, the likes of Ruwart.

  145. John P Slevin

    There was absolutely as much principle in Mary denouncing the LP candidate after she lost a close vote as in Bob barr denouncing Ron Paul because RP people wouldn’t rent the mailing list at all/or at a decent price.

    Idiots like G.E. take these things to mean principle is at stake.

    Show me some of Mary’s princple.

    What EVER has she done…ANYWHERE?

  146. John P Slevin

    G.E. is NO different than the kind of Barr people he opposes. I’ll again point to the Keaton thing. These people, like Ruwart/Barr/Gordon, Davis, Redpath, etc, have NO principles.

    WHEN will people learn that?

    Only a FOOL would think that an actual presidential candidate would choose for her nominating speaker someone like G.E. The IDIOT won’t even use his real name in public…Yeah, that’s the speaker I want.

  147. John P Slevin

    And TWIT G.E slimes away, feeling ANYONE who doesn’t exactly agree with him is some kind of “neo-con”, a term only a tinfoil hat idiot uses.

  148. John P Slevin

    So Trent, tell me how I lie.

    I NEVER would dirty myself to attend an actual LP convention today. I’ve put slime like the LP wants on the ballot, and I’ve done it all over this country, but I DO NOT attend conventions (did it last in ’96, cause they had to give me money to go do some more states for them).

    I have NO use for that kind of thing. Never did. Some of us work for liberty and some hold titles…still others, the REALLY WORTHLESS, write books, like Mary.

    Then there are people like G.E. The ones who follow the REALLY WORTHLESS authors….

    Goddamn. What a spectacle.

    I urge anyone, ANYONE, who wants to know why Libertarians don’t get enough votes to watch the nominating speech of one Jason Seagraves for Mary Ruwart.

    What a bleepin joke.

  149. John P Slevin

    Again, and again, and again the turds sprout. Like I say, it’s just like out of the manure field. People like G.E. come from that. They have no principle, no record. AND, in the case of G.E., they add enmity.

    Who comes into a group and slimes everyone there?

    G.E. does.

    I speak for almost EVERY LP person who says, to you G.E., Mr. Jason Seagreaves, just who the FUCK are you?

  150. John P Slevin

    Oh yeah, you got a blog. Fuck you. Fuck you G.E. You stand for nothing. You haven’t the balls even tio mention you name. You slime others who have names. You attempt to dirty their names in your dirty business.

    I know nothing of you except of your writing and from the photos I’ve seen of you (cause I know your real name).

    You’ve done nothing, and you could stand to lose ALOT of weight.

    Why don’t you stay out of politics. You have nothing to offer those of us who practice principle.

    You have none. You’ve exhibited none. You have none.

  151. VTV

    “Shit, the IDIOT never even found us till just a few months AFTER Mary Ruwart decided to return her few to the fold.

    That’s the story. That is the truth.

    Again, I ask for clarification. If ANYONE, ANYWHERE has truth to tell about Mary actually being a political force ANYWHERE, I will listen.”

    The accomplishment of Mary Ruwart and her supporters is this. Barr could not defeat her until Wayne Allyn Root sold out. Period.

    Oh, and FYI, USING capitol LETTERS every OTHER word DOES not MAKE your POINT any MORE valid.

    Also, all the personal insults you keep slinging are evidence of the weakness of your argument.
    Ad hominem is the last resort of the weak mind. (You may have to look that up. People who use words like TURDS in all capitol letters in a debate usually need some help with their vocabulary.)

    You keep saying G.E. is a Green, and he has already clarified that he left that party back in 2005. That’s more then enough time to re-think one’s values. Seriously. If you want to discredit him in a way that will actually make sense, stick to the facts. Not the lies. And not the TURDS.

  152. VTV

    By the way, for those of you who thought the idea of a “troll” was silly. Look above at Mr. Slevin and get a perfect textbook example. It’s one thing to dislike someone. Now he is reducing himself to the F bombs every other word that put him on par with a kid scribbling the word “SHIT” on a bathroom wall in school.

  153. VTV

    Hey Slevin, take a look at this Libertarian trying to debate with people acting like you. Tell me if these people look smart to you?

  154. carolm62

    Yikes, you guys!

    Excuse my ignorance, as I have long been a loner in the political sphere and not a party hack, but is this type of exchange why Ron Paul decided he had to go back to the Republican Party and try to change it from within…?

    Dunno. Enlighten me please….

  155. Spence

    Slevin, at least when you attack someone that harshly, you should make it clear that the person knows what yo u don’t like about them… just a suggestion…

    Anyway, back on topic- it’s pretty much too late for this to go anywhere and wouldn’t save us if it did happen.

  156. amyb31416

    If Slevin is a typical person in the Libertarian Party, that fully explains my frustrations with them.

  157. Roberto

    People fell for Barr because of the whispering campaign started by the Foundations and the usual gang at The Watergate.

    Barr’s job is to destroy the L.P. by sitting on his hands.

    This time around, it’s all about keeping the one Boot on Your Neck party alive and killing off the third party challengers.

    The FIAT-Oil-Arms industry that feeds the vermin in the Beltway is at great risk and Nothing can get in the way of it’s Survival so Barr was sent to insure that the LP did nothing spectacular. I submit to You that Barr has delivered.

    The same hypnotic love crowds have for O’bomber and Palin, the LP members fell for in Barr by avoiding facts and gravitating to a promise of His power and experience while blindly forgetting Barr has been a consistent enemy of Liberty all his life.

    I will vote for McKinney this time around.
    At least She did her job as a Congressman by asking Rumsfeld and company the hard questions. She was the only one who did her job as far as I can tell, and as a result is the only person fit to occupy a higher office.

  158. carolm62

    I would have given my vote to whomever the Libertarian Party nominated this year — so I have no personal investment in Bob Barr other than the time and money I have donated to his campaign.

    I also donated to the campaigns of a few other Libertarians who were vying for the nomination, as at that point I didn’t know much about them. I wanted them to have the funds to publicize what they were about — for my own benefit, sorta.

    To brand Barr a “consistent” enemy of liberty “all” his life requires some distortions in cognition that lovers of liberty ought to be avoiding. Barr’s record does hold blemishes but it also holds some very positive contributions to liberty. To willfully ignore those contributions out of personal resentment is dishonest.

    As much as I love Mary Ruwart (I read her book prior to joining the LP after the convention ) I think it unlikely that she would be pulling in the votes that Bob Barr is pulling.

    Even the most hostile of LP curmudgeons can possibly admit that Barr’s time in Washington might have taught him SOMETHING about how to wend one’s way through the system. Surely they can admit that he knows something about campaigning that they don’t know!

    The Libertarian Party IS gaining a higher percentage of the vote than has ever before occurred, so what are these folks complaining about exactly? Is it upsetting to possibly lose their extreme fringe party status or something…?

    I grew up in Canada where the Reform Party grew out of nothing to eventually wipe the Conservative party off the map for a season. Such things don’t happen in one election but only after more and more voters become brave enough to “waste” their votes. A party starts to gain traction only after it makes a significant showing .

    I would like to see the LP become a viable alternative. That is not going to happen in one election so it doesn’t matter who runs quite frankly.

  159. Roberto

    Carolm62 You are correct about people needing to be willing to Waste their vote for change to happen.

    I call it being willing to do the right thing, despite what others say.

    I stand by my description of Barr as a consistent enemy of Liberty.

    The War on Some Drugs has gutted the Bill of Rights more than any other thing, and Bob Barr was in the middle of it.

    There is simply no excuse for people voting for a man like Barr when Principled people who hold Our Principles are available.

    Since most Libertarians at Convention wanted Barr, I must allow that they were just a gullible as are the Obama worshipers.

    We get the State we deserve, it seems, for We have forgotten that We Are Government.

  160. hogarth

    Since most Libertarians at Convention wanted Barr

    I’m not sure that ‘a wee bit over half’ really qualifies as ‘most’.

  161. G.E. Post author

    It was a wee-bit under half, actually: 49.7% of credentialed delegates voted for Barr on the final ballot.

  162. carolm62

    Roberto,

    I think that at most you could claim that Barr has been an INconsistent enemy of liberty. He has many stances in his favor, so you gotta be careful what you write even if you do like hyperbole as a literary device. 🙂

    In the interest of fairness towards all people, and in this case Barr, I have copied and pasted these from Liberty Maven’s website:

    “In the 107th Congress when Ron Paul stood up for our sovereignty against the United Nations (Roll Call votes 245 and 246), it was Bob Barr who supported him … just as Barr supported Paul in cutting corporate welfare by limiting funding for the Export-Import Bank.”

    “Barr is a co-sponsor of H. Res. 197, ‘Stop U.N. Gun Ban.’”

    “Barr supports H.R. 2615 ‘Stop National Medical ID and the Patient Privacy Protection Act.’”

    “Barr is a leading defender of civil liberties. He introduced legislation that forces the National Security Agency’s Project ECHELON to provide a full accounting to the Congress of their covert monitoring of millions of phone calls, faxes, and emails.”

    “He led the fight against National ID Card proposals and introduced legislation in 1998 to check the federal government’s abuse of wire-tapping laws — including the use of roving wiretaps — and also opposed governmental interception of cellular phone calls.”

    “He introduced legislation to mandate that the federal government issue ‘Privacy Impact Statements’ every time it issues a new rule or regulation.”

    “He was a chief sponsor of a law to limit abuses of the civil asset forfeiture statutes.”

    “He fought against OSHA regulations and to limit small business vulnerability to frivolous labor litigation.”

    “He is a board member of the National Rifle Association, and a staunch defender of the right of Americans to own and use firearms. He has introduced and sponsored legislation to block litigation against gun manufacturers for the acts of their customers and to limit any background checks and mandate they be conducted ‘instantly.’”

    “Barr has succinctly advocated the principle that while criminals must be punished to the full extent of the law, their civil liberties must be protected with even more vigor.”

    “He is a staunch defender of American sovereignty and opposes the executive branch’s overzealous use of our military abroad he even filed suit against President Clinton’s war in Kosovo without congressional approval.”

    “He is a fierce critic of the United Nations — and to a lesser degree NATO — and has consistently supported efforts to withdraw U.S. membership from the United Nations.”

    “He co-sponsored a committee amendment to withdraw the U.S. from the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.”

    “Since his first day in Congress back in 1995, Barr has tirelessly fought to eliminate the Internal Revenue Code, supported the “flat tax” proposal, and consistently supported passage of a constitutional amendment requiring a two-thirds supermajority of Congress to raise taxes.”

    “He was an early supporter of lowering the capital gains tax and recently he introduced legislation to provide tax credits for educators: public, private, and home school.”

    “More than any other member of the Georgia delegation, Congressman Barr has parted with the Republican majority to vote against bloated “pork barrel” spending.”

    “He has continually fought the unconstitutional [McCain/Feingold] ‘campaign finance reforms.’ Defending our fundamental rights, he has filed a lawsuit to prevent implementation of the recently passed legislation.”

    For the entire article, see:

    http://www.libertymaven.com/2008/06/16/ron-paul-on-the-write-in-ron-paul-effort-and-what-about-bob-barr/1178/#comment-543

Leave a Reply

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