Update from the Modern Whig Party

The following was sent to Modern Whig supporters in an email. What qualifies someone as a member is not entirely clear.

To the members of the Modern Whig Party,

With the holiday season winding down, we wanted to briefly reflect on the past few months. In late 2008, our grassroots movement inspired nearly 20,000 people to sign on with us. After the election, thousands of moderate Democrats and moderate Republicans sought us out as well. Because this organization was founded by Iraq and Afghanistan veterans, we are pleased to note that thousands of our members are affiliated with the military. We also had one member elected to local office. In addition, numerous media outlets have recognized us as the fastest growing mainstream political movement in the nation.

We now look toward 2009 and the second phase of our development. The following are just a few items that we will implement in the next few months:

  • establish campaign committees
  • continue Target Fairfax campaign
  • upgrade national Web site
  • Advocacy initiative — Army uniform recognition for Kosovo veterans (more info to come)
  • fundraising events to support declared candidates
  • new member outreach
  • streamline our national platform

Feel free to participate in the development on our public forum at http://modernwhig.forumotion.net or contact us directly. For those thinking of running for office in 2009, please contact us immediately as many deadlines are approaching.

We wish everybody a happy new year and look forward to implementing our goals. Nothing ever came out of doing nothing, and together we have built a solid base from which to continue expanding into the mainstream.

Best regards,

Executive Committee
The Modern Whig Party


30 thoughts on “Update from the Modern Whig Party

  1. Catholic Trotskyist

    The Catholic Trotskyist Party is rising much faster than this party, and will especially when we finally start our own website sometime early in 2009. We have already had our favored candidate elected President, largely through our prayers. However, we have many New Year’s resolutions, including encouraging Rick Warren to convert to Catholicism, developing our philosophy of the left-right parallel center, and giving a roundhouse kick to Chuck Norris.

    Celebrate the day of the Holy Family. Amen.

  2. Steven R Linnabary

    Advocacy initiative — Army uniform recognition for Kosovo veterans

    IIRC, this was the distraction I remember as the “War of Juanita’s Lip” (or was it the “War of Monica’s Deposition”?) Regardless, the media and KKKlinton administrations maintained throughout that there were NO soldiers there. Well, except for the three captured and brought home by Jesse Jackson.

    So, what soldiers do they want honored?


  3. paulie cannoli

    What qualifies someone as a member is not entirely clear.

    Them having your email address qualifies you as a member.

    They could really hit the jackpot by buying the 200 million email address CD from a metaspammer.

    By the way, is there a way to “leave” the Modern Whigs? I don’t know of any.

  4. Catholic Trotskyist

    The 19th century American Whig Party was too easy to leave. They split all the time and people kept joining other parties instead, so now they’re going too far in the other direction. In the Catholic Trotskyist Party, anyone can leave if they wish, but it is not recommended.

  5. Vin

    RE: Kosovo initiative. My understanding is that they want to press the Army into authorizing Reservists and National Guardsmen the right to wear a unit patch for their 15-month deployments to Kosovo. Correct me if I’m wrong, but they contend that Army personnel deployed to Kuwait and even Cuba get the Army honor to wear a unit patch on their uniform forever. But Guardsmen and Reservists who leave their regular lives for 15 months to equally placid places like Kosovo don’t get such an honor.

    The Whigs have a few programs geared to assisting military members. A recent update from them stated that they help deployed families with expert advice and even posted a few success stories.

    This military angle comes from the founders who are vets of the recent conflicts.

  6. richardwinger

    Some months ago, this site carried an item saying the Whig Party had elected a Constable in Alabama. But I found out the person who won that race was on the ballot as a Democrat.

  7. paulie cannoli

    If that Democrat was on the Modern Whig Party email list (I don’t know if it has an unsubscribe feature), that means the “Modern Whig Party elected someone.”

  8. Vin

    The Whigs realize that the majority of people are not ready to take that plunge and vote for a third party, let alone one called the Whigs. They are moving gradually and methodically to avoid the traps that have marginalized the LP and others, especially since their resources are tight. This is why they are running members on major party tickets for their first couple of waves. They want to establish a winning tradition. And any elected official who received backing from the party — especially a state rep — must sign a pledge to push for ballot access improvement.

    My view is that the Whigs are the only third party with a foot in reality.

  9. Vin

    Paulie has a legitimate criticism. The Whigs are trying to win with a different method. From the Whig boards and forums and emails that my blog receives, this issue of running the first waves of candidates on major tickets does not sit well with everybody. The Whigs I suspect would rather devote resources to winning and having actual elected officials working toward ballot access than spend all resources on getting the Whig name on the ballot only to lose.

    I like the fact that some young people are trying something new.

  10. Steven R Linnabary

    This is nothing new. The old “Communist Workers Party” ran candidates, but only on the dem label. The “New Party” only ran candidates on the dem label. I don’t think the New Party is still around. I KNOW the CWP is gone.

    More recently the Working Families Party has emerged, but only to cross endorse dems.

    The media made a laughing stock of the New Party for claiming several dem Congressmen, including Kucinich.

    I don’t know if “reality” is to be known being congenitally attached to one of the old parties is really a viable strategy. Time will tell.


  11. paulie cannoli

    There’s a difference between infiltrating a bigger party and running your candidates on their label on the one hand, and endorsing and other party’s candidates and claiming them as your own on the other.

    When doing the latter, there is a difference between doing so at said candidates’ request, or doing so without their request.

    Next, when doing so without their request, there is a difference between doing so with their knowledge and permission, or not.


  12. Vin

    You’re right in that only time will tell. But from an academic point of view, they had an interesting strategy of starting with the military niche and then expanding toward regular voters. The military thing got them featured in the Military Times, and then they started to push for non-military.

    But being a party founded by Iraq and Afghanistan vets certainly has potential to attract disenchanted Republicans and also moderate Dems of the yellow ribbon variety. It may fizzle out or it could take off. “Reality” points toward fizzling out and fading away, but for now I am enjoying watching how it goes. If they fail then I’ll continue to hold my nose, vote for the lesser of two evils and nothing changes.

    But Mr. Linnabary was exactly correct… time will tell.

  13. JimDavidson

    @14 The Phone Book Party! Great idea.

    Reminds me of “The President’s Analyst” starring James Coburn in which the evil conspirators were all with TPC – the phone company. lol

    I find it difficult to care about unit designations and battle ribbons. My proposal would be to stop sending American troops to other countries to massacre their children and rape their women. Then there would be less need for these unit designations and campaign ribbons.

    For their next trick, the Modern Whigs will demand campaign ribbons for DEA agents and other para military agency troopers involved in overseas suppression of trade and commerce in drugs. Heh.

  14. JimDavidson

    I find it amusing that comments about my statement in 19 above have appeared on the BTP Facebook group and in correspondence, but nobody seems to want to respond here. How droll.

  15. JimDavidson

    In my opinion, the Modern Whig party is a militaristic party. Based on the statements they have circulated, I believe that the officers of the Modern Whig party support and endorse the massacring of children and the raping of women, since they obviously have been making a big deal of my saying that I would not send troops overseas to do such things.

    There appears to be some question of whether any USA military personnel have ever gone overseas and raped any women or massacred any children. There are numerous instances which can be listed of actual rapes and actual massacres. My Lai, the Battle of Mogadishu in October 1993, the various bombings of countries like Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Afghanistan, Somalia, and Iraq have resulted in massacres. A particularly notorious massacre by USA military helicopters of a peaceful clan meeting in Mogadishu in June 1993 was the proximate outrage which prompted much fighting there.

    Any number of women have been raped by USA military personnel overseas. There is a recent incident in Iraq in which a US military trooper boasted of raping an Iraqi civilian who subsequently committed suicide. There is an incident that sticks in my mind of a woman raped in Okinawa by USA military personnel.

    I am, of course, shocked and outraged that the Modern Whig party supports and endorses the brutal massacre of civilians and the violent raping of women by USA military personnel. I wonder why that is.

  16. Thomas L. Knapp


    I’m not sure if the “Modern Whigs” are a prank … or just a joke. Probably one or the other, though.

    The “Modern Whig” criticism of the Boston Tea Party as “fringe” is roughly equivalent to a third-grade teeball team criticizing the local AAA franchise for being “minor league.” It may be true, but it misses the point.

    I wholeheartedly support the particular statements which the “Modern Whig” blogger takes Mr. Davidson to task for.

    Note that Mr. Davidson does not accuse any particular member of the armed forces of raping women or killing children. Rather he refers to them being sent to do so, as they obviously are (why would the Busheviks have demanded that US troops be immune from prosecution under Iraqi law for such acts, if there was no intent or known likelihood that at least some of the troops would in fact commit such acts?).

    Actually, I’d go a bit farther than Mr. Davidson with respect to DEA agents. The DEA is a murderous criminal organization, and therefore its employees are murderous criminals. Those without the will or wherewithal to exterminate such vermin should at least have the dignity to shun them.

  17. paulie cannoli

    Actually, I’d go a bit farther than Mr. Davidson with respect to DEA agents. The DEA is a murderous criminal organization, and therefore its employees are murderous criminals. Those without the will or wherewithal to exterminate such vermin should at least have the dignity to shun them.

    In what ways if any do your views on this differ from what you think of the US military, and why?

    Personally, I would say that both organizations are murderous, and I don’t think that being part of the regime makes them legitimate. However, I can not extend that to individual members of either organization, except where they have personally committed what should be, and morally speaking in fact are, crimes.

    Also, I have been a member of criminal organizations – and not always ones that were sanctioned by the state, although some were. I don’t claim or accept blame for what everyone involved in them did, although I have some blame for participating to the extent I did. Specifically, if I did not murder anyone, I don’t accept the description of murderer.

  18. Thomas L. Knapp


    I’m not only a veteran of the Gulf War, but of the drug war (via detached duty from my US Marine Corps unit to Joint Task Force Six, SOCOM for a number of counter-narcotics missions).

    In other words, my evaluation of DEA is based on experience.

    A major factor (not the only one, but a major one) in my decision to leave the Marine Corps after more than a decade was a situation in which I was ordered to violate both my mission’s specific rules of engagement and the Posse Comitatus Act, and received multiple reiterations of that order when I requested mast versus it.

    Ultimately, I ended up finding a way to obey the letter of the order while completely monkeywrenching the spirit of it, but the whole thing left a very bad taste in my mouth. That taste got even worse when I later learned that the civilian “law enforcement” personnel who were actually behind the order had been involved in a similar situation not too long before, and that that situation had ultimately resulted in the murder of an innocent civilian (including abuse of JTF-6 support in the prelude to that murder).

    I don’t generally waste time on things like “hating myself.” I’ve never personally murdered or raped anyone. However, I do regret the one or two really bad things I did in the Gulf War. If I’m ever charged for them, I’ll plead guilty and take my medicine like a man instead of whining that I was “just following orders.” The latter is the last resort of cowards and Nazis.

  19. Brian Holtz

    Tom, are the “really bad things [you] did in the Gulf War” something that LP NatCon delegates should know about before giving you the LP presidential nomination that you’ve announced you’re seeking? In general, can we count on you to give yourself the sort of pre-nomination vetting that you gave to Gary Nolan and Wayne Root? We transparency advocates would appreciate it.

  20. Thomas L. Knapp


    Setting aside whatever fractional impact my presence/activities might have had on the overall sum of “bad things that were done or happened”
    in or due to the 1991 war, the one really bad thing I recall doing is this: Abducting a group of civilians at gunpoint and ordering them held prisoner.

    I suppose I could attempt to justify that action on several grounds.

    I could assert that they were actually safer under Marine guard than they would have been wandering around while I and another Marine searched the area they were in for an enemy combatant who had just shot at one of our nearby guard posts.

    I could assert that they were freed almost immediately (15-30 minutes, I think), and that they were not physically or verbally abused while held.

    I could assert that my mission required me to do what I did.

    I could assert that the approval of a “government,” signified by some chevrons on my collar, constitutes a special license to abduct which is morally superior to the same approval and license as issued by Vinnie the Kneecapper to his button men.

    But I don’t care to do any of that justifying and self-excusing. I’ll just take responsibility for what I did (including pleading guilty if charged for a crime) and leave it at that.

  21. Steven R Linnabary

    Well Tom, IMHO, the “War Crimes”that you have admitted to sort of pale compared to the war crimes that John Kerry admitted to.

    And John McCain never admitted to any moral quandaries over his mass murder from 20,000 feet.

    But, just recognizing that what you did might be considered by some to be unjustified puts you morally way above anybody the democrats or republicans will ever put up.


Leave a Reply

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