UPDATE/CORRECTION: see below for detailed update, but in brief, Ferguson has communicated that his resume had not been updated correctly and that he did not work for Delgaudio and the LP at the same time.
Donny Ferguson, the Libertarian Party’s Director of Communications, is also working as the Campaign Manager for the Friends of Eugene Delgaudio. This information is posted at Ferguson’s LinkedIn profile. Delgaudio is a Republican Party candidate for Supervisor in Virginia.
Ferguson’s profile indicates that he held this position when he was hired as the LP’s Communications Director:
Campaign Manager
Friends of Eugene Delgaudio
July 2002 — Present (6 years 11 months)
A note was sent to LP Chair Bill Redpath, Acting LP Executive Director Robert Kraus, and Donny Ferguson explaining that a story was being prepared and asking the following questions:
- Is the position with Eugene Delgaudio’s campaign full-time or
part-time? What hours is Donny committed to for the LP currently? - How long has Donny held this position with the campaign?
Was the LNC advised of Donny’s taking this position beforehand? - Is there any concern (from LNC or staff) that having a member of
our Party’s staff working for a campaign of a Republican could either
lead to a compromised position on statements (basically ‘pulled
punches’) -or- to a public perception of an alliance between the LP
and the RP? - Is there any proposed action on the table with regard to Mr.
Ferguson’s continued employment with the LP?
The answers will be shared as updates to this story as they are received.
UPDATE:
I’ve gotten a note from Kraus containing a note from Ferguson. Kraus marked the note ‘not for distribution’ so I will not reproduce it here, but the gist is as follows:
1. Ferguson clarifies that his LinkedIn resume is not current (it seems to have been updated since the original post, and indicates that his term as Campaign Manager ended in January 2008) and that he is “no longer Eugene’s campaign manager, and he has been seeking a new manager for several months now for his 2011 campaign.” The previous version had both the LP and Delgaudio positions listed as ‘current’, so it was updated at some time after January 2009. Presumably Ferguson neglected to change the status of his older position when adding his current one.
2. Ferguson requests (through Kraus) that I (SJH) offer a “written apology admitting she rushed to posted false and defamatory information”. He also asked that I “stop [the] ongoing campaign of making false statements about staff.”
3. The timestamps on this posting and my emails were confused, so Ferguson thinks I posted before emailing him with my questions. This is not true, but is hardly relevant, as I did give an inadequate time for response IF my questions had centered around confirming his status. In fact I actually supposed that a person’s current resume would be… current, and that asking someone if information he had published about himself was true was superfluous. My questions were not for confirmation of the basic fact, but were instead extended questions. I indicated here that I asked them and that I would post responses.
4. Ferguson hints that I waited until I knew he’d be away to post this story. This is absolutely not true (in fact I don’t follow his coming and goings). Someone mentioned him as a political consultant, and that got me to looking around a bit. He also makes some fairly heated remarks about me, but they are irrelevant.
“OH, and by the way…isn’t this the same Libertarian Party that nominated a SITTING Republican Congressman to run for President in 2004?”
Nope. Not in 2004 or any other year.
OH, and by the way…isn’t this the same Libertarian Party that nominated a SITTING Republican Congressman to run for President in 2004?
If that’s not a conflict, then this example most certainly isn’t.
I know this is an old article…but:
Did it occur to ANYONE that working for a CAMPAIGN is not the same as working for a PARTY?
Unless the LP had a competing candidate in Mr. Delgaudio’s election, where’s the conflict?
The LP being pretty adamant about Individual freedom…certainly can’t tell its members not to work on a campaign, as long as that campaign isn’t competing against a LP candidate, can they?
@76 Fuck yourself, Susan, with a baseball bat, in the ass. I’ll say what I please, when I please. That you don’t like me agreeing with you simply encourages me to agree with you. lol
Interesting story. Libertarianism isn’t supposed to be easy. We give up a lot of “easy” for consistency. Consistency allows us to have true principles which we can adhere to and create an overall working, organic system that grows and shrinks where and when is necessary all by itself without the need for management.
This is important because no one can be trusted to do the managing.
It was a process. Without going into detail about my “problems” with the GP, there were a number of things that were happening in ’08 within the GP that I was uncomfortable with.
I then went through 2 life-threatening health problems, which along with the “advice” from my health care providers…made me question my overall views.
Although I had written a couple of “nasty” articles targeting the LP in the past, when I (for all intents and purposes) was without a Party, I looked at the LP platform again. I realized that I agreed outright with about 1/2… about 1/4 I could agree with, just a little different take than I had been supporting….it was the other 1/4 that I had to look at a little harder.
What sealed the deal for me, and I have said this in other comments, is that when I looked at the economic issues as a whole, and not piece by piece, it is a solid platform and one which I can support.
I was at the time a GP candidate for county office, and I asked 2 local LP members to look over my campaign platform, and they really didn’t see anything that was inconsistent with the LP in it.
Because I had made the commitment to run for the GP, I fulfilled this to the best of my ability. And got 5.83% to boot 🙂
After the election, I resigned from the GP, and merged immediately into the LP…
There it is…
Not neccesarily. Jason Seagraves, the former owner of this blog, did the same thing.
2-3 active people counts as a stronghold for a minor party… 😉
I’m curious now though. How’d you end up going from green to libertarian? That’s a pretty big jump in just a few months.
I’m kind of disappointed that it didn’t show any of my websites or blogs 🙁
mdh: Fort Mill used to have two of the most active Greens in the state.
I left the GP in Nov/Dec last year. Then I believe Gregg moved…To my knowledge (being out of the loop now) there is one active Green left. Not exactly a stronghold.
Wow, those google results even show a former (or possibly even current?) IP address of Bryan’s. Trippy.
Bryan lives in the same city as Gregg Jocoy too. Must be a real GP stronghold, heh.
Ah, sorry for the mistake.
I’m from the left, too. My family was blue-dog leftist Democrat, both parents owed their living to the state’s largesse.
In any case, welcome, Bryan!
Just Googled the email address.
Yep. Almost ironic.
Best wishes to you.
“Isn’t it interesting that persons calling for “liberty” act like communists when it comes to “party” matters? ”
I’ve always said to my libertarian friends they should be careful what they wish for. Anyone who’s been to privately owned clubs, beaches, developments, condo communities, gated communities, private roads and transport, etc. would know that the rules and regulations governing these places would make public areas and accommodations seem open and more liberal by comparison. Private organizations are no different; their rules of order and procedure can be as byzantine as any political body.
I’ve been to libertarian meetings where there were more arguments and conflict over minute regulatory details than any government meeting I’ve ever been to.
Isn’t it interesting that persons calling for “liberty” act like communists when it comes to “party” matters?
Fluidity would serve the situation a lot better than rigid socialist party structures. In fact, one could say it’s the America Way.
Nope…not with the Greens any longer. I am one of the Libertarians that came from the “left”.
Where did you see this, so that I can change it?
It’s kind of funny, considering the topic, that all my stuff hasn’t been changed…
I see that you’re with the Greens.
I assumed you were a Libertarian, since you were commenting in a Libertarian thread.
Thanks, though. May your efforts give the oligopoly parties something to think about, in any case!
In South Carolina here.
The precinct ads are the “standard” legal post…but we are planning on promotional ads in the near future. We at the county and possibly state level are considering/working out the details on radio ads as well.
If you want e-mail me at [email protected] and I will send you links/info about these ads.
@106:
If you wish to take it that way.
@115:
That’s awesome. York County in what state? There’s a bunch of them.
If your precinct call advert is online somewhere, I’d love to see it, as I hope to start doing that here as well, and I may want to pluck some copy ideas from yours.
Best of luck to you!
@116:
Awesome!
What county / state are you in?
Nope. Just trying to remind those who spend hours here of what’s really important.
And best of luck to you too!
Well Marc we’ve got the county party going again in the last few month. Gonna get another one going in Sept. Got the state news letter going again. Had a letter to the editor published on Memorial Day. Got a mailing ready to go to the state legislature people and completed a fifth brochure. Also planning to do a few outdoor events over the summer.
Should I number those?
The Pupster
Marc @105…
We ARE doing something in York County. The “ads” went in the paper today about our precinct organization meeting (the first step on the road to 2010).
We have contacted through “snail mail” all current and “lapsed” members. I will be calling all these contacts (and inquirers) in the next week or so…
With a more “aggressive” county and state effort, I fully expect the LP to grow by a large margin in 2010, and using that momentum, grow even larger in 2012!
I agree with George Phillies the LP has become nothing more than a 21st century version of Strom Thurmond and the Dixiecrats. They should really merge with the Constitution Party, whose candidate for president was endorsed by Ron Paul, and be done with it.
gp, dodge? Nope. Racist? Nope. Tonally challenged? Yep.
@111
I see you are dodging the basic racism issue to pick nits.
Perhaps it would have been clearer to you if I had phrased it as the negative “The Supreme Court generally does not hear cases it does not think will be anything other than sustained on appeal.
GP: The Supreme Court chooses which cases it hears, chooses cases likely to be over-ruled.
ME: not quite. “A writ of certiorari is an order a higher court issues in order to review the decision and proceedings in a lower court and determine whether there were any irregularities.”
Neither you nor I are attys, so it’s always dangerous to play one on TV. My understanding is that it’s not a “likely to be overruled” standard, more of a constitutionally significant standard. “Irregularities” in this context means that the lower courts may’ve arrived at the right decision for the wrong reasons.
The Supremes seem to want to keep jurisprudence and the line of precedent reasonably tidy. When they see a case that looks untidy, they hear it.
Perhaps an atty can elaborate with more insight.
Phillies the statist self-loathing racist anglo would be better off in one of the boutique communist parties.
We should be more concerned about the press content that the National Party is generating under the guise of being Libertarian. White racist race-baiting has no legitimate place in the Libertarian Party, and that is what we are seeing from Washington.
Take for example the LNC press release on the Sotomayor nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Press release is a regurgitation of right-wing Republican racist talking points, many false. I give you the actual press release and some inserted corrections.
If we are going to see more LNC press releases in this form, the people giving and being quoted in them should wear appropriate garb. And for buying that garb, I have some advice: Gentleman, in the District of Columbia sheets are not sold in ‘Gentlemen’s Apparel’, you need to look in ‘Bed and Bath’.
“Libertarians blast Sotomayor pick
Obama Court nominee ruled government should discriminate based on race”
Exactly false. The City maintains the libertarian position, as our Party platform says, that it is required to give a racially neutral exam, and that it had failed to do so. In fact, the City Civil Service Board, in public hearings from which its one African-American member was excluded, generated substantial evidence that the examination was fundamentally flawed, notably evidence that the outside contractor had not complied with its own proposal in preparing the examination, not to mention lack of professional review that the examination correctly reflected New Haven practice.
“WASHINGTON — America’s third largest party Tuesday criticized President Barack Obama’s nomination of federal appeals court judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court, citing past rulings that public employers should discriminate in hiring based on race.”
Racist Republican lie. The Sotomayor position was that City governemnts should *not* discriminate on grounds of race. Indeed, no one was promoted at all as a result fo the exam, so no one was benefited or injured because of race.
“Sotomayor is best known for the Ricci v. DeStafano case, in which the New Haven, Conn. fire department decided it didn’t like the results of an officers promotion exam in which whites and Hispanic firefighters outperformed black firefighters. The city threw out the results of the exam, denying several firefighters promotions solely because of their race.”
More Republican racist fear-mongering, in which insisting that all races be treated evenly is labelled as discriminating against white people.
” The firefighters sued the city, claiming racial discrimination under Title VVI of the Civil Rights Act and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Sotomayor disagreed, ruling the city has a right to discriminate against white and Hispanic public employees to construct a politically correct racial mix in hiring, even if it goes against the results of a racially-neutral competency exam.”
The above is a total misrepresentation of the case, in which no party advanced the proposal that a particular racial mix of firefighters should be created. It also suggests some literacy issues, in that the case was not about hiring, but about promoting current employees.
“The case is now before the Supreme Court. Sotomayor has had her rulings thrown out by the court a troubling four times. In three of those cases, the Court ruled Sotomayor had incorrectly interpreted the law.”
Another Republican lying point. The Supreme Court chooses which cases it hears, chooses cases likely to be over-ruled. As the white-wing press omits to mention, Sotomayor’s reversal rate is relatively low.
“It is troubling that Obama, who won the highest elected office in the world without racial preferences, would nominate someone who openly admits the government should racially discriminate against its own citizens to serve the needs of political correctness,” said Redpath.
Mr. Redpath, you are a liar. Sotomayor has said nothing of the kind.
“Libertarians believe that, while the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of association allows private parties to hire whomever they please, government has no right to discriminate. Public employers should treat all citizens of all colors, races and ethnicities with equal respect and value and Sotomayor’s radical rulings are a jarring departure from that principle.”
The lower court ruling, which Sotomayor and colleagues simply agreed not to overturn, was in complete agreement with the libertarian principle that racial discrimination is bad.
I completely agree , LP office should be staffed with Libertarians.
So really, the LP staff should be libertarians I believe. I don’t think that having hired guns serves our cause. That office should be FULL of libertarians. Instead it’s like a 7 person staff of ex republicans. This sucks!
mm, wow, I’ve been elevated to Captain! Thanks!
Point well taken. Rothbardians are CERTAINLY not the only ones who “never admit wrong.” Whether that’s politics, I can’t say I agree. We have a dude in the WH who a few months ago said “I made a mistake” and “I screwed up” over a few of his cabinet appointments. No fan of BO here, but his rhetorical style is one that I think we’ve much to learn from.
Personally, I rather walk the world with integrity and “lose” than be a political child and “win.” Over the long haul, integrity is its own reward, and often “wins” in the end.
Hmm, you kept copies of DF’s draft fundraisers…sounds like another expose’ in the making.
While I do think that no apology is owed to Donny for essentially publicizing his own statements, it’s also probably time to declare the misunderstanding “cleared up” and to move on.
Incidentally, public policy statements can be made without pissing off half of the Party each time. George Getz used to do it consistently. All it takes is some sensitivity and forethought, rather than shooting from the hip. My hat is off to Donny for attempting to get any kind of media coverage; however, he is an adult and should expect resistance if his public statements do not acknowledge the diversity of opinion among the donors. He has made his hostility to alternate perceptions of our core mission abundantly clear, which is something Getz steered deftly away from.
Now, I challenge those who have spent inordinate amounts of time on this to redirect their terrific energies into doing SOMETHING productive for their state or local party today, instead, and generally step away from the keyboard for a while.
I am certain your state party would love to have someone call the new inquiries in your state; or perhaps you might like to travel to the next county over to help organize the un-organized county next to yours (after all, I’m sure you’ve already got your own county affiliate up & running).
I’m not going to belabor this much except to say the following.
Everyone does what Captain Capozzi is whining about, to an extent — even Captain Capozzi. It’s disingenuous to tar the “Rothbardians” you’re obsessed with as the only users of the “never admit wrong” rhetorical habit. Just a couple of weeks ago, I caught a reformer red-handed in a lie about Robert’s Rules with regard to overruling a decision of a chairman. He neither acknowledged his lie nor apologized for uttering the error under the rubric of being a so-called “Registered Parliamentarian”.
I have had many discussions with one particular reformer, where I’d proven him wrong on multiple counts, and his response was simply to make other accusations and questioned me on statements I hadn’t even made. Classic Clintonista tactics. It was irritating enough I decided to return for awhile to my normal practice of shunning those who refuse to engage in an honest discussion without resorting to cheap and stupid rhetorical tricks.
But so what?
That’s politics.
There is the question about whether working for the LP is something to claim on one’s resume or not. LPHQ employees have joked for years about it being a “resume stain”. Personally, I mostly enjoyed my full-time work at LPHQ between 1989-1993 (despite the fact that much of the foundation my colleagues and I built was destroyed within less than a year after we left).
Now last point. I know Donny personally. I’ve worked with him for several years while he was an employee of the Loudoun County government, working as Delgaudio’s assistant. During that time he was the fundraising chairman for the Libertarian Party of Virginia.
I would be happy to pass along copies of Donny’s fundraisers (his versions, prior to my proofing) to anyone who is interested.
Whatever, Bob.
I think you and I are on the same team, but you’re just not seeing things the same way I see them.
Whatever.
sh, it would be “news” if you’d posted this item when DF was ANNOUNCED as Communications Director, or soon thereafter. He’s held the job for QUITE a while now.
This would be in the “investigative” category, not news. The standard is higher for investigative pieces, as it’s reporting on HISTORY, not news. It looks like you were searching for dirt on DF, found the Linked In post, and said “gotcha.” You wanted to appear fair, so you sent your email to National, didn’t get a response quick enough for your tastes, then you blasted your incorrect “revelation” of “conflict of interest” on IPR.
Now, you are in damage-control mode, and it’s not working, at least not with me. With all due respect. IMO.
As you have characterized intra-party squabbling as a “struggle,” I can’t say I’m surprised by this tawdry development. DF’s not on your team, therefore he’s wrong and you are right. Am I warm?
An alternative view would be to say we’re all on the same team, but sometimes we don’t see things exactly the same way. Try it on.
lpo: Anyone else think that Mr. Ferguson’s news releases on the LNC’s letterhead are just a strategy to develop some “street cred” with D.C-area conservatives for his next gig?
me: Huh? Looks to me like the “major party” point is DF knows how actual electoral politics works. Why DC-area conservatives would be impressed by his current gig is an astounding conclusion, requiring heroic speculative and counter-intuitive thinking on your part, as “street cred” would entail real-world success.
MOTIVE for posting.
Twofold:
(1) News, and,
(2) As a Party member, I have never been comfortable with the idea of staff or officers entangled in apparent or real conflicts of interest. Naturally I feel an interest in exposing such conflicts.
There seemed to be one here. Turns out that wasn’t the case.
I find it extremely vexing that you seem to be suggesting that I’ve failed to “admit error”, and that I’ve been guilty of some sort of devious misdirection of my own wrongdoing onto Donny’s shoulders.
From my perspective, a simple mistake was made by Donny, and repeated by me, then corrected by Donny and subsequently by me.
Donny got pretty cranky about it, which to some degree is understandable, but I think upon reflection he will understand that I was acting neither maliciously nor unreasonably.
I’ve had to explain about a half-dozen times the simple fact that there’s no need to check what someone says about himself if you’re simply reporting what a person said about himself. I’m not calling Donny ‘derelict’ as you try to have me say; I’m simply trying to explain that it was a simple mistake on Donny’s part, which was simply corrected by me.
Now that you’ve (however grudgingly) accepted that, you -still- want some sort of ‘confession’ from me. That’s pretty rich! If it wasn’t my deed, it must have been my impure thoughts.
Cripes, that’s annoying.
sh: I’ll explain this one more time in the hopes that it will finally penetrate even your thick noodle.
Me: I love you too, Susan, more, if possible, by the day.
If your point is that DF was derelict in not updating his Linked In page, I’d agree. He got a full time gig, put it up there, and moved on, neglecting to update the info on his previous clients. This seems perfectly understandable, esp given the nature of Linked In, which is not his formal resume.
You sidestep what I consider the more salient point: your MOTIVE for posting. I’ve suggested it sounds like a person with a “gotcha” agenda. But I’ve asked the question, and you have not responded. This may lead fair-minded observers to conclude that you WERE trying to “expose” DF as a R in L clothing, in effect.
I’ve gone further, as part of my “clear the air/St. Louis Accord” campaign. Rothbardians I’ve encountered tend to use Leninist tactics, specifically never admitting error, at least substantial ones. Exhibit A for this phenomenon is Rockwell’s infamous take on the King beating. He’s not once that I’ve found backed down on that one. Often, when a Rothbardian DOES admit to error, they then tend to redirect their attacks to distract from their first error. You appear to be doing just this is 54, 55, 63 and 65. Perhaps you’re not…are you? Please elaborate, if not.
I’m no saint, but I recently admitted I was excessively challenging one frequent commenter on this blog, especially in light of his personal history. I thought I was doing Good to challenge him, but now I realize I wasn’t. I feel good about my apology, and trust that fair-minded observers will respect me for my admission.
You might give it a try on this matter, Susan, or risk further damaging your credibility. Protesting too much and ex post rationalizations generally don’t work. Just look how ridiculous George Bush looks, and will likely look in the history books. He claimed Iraq had WMD, but they never DID find them. He, too, would not admit to mistakes. This is the behavior of a child, the one caught with his hand in the cookie jar. They don’t call it “arrested development” for nothing!
Anyone else think that Mr. Ferguson’s news releases on the LNC’s letterhead are just a strategy to develop some “street cred” with D.C-area conservatives for his next gig?
I don’t think Donny’s stupid, and that would be stupid.
I do think the national staff are committed to a policy of trying to woo ‘conservative’ voters who are dissatisfied with the RP (and who wouldn’t be right now?), and I think that’s a longterm mistake. But I think all of them are sincerely trying to grow the LP and make it stronger, and to imply anything different is to bring the conversation down to the level of brawling rather than reasonable debate about strategy.
On page 11 of the May 2009 edition of the LP News, Volume 39, Issue 2, the following text appears in a biography at the end of an article with Mr. Ferguson’s byline:
Donny Ferguson is the Libertarian National Committee’s Director of Communications and President of Donald E. Ferguson & Associates, L.L.C., a successful campaign management, fundraising and lobbying business in the Washington, D.C. area. He is a successful campaign manager and consultant for major party candidates for local, state and federal office across the country….
Anyone else think that Mr. Ferguson’s news releases on the LNC’s letterhead are just a strategy to develop some “street cred” with D.C-area conservatives for his next gig?
I knew many members of the Delgaudio family when I was active in NY Young Americans for Freedom during the Seventies.
They were ardent traditionalists and there was nothing libertarian about them and there was a lot that was sleazy in terms of the apportionment of delegates. They made their dog a member and other members on paper to gain more power.
Richard Delgaudio has since been caught recently as a sex offender. I forget the details.
They have been living off the conservative movement contributors and the public payroll when conservatives are in power ever since Reagan’s election and their departure to Washington. Thomas Frank’s loathsome book THE WRECKING CREW did have the amusing details on them.
Is the Director of LP Communications supposed to be 1) true-blue Libertarian or 2) a hired hand? The latter presumably can do what they want on an extra-curricular basis, provided they aren’t working against one of our people.
Richard Cooper, former Chair LPNY
I don’t believe there was, Richard, but I am not sure.
Was there a Libertarian candidate in the race against Eugene Delgaudio?
That is pure BS. As a former LP activist I reached out to the RLC some years ago and all they wanted me to do was to recruit other LP members to the GOP. When I refused to do that they brushed me off and basically told me to go play with myself.
Leyman, I would suggest that your comments are anecdotal and based on a very limited range of experience with the RLC. I suspect that if we looked into the context of the incident you describe it would likely be more complex than you suggest.
In anycase, that’s certainly not how things work in the RLC now. We work with local LP groups in states where we have chapters and we do have membership overlap. Just look at our leadership. The three who have commented here include a former LP officer, a former LP deelgate and (in my case) a former paid LP employee and LP candidate for office. So we do know how to work with the LP having done it for years.
And I know for a fact that our state chapters coordinate with local LP groups all the time. Look at the Tea Parties, for example. The groups organizing them have LP people, C4L people and RLC people working together and they seem to be able to find common ground and unity of purpose.
Dave
Lots of interesting posts for a past LP National Secretary and past RLC National Chairman to review, but I’ll confine myself to a tangent: the RLC Liberty Index.
@Gene Berkman: “the ‘Liberty Index’ which is put together (intentionally or not) in almost exactly the way Tom Knapp describes in #27.”
The index has been criticized for its outcomes, but I know for a fact that the results are not known or considered before selecting the relevant roll-call votes. I’ve been involved in that process with Cliff Thies for almost a decade and we’ve never reviewed the results and then gone back to pick some other vote that would “make Republicans look more libertarian”.
There is a handicap in the burden of picking 20 ‘economic’ and 20 ‘social’ issues from among the issues actually submitted to roll-calls, so it’s no simple task. The website lists and explains every one of the roll-calls selected.
We have always invited critics to suggest substitute votes for those that we’ve selected … but I’ve never had any of them exert the effort required to do that.
I probably owe fans of the Index an apology for not updating the website with recent years. There are a host of personal reasons why that hasn’t occurred and no fault of Cliff.
I always knew he was a closet Republican.
OK, so Donny worked for a Republican’s campaign and hasn’t in a bunch of time. Now on to something meaningful, perhaps? 😉
(For the record, I’ve worked for both Republicans and Democrats. ZOMGZ!)
Bryan, I think you’re being a bit histrionic here. Disagreement doesn’t mean that everyone has to line up and take sides.
Capozzi, I’ll explain this one more time in the hopes that it will finally penetrate even your thick noodle. You sayThe headline was not in QUESTION form. THAT would be defensible. You’d asked questions, but not gotten a response.
Yes, the headline was not in question form, because it was basically a QUOTE from Donny’s own resume – which APPEARED to be up to date (that is, it reflected his most current position, with the LP). Given that the resume included Donny’s CURRENT job, was WRITTEN by Donny, and included another job as ‘current’, I made the **amazing leap** that Donny did, in fact, hold two positions concurrently. Since one was spokespersonesque for the LP, and one was spokespersonesque for a candidate of the RP (and a particularly weird one at that, IMO), I did think it of interest to this audience. THAT did not require questions to be answered before publication. The OTHER questions were ancillary to the (as I thought) *fact* of Donny’s resume, and so I both emailed them to the people in question and included them here.
Note that as soon as I became aware that Donny considered his resume to be “information that was likely false”, and that he considered quoting from it some attempt at misdirection on *my* part (although he is the one who mixed old and new information), I posted a correction.
This isn’t rocket science – but it amazes me how many people keep saying “But, golly gee, why didn’t you *check* before posting?” I *did*. I was *quoting* Donny’s obviously post-LP job resume.
Donny’s behavior was also churlish – rather than correcting me and asking me to make a correction (which of course I was going to do anyway) for a simple mistake that *he made*, he chose to paint himself as some sort of victim, and me as some sort of hatchetwoman, and ‘requests’ that I *apologize*. I call that nervy!
Bryan I agree it is much ado about nothing. I do criticize Donny for his constant criticism of the Obama crowd instead of spelling out what Libs would do.
bryan, there CERTAINLY is a middle ground, and I’m rarely certain about much of anything.
Excellent post Bryan!
Regarding your second paragraph: Let me add that as comm director he has a highly visible position that inherently draws constant flack for the press releases. Everyone has an opinion and you can’t appease everyone but the release still needs to get done. Donny does this and takes it in stride. Major props for that.
Star Wars, Episode IV: “We don’t have time to discuss this in a committee!” =)
Much ado about nothing. As long as he wasn’t “double dipping”, I don’t see the problem, after all, how many L’s changed registration to vote for Ron P in 08? How many L’s, some in an official capacity at the local, county, state, regional or national level worked for the Ron P campaign in 08?
I have to admit that I don’t agree with Donny on some things. But then again, I don’t agree with everyone, on everything anyway.
The “radical” LP members seem to be taking the opposition stance by “slamming” the “reformers” at every turn, and in turn the “reform” camp is sometimes defensive, and at other times find themselves alienated and therefore hostile to any of the “radical” views.
As someone in the middle, I feel like I am being “forced to take a side”. How many other L’s are being “forced” as well? The supporters we have who are in the middle, will likely choose another Party, rather than fight for one side or the other, therefore leaving the LP weaker.
If the “radicals” want nothing more than a debate society…fine. If the “reformers” want nothing more than “republican lite”…fine. But I think…and I hope many of you do as well…that there is a “common ground” where the radicals, reformers and middle, can come together and build a movement…
If not…am I wasting my time???
sh: I resent the implication that my reliance on *Ferguson’s own words* could be construed as an “intentional attempt to mislead Party members”.
me: Let me get this straight: You put out an article with the headline:
“LP’s Director of Communications Moonlighting for Republican Campaign”
The headline was not in QUESTION form. THAT would be defensible.
You’d asked questions, but not gotten a response:
“A note was sent to LP Chair Bill Redpath, Acting LP Executive Director Robert Kraus, and Donny Ferguson explaining that a story was being prepared and asking the following questions:…:
But you ran the story anyway?
(I can say I AM on Linked In, but I don’t update it, as I don’t find it especially valuable. I’m on Facebook, too, and I don’t update it much, either.)
I’m not hearing a credible response here. I’m hearing someone who THOUGHT they had a GOTCHA, but didn’t.
So, Susan, polygraph straps on: Did you think when you ran this story that you’d “gotten” Donny…tantamount to the smoking gun “proving” that that current leadership are actually Rs posing as Ls?
Recall the Nixon Administration era notion that the coverup is worse than the crime?
Or that confession is good for the soul?
I’m reminded of Knapp’s observation (I recall) that Rothbardians engage in dialectics, and I wonder whether he called it…spot on.
Another approach, btw, is to let this blow over. It too shall pass. Protesting too much only brings more attention to the poor judgment exercised here.
What about that Austin Petersen guy, what do you all think he’s up to? No good probably. Is he anti gay as well? I heard we was a former republican or something. Where did he come from anyway?
@77 – No, I believe that Donny is not at all anti-gay.
@27 “The RLC isn’t in the business of trying to make Republicans become more libertarian than they are, it’s in the business of pretending that Republicans are more libertarian than they are.”
Well said!
“The nut of it all is that the LP and the RLC often work together and have much in common, including some of our members. We’re working towards the same goals by different methods, and because of that it’s quite common that when someone like Aaron or I who has a long history with the LP finally gets frustrated the RLC may be a place for them to take their skills to continue pursuing the same goals by methods which they may find more appealing.”
That is pure BS. As a former LP activist I reached out to the RLC some years ago and all they wanted me to do was to recruit other LP members to the GOP. When I refused to do that they brushed me off and basically told me to go play with myself.
Many elected officials, like myself, might be willing to switch parties once you all grow up!
This really points to a flaw in the present strategy of converting politicians who are already in office (in practice, Republicans, though I suppose even the folks at HQ would welcome a Dem).
We are -not- likely to get the cream of the crop this way. What we’re likely to get is pretty unappealing candidates who think that *we* need to grow rather than that *they* could perhaps use some growth.
I’d rather concentrate on growing our own candidates from young, libertarian-oriented folks than waste time toadying up to a bunch of mediocre or downright weird Republicans.
The purpose of the RLC is to make elections safe for Republicans by eliminating any conservative/libertarian alternatives.
Sort of like “Jews for Jesus” and various other attempts by Christian denominations to proselytize without being too obvious.
Is Donny anti-gay? What do you think that staff is even thinking in these things? Does anyone at hq actually care about the issues?
Dear Jim Davidson,
Kindly STFU. Or go back to vilifying me. Being supported by you is rather nauseating.
Thanks, yer pal (not),
Susan H.
Delgaudio writes:
Many elected officials, like myself, might be willing to switch parties once you all grow up!
Err, thanks, no. That is, unless *you* do some growing as well.
mdh @ 72 says “the LCR receives those kinds of contributions because the GOP uses it as an outreach vehicle to the GLBT community. That does not in any way imply that as an organization, it has any sway with GOP leadership as it relates to that organization’s issues/policy agenda.”
The second part is true:Log Cabin has very little or no sway with the Republican leaders, who used homophobia to get support for Republican candidates in recent elections. In that way LCR is similar to RLC (same initials, different order) which also has no sway with Republican leaders.
What each of them can do meaningfully is to support those few Republican candidates who actually do support the goals of either LCR or RLC (or LRC in the case of Lewrockwell.com) while opposing or refusing to support candidates who are against the interest of the group.
The Log Cabin Republicans have a better record of refusing to support candidates they don’t agree with than does Republican Liberty Caucus.
@71 Went back to Linked In and did find a way of dating my last comment to my profile, a sort of status update like Twitter.
Which suggests that if someone has updated their status and has not updated their resume, they think their resume is current. Which, of course, mine is, now.
Again, I don’t think a journalist has to do anything to confirm published statements by an individual. If Donny were not proud of his continuing role in supporting that xenophobic anti-gay candidate, he would have changed his resume on LinkedIn long ago.
The fact is Donny likes supporting anti-gay and xenophobic candidates. I wonder if he also likes smashing gay people over the head with bottles?
@70 – Trent, the LCR receives those kinds of contributions because the GOP uses it as an outreach vehicle to the GLBT community. That does not in any way imply that as an organization, it has any sway with GOP leadership as it relates to that organization’s issues/policy agenda.
@55 Susan you are completely justified in quoting from a person’s statements about himself. If you look at a document and it TELLS you that it is very dated, say my curriculum vitae at indomitus.net which is clearly dated 2004, you might be able to guess that there have been changes in the last five years (that I’ve not bothered putting on that page).
It is not your job as a journalist to check with Donny-boy nor with the Delgaudio people to validate information that Donny posted to LinkedIn. I’ve looked at my own LinkedIn data and can’t see anywhere it indicates when it was last updated.
@40 “What I want to know is , how come Angela got charged so-to-speak with joining and or lending material support to another party by simply joininga facebook group , but Donny can actually work for another campaign and thats ok?”
This, LG, is the crux of the matter. Thank you for this comment, it is very important.
The answer, of course, is that people like Robert Kraus, Bob Sullentrup, Aaron Starr, Bill Redpath, Andrew Davis, Donny Ferguson, Stewie Flood, etc., can work for Republicans and not be criticised because they are ALWAYS working for Republicans, they are Republicans, they want GOP victories, and as soon as they can get into an official government capacity to suck down a big government paycheck, they will.
Angela was not allowed to even indicate interest in the Boston Tea Party because Stewie Flood is an evil jerk. Freedom of expression means nothing to these people. Electing GOP candidates is all they care about.
“The RLC gets about as much play from the GOP leadership as the Log Cabin Republicans do. Which is to say, none. ”
Actually, the Log Cabin Republicans have far more sway. They raise more than 100,000 dollars per year, whereas the RLC doesn’t raise anywhere close to that, I dont think. Though I’d love to hear Aaron or Save clarify.
To be clear: Whatever bone Susan has to pick with the national staff MIGHT be on display in the comments, but it is not present in the news post.
As for Donny–I have no personal problem with Donny and I infact like what he has done at the National Office. This news post is NOT a hatchet job and this blog has NO problem with the LP national staff. We made a post based on information that was at least mostly-current, it had been updated at least within the last five months. If someone made a mistake in updating their own resume, I’d say that was their fault.
The RLC gets about as much play from the GOP leadership as the Log Cabin Republicans do. Which is to say, none.
Which is unfortunate, really.
Considering Ron Paul for a minute, though… he’s a radical libertarian on all but one issue (borders). A lot of the folks the RLC claims are libertarians are nowhere near that close.
As a committed Libertarian, I have at times in the past advised leaders of the RLC, in the hope that they could be a bridge between pro-freedom conservatives, the few actual libertarians in the Republican Party, and the larger Libertarian Movement. And RLC has done some good work.
But a couple of things undermine the credibility of RLC. One big factor, which I have discussed with Eric Dondero, Mike Holmes, Cliff Thies (by email) and others is the “Liberty Index” which is put together (intentionally or not) in almost exactly the way Tom Knapp describes in #27.
Related to that is a tendency to endorse Republican candidates who may be good on guns or something, but are terrible on marijuana or foreign policy.
When RLC was started, the leaders attempted to ally with Pro-Choice Republicans, but have dropped that since so many onservative “allies” of RLC, along with many of the Ron Paul libertarians, are anti-abortion.
Finally, what undermines the credibility of RLC is that so many RLC leaders take themselves too seriously, when nobody in the Republican leadership considers them of any importance – and that includes members of their Advisory Board that I know personally.
@29 – So, Dave, if I want to marry 3 wives and 2 husbands in a Satanic church, would the RLC’s ideal government register those civil unions?
You should have called or e-mailed, first. A lot of people have signed up for websites and long since forgotten about them.
Ah, but think this out a bit. The version I saw SEEMED current. It HAD the job with the LP listed as ‘current’. If it had been lacking that job, I wouldn’t have assumed it was current.
So obviously at some point after being hired by the LP (or slightly before, if he was an optimist:) Donny DID presumably update his resume there, and AT THAT TIME, he did not indicate that he had left his previous position.
It’s easy enough to imagine how that could happen, but again, there seemed to me to be no reason to suspect that Donny had made a mistake in updating his resume, and it obviously HAD been updated.
It’s obvious that the staff of the national committee are totally incompetent.
I’m looking again at Donny’s email and getting a little cranky. I did not share this in the update because it wasn’t particularly relevant to the story, and it’s personal, and it’s easy to see how something like this could make Donny’s day unhappy, but this was really a bit thick:
I resent the implication that my reliance on *Ferguson’s own words* could be construed as an “intentional attempt to mislead Party members”.
I also think it’s totally bizarre that someone would say that their resume ought to be treated as ‘information that was likely false’.
The national office is useless. What do they do all day?
Wonder , if you left because of masks and blogs , your dedication was fickle to begin with.
So you left because you felt like the LP was becoming more anarchist?
I left the LP because of people like this online and people wearing freaky Guy Fawkes masks on C SPAN.
You should have called or e-mailed, first. A lot of people have signed up for websites and long since forgotten about them.
Anyway, linkedin entries aside, I think its something good to discuss because it goes to the heart of the concept of “tent” size. Shouldn’t the LP be willing to accept a broad range of libertarians?
Agree, and yes.
For those of you just reading the comments, please note that there is an extensive UPDATE to the story posted above.
Once again, the radicals accuse and denounce without giving a shit about the truth in the matter.
Help me out here. Should I really have called Donny to get a confirmation of what Donny wrote?
“Hi, Donny. Just calling to see if your resume is a pack of lies and/or hopelessly out of date and/or you’d like to change what it says before I make a note about it.”
5 minutes later, I call back: “Hi, Donny; just wanted to check with you about your previous statement to see if you’d like to change or update it.”
When would it end? It’s unfortunate that Donny didn’t update his resume, but attempting to paint him as some sort of victim is silly. If you can’t take a person’s own statements about himself, what CAN you take?
Regarding point #2 in the UPDATE above, I wanted to make this point:
It interests me to note that Ferguson does seem to feel that a current professional association with Delgaudio would be a negative. That is very positive, from my viewpoint as a member of the LP concerned about appearances. Delgaudio, besides being a member of a competing party, is an unsavory anti-immigration, anti-gay type that would be an embarrassment for the LP to be associated with. In. My. Opinion.
Once again, the radicals accuse and denounce without giving a shit about the truth in the matter.
Once the last decent person has left the LP, it will be fun watching the radicals start purging each other for not being pure enough.
Dear Ms. Hogarth,
I really must be on my way to bed, but you make some points that I wish I had time to debate. Hopefully others will.
I just would say that you indicate you gave the gentleman time to respond. How long? 24 hours, a few days? I understand your LPUS staff may be busy so I would expect you must have provided adequate time for a reply – perhaps 48 hours?
Anything less would be a sure sign your true intent was to cause harm and not inform. Thus, you most likely do owe the gentleman a sincere apology!
Shame on you and all the others there at the USLP who rather do harm to yourselves when there is so much more externally going on in your country that you should be focused on.
Good night!
Susan is quite right, too. Ferguson didn’t update his resume and that is HIS fault, not ours. Asking him, or anyone else, to confirm what is an innocuous enough resume seems pretty absurd to me.
Personally I don’t think there’s a single real libertarian in the office of the National Committee at all. They should all be purged and replaced with people who ACTUALLY believe in the principals we stand for.
For the record, i’m quite sure Donny just forgot to update his LinkedIn profile.
For the record, I agree, since Donny indicated that. I know I sure went and rechecked my resume after getting his note 🙂
“Really, then what was the purpose of this posting and all those questions?”
The post notes that we sent a notice to those who have the facts (LPNC Chairman, and others) to enquire as to whether they knew about this, whether its a problem for them, if there is any intention to reprimand him, and how much he works for each. That is not editorializing–we DID indeed send those questions, and none of them are innapropriate. One one hand we are condemned for not asking Mr. Ferguson to confirm his own resume (redundant much?), but then also condemned for asking further questions of those with the authority to answer us? Hardly seems fair.
Really, then what was the purpose of this posting and all those questions?
Conflict of interest – or apparent conflict of interest – is news.
I do not understand why people believe everything they read on some blog that obviously has no media value nor follows any standards or principles in journalism.
The reporter in this case (that would be me) took the (quite bold, in retrospect) step of believing that what Mr. Ferguson wrote in his resume was in fact the truth. Asking Mr. Ferguson to confirm what Mr. Ferguson wrote hardly seems to make sense.
Mr. Ferguson has since updated his resume and I have posted the updated information.
Thanks for backing me up, Trent. I really appreciate that.
Mr. Hill:
I find this very amusing. I was just tucking in the puppies to go to bed and decided to read up the latest. I must say “no editorializing on the subject” did make me laugh! Really, then what was the purpose of this posting and all those questions? I have a few profiles of myself on several of these groups — most of which I did not make up. Others either posted on my behalf, or simply impersonated me.
That said – the title of this particular posting is straightforward: “LP’s Director of Communications Moonlighting for Republican Campaign” – sounds like a fact and if so it should have been checked.
You failed to do your homework and then blamed it on the victim! How very un-libertarian of you!
Your Mr. Delgaudio is correct. You people do need to grow up indeed and as I myself said on another posting, stop this foolishness!
Cheers and good evening!
So what was it that you didn’t like about Badnarik?
“In your state of Missouri, we endorsed the following candidates since 2004: Jim Talent (US Senate)”
Precisely. Anyone who believes Jim Talent is anything close to a libertarian needs to put down the crack pipe and/or seek treatment for a severe dissociative disorder.
As for Donny, I think he has done a great job at the LP thus far and I commended him earlier in this threat for working across party lines.
correction __ shoul be beholden , instead of should not be beholden
What I want to know is , how come Angela got charged so-to-speak with joining and or lending material support to another party by simply joininga facebook group , but Donny can actually work for another campaign and thats ok?
absolutely somebody with Donnys position should not be beholden to another Party in any way , just as members who hold any excomm posistion shouldnt either.
Just like when we found out a member on the platform committee was a registered Repubican to vote for RP in the primary.
flippin bullshit!
“Eugene, well said. I think the post that started this entire thread is inappropriate. The LP (and IPR, for that matter) needs to stop attacking other libertarians and start attacking statists.”
Aaron,
You know I respect you. With that said, IPR, under my direction, has never been used to ATTACK anyone, but to report on news. What happens in the comments in fine, but we report on third party news, accurately.
Eugene,
Donny’s own profile identified him as having worked for you. It has now been corrected/changed/alterred since then to reflect that he quit working for you in Jan of ’08.
With that said–there shouldn’t have been a need to call your campaign, we had no reason to suspect that Donny would lie about such a thing. As it turns out, he may not have been lying, but simply did not update his profile sufficiently on LinkedIn.
For the record, i’m quite sure Donny just forgot to update his LinkedIn profile. But that doesn’t mean MY blog lacks credibility. If anything, it speaks badly of him, and of you. We very clearly posted our source for the information, and made no editorializing on the subject.
I can admit that I take things too seriously sometimes. =)
I agree about your statements regarding RLC/LP. In the end, the goal is to promote more liberty. So no matter what party a person runs under if the policies (and voting record!) are rooted in freedom then they are the candidate for me.
@31,34 My impression is that IPR is focused on internal/external “news” related specifically to 3rd parties. Going after the opposition would be outside the purview. This results specifically in a forum for cathartic and rant soaked internal squabbles.
Anyway, linkedin entries aside, I think its something good to discuss because it goes to the heart of the concept of “tent” size. Shouldn’t the LP be willing to accept a broad range of libertarians? Dem-lite, Rep-lite, reform, radical…whatever. As long as its moving in the right direction.
As someone currently active in the LP and wary of the RLC, I would recommend against the critical tone.
I was just poking fun. Sometimes I forget that too many in the LP take themselves much too seriously.
The nut of it all is that the LP and the RLC often work together and have much in common, including some of our members. We’re working towards the same goals by different methods, and because of that it’s quite common that when someone like Aaron or I who has a long history with the LP finally gets frustrated the RLC may be a place for them to take their skills to continue pursuing the same goals by methods which they may find more appealing.
Dave
Third Party Revolution,
I didn’t feel comfortable with the LP’s 2004 Presidential candidate. (On a personal level, I quite like him, though.)
I left after the 2004 Convention and have not attended any LP events since that point.
Aaron
Eugene, well said. I think the post that started this entire thread is inappropriate. The LP (and IPR, for that matter) needs to stop attacking other libertarians and start attacking statists.
I think Donny is doing a good job. And I say that as someone who is pro-LP and wish the party success!
So Aaron, if you really cared about third parties so much, why did you go join the Republican Party. Obviously it is going to be dead in a decade or two, so there not much of a point trying to save it.
When will Libertarians get over their fascination with the GOP?
To whom it may concern,
Mr. Ferguson’s company has not run my campaign for some time. My number is readily available to all on my web page. I do not understand why people believe everything they read on some blog that obviously has no media value nor follows any standards or principles in journalism. If IPR had any integrity, then they would have called to confirm the truth before publishing. Perhaps this is why so many do not take the LP seriously. Many elected officials, like myself, might be willing to switch parties once you all grow up!
Thank you,
First some full disclosure: I’ve hung out with Donny and think he’s a swell guy.
Moving on…in regards to his employment as LP Com Director I think that the appearance of impropriety, unfair that it may be, does have a bearing in this situation. The questions in the article are reasonable from that perspective. I just hope the LNC doesn’t end up wasting a lot of time dealing with this…
My thoughts on this issue are conflicted. Given the current size of the party and the human resources available to the major parties it is realistic to me that a professional in the organization be involved in efforts with other parties. I’d prefer those resources be aimed internally but opportunities (such as managing sizable campaigns) don’t always exist for the LP. Being able to maintain / develop various political skills at another party’s expense may not be so bad. I mean, as long as the job is performed professionally and effectively its not a big deal?
I’m not sure if I buy my own statements…still thinking about it.
@1, Dave
“we’re always looking for those whose good sense and political acumen get them purged from the LP.” As someone currently active in the LP and wary of the RLC, I would recommend against the critical tone.
@Aaron
I’ve been reading your posts elsewhere on the interwebs and I appreciate your matter of fact/reference supported approach.
Susan and others. The RLC is a group within the Republican Party. As such we adopt some of the “big tent” principle of the party and are willing to work with people who share MOST of our beliefs, but may differ in one or two areas.
It’s my belief, and I think most of the RLC shares it, that there is a difference between fundamental issues of principle like fiscal responsibility, minimal government and individual liberty and issues of personal morality like abortion and the meaning of the word marriage. The RLC focuses on the fundamental issues and leaves personal morality up to individuals. As I recall the LP actually takes a rather similar stand on abortion.
So while we believe that it is inappropriate for the government to legislate morality, we understand that we have members who feel that certain types of behavior are immoral and we don’t reject them because of that, so long as they accept that the RLC is not going to advocate imposing a moral agenda through the force of government.
In the specific case of gay marriage we have charted a very reasonable course, advocating an end to the government role in marriage altogether. We plan to make a public statement on this in the coming week, but the gist of it is that marriages should be handled by churches based on their own criteria, and government’s only role should be to register contracts of civil union between individuals and those contracts should be gender neutral like any other legal document. Again, quite similar to the position taken about 10 days ago by the LP.
Dave
Tom:
If we wanted to pretend that more Republicans were libertarians, why wouldn’t we just list all elected Republicans in our endorsements listing? RLC endorsements are available online at http://www.rlc.org/endorsements/.
In your state of Missouri, we endorsed the following candidates since 2004: Jim Talent (US Senate), Jim Guest (State Rep.), Jeremy Cady (State Rep.), Tom Martz (Springfield City Council), and Charles Kerner (Clark County Commissioner). In five years, we’ve endorsed five candidates.
Noticeably absent is the entire GOP Congressional delegation and all State Representatives minus Jim Guest.
Who is doing the pretending?
“The entire index is available online at http://www.RLC.org, so you can see for yourself what factored in to the tabulation.”
And so you can reverse engineer it to figure out by what process the factors were chosen. Here’s that process:
– Select Republican bills for which a Republican “aye” vote will make Republicans look libertarian.
– Select Democratic bills for which a Republican “nay” vote will make Republicans look libertarian.
– Ignore Republican bills for which a Republican “aye” vote will look anti-libertarian.
– Ignore Democratic bills for which a Republican “nay” vote will look anti-libertarian.
– Raise eyebrows, pretend to be surprised that you’ve “discovered” that there are so many “libertarian” Republicans and that Republicans are generally so much more “libertarian” than Democrats.
The RLC isn’t in the business of trying to make Republicans become more libertarian than they are, it’s in the business of pretending that Republicans are more libertarian than they are.
Susan,
We didn’t want him in the RLC. I approached him to see how he would reply. There’s not a whole slew of liberty-loving legislators to choose from here in Virginia. Needless to say, his response was not impressive.
Best, Aaron
It seems Donny is not the smartest libertarian for the job. Here’s an article mocking his work:
http://constitutionparti.blogspot.com/
Aaron, thanks. After reading about this guy, I came to that conclusion before I checked back here for your answer.
Yuck. Just … yuck. I’m actually surprised you wanted such a guy in the RLC. He -runs- a group whose primary goal is “A federal marriage amendment to the Constitution and an end to lawful same sex marriage”.
WTF? Is this the sort of guy the RLC typically recruits? THIS is what you consider a ‘libertarian republican’?
Susan, direct quote.
Tom,
The Liberty Index is compiled by Cliff Thies annually. Cliff is a professor of Economics at Shenandoah University. We’re not claiming Rick Santorum as one of our own by any means (maybe a past press release did — I have no idea), but in several years he did score in the ‘Libertarian’ quadrant on the scale used by Cliff to compile results. The entire index is available online at http://www.RLC.org, so you can see for yourself what factored in to the tabulation. Note, also, that Rick Santorum also scored ‘Centrist’ and ‘Enterpriser’ in various years.
Claiming Rick Santorum to be a libertarian is something the RLC would never do. That said, in a particular year he may have scored in that quadrant in the Index.
Best, Aaron
Aaron, is what you placed in quotes from Delgaudio a direct quote, or a paraphrase?
Dave probably should not have used the word ‘purged’, but I understand what he was trying to say.
Please explain it to me, then, because I do not.
Oops, forgot the footnote.
The Republican Liberty Caucus reported former US Senator Rick Santorum as a “Libertarian” in its “Liberty Index” rating system for seven years in a row, 1999-2005. In at least one year — I can’t seem to find the release/article any more — RLC reported Santorum as one of, if not the, “most libertarian” members of Congress.
Thing is, Santorum has carefully and explicitly condemned libertarianism, by name, explained why he thinks it’s a wrong and bad philosophy, and argued for bigger, rather than smaller, government on issues of personal freedom.
Santorum is the extreme case — called a libertarian by RLC when he not only is obviously no such thing, but forcefully argues that he’s no such thing.
The normal case is that RLC cooks its “Liberty Index” to return results that falsely portray Republicans as “libertarian,” then touts those results as if RLC had played some aprt in electing these alleged libertarians to office.
Dave probably should not have used the word ‘purged’, but I understand what he was trying to say. You guys take everything so literal. 🙂
As long as I am involved in the Virginia chapter of the RLC, we will not be endorsing Eugene DelGaudio for political office. (Sorry, Eric.)
I approached him about the Republican LIberty Caucus, to which he replied: “Happy Easter Republican Liberty Caucus / You guys are probably youngish flabby libertarian types who blather theory rather than the blood and guts of ideological combat and the true modern torture of standing for the traditional American Christian virtues out in the open in the purest and brightest sunlight.”
Enough said.
One might propose that Susan has the title backwards:
“Republican Campaign Manager moonlights for Libertarian National Committee as Media Misdirector” is more like it.
That would explain the recent Republican hit piece on Supreme Court nominee Sotomayor that was a selection of Republican racist lies.
Real libertarian Steve Newton slices and diced the Liberpublican National Committee on Delaware Libertarian, and I will be back with more this evening.
“I might volunteer for both Boy Scouts and Gay Scouts (assuming there was such an org). But if I *worked for* Gay Scouts, I doubt very much that Boy Scouts would also like to hire me.”
Perhaps not. But if they were ohk with it–wouldnt you do it in order to “synergize” the efforts of scouting?
Newbies to the libertarian movement, may not be aware of who exactly Eugene Delguadio is. He is one of the very original founders of the modern libertarian movement, going back to the mid-1960s and YAF days.
He’s also been a close friend and ally of current Congressman Ron Paul chief of staff Tom Lizardo. (Also, of YAF).
Recall, the Libertarian Party was originated out of the Young Americans for Freedom.
To criticize an LP member, even a staffer for working with Eugene Delguadio, who has impeccable Libertarian credentials, is the utter height of absurdity.
But as Dave Nalle notes, if the LP wants to shitcan him on this, I’m sure the trusty old Republican Liberty Caucus would welcome Donny in with open arms.
Eric Dondero, Fmr. Senior Staffer
Cong. Ron Paul
Fmr. Libertarian National Committee member
25 + Year LP Member
Founder, Republican Liberty Caucus
Former member, Young Americans for Freedom
Aaron,
You write:
“Your point 1) is totally made up.”
Really? I’ll limit my reply to two words: Rick Santorum*.
“On point 2), I think you’ve missed the boat, too. People are frequently purged from the LP when they aren’t radical enough for other LP members to tolerate.”
People are not only not “frequently” purged from the LP, they’re never purged from the LP, because they can’t be purged from the LP. Leaving of your own accord is not being “purged,” and the only way to leave the LP is of your own accord.
Trent, there’s a world of difference between ‘activist’ and ’employee’.
I might volunteer for both Boy Scouts and Gay Scouts (assuming there was such an org). But if I *worked for* Gay Scouts, I doubt very much that Boy Scouts would also like to hire me.
Good for Donny. If more third party activists put party-labels aside, they’d make much more progress.
Susan, getting harassed and ridiculed should qualify. Don’t you think?
Yes, I -do- think – quite often, in fact 🙂 But I don’t -agree- that ridicule is the same as ‘purging’. As for harassment – you’d have t give me an *actual example* (as I asked before), because to many people ‘ridicule’ IS harassment.
And if your statement really boils down to (as I read it after your ‘clarifications’) “People frequently quit the the LP when they feel like they’re being picked on by radical libertarians,” then I could say exactly the same thing, replacing ‘radical’ with ‘non-radical’. But I don’t call that *purging*.
To -purge- someone from an organization means to kick them out against their will; it doesn’t mean that they get frustrated and stomp off and then claim they were ‘purged out of the Party’. That is the behavior of children.
So do you have any specific examples of people purged from the LP, or do you just want to stick with your definition of ‘harassment and ridicule’ as ‘purging’?
I suspect there’ve been any number of Ls of various types who’ve felt informally pressured to leave. I’m unaware of an actual “purging” mechanism.
Rocky,
Why is it interesting? I support third parties. I wish we had a multi-party system in this country. I am a former LP member and activist. So is Dave.
Aaron
Interesting that spokespersons from one of the two major parties have latched onto this discussion on a website about third parties.
Susan, getting harassed and ridiculed should qualify. Don’t you think?
People are frequently purged from the LP when they aren’t radical enough for other LP members to tolerate.
Could you give an example of an instance where someone was ‘purged’?
Hint: Someone who says “You people are driving me nuts; I’m outta here” does not count.
Tom,
Your point 1) is totally made up.
On point 2), I think you’ve missed the boat, too. People are frequently purged from the LP when they aren’t radical enough for other LP members to tolerate.
Aaron
Dave,
1) The RLC’s modus operandi (hunting down any Republican politician who a) has been elected to office, and b) will hold still long enough for you to pin a “libertarian” label on his lapel) is not the same thing as “actually getting libertarians elected to office.”
2) That you’re “always looking for those whose good sense and political acumen get them purged from the LP” at least partially explains the RLC’s complete inefficacy — nobody’s ever been “purged from the LP” for any reason … not because some people wouldn’t like to purge the LP, but because there’s no mechanism for doing so.
The Ronulan Paulnut Dilemma strikes again!
If they decide to purge Donny we’ve got room for him at the Republican Liberty Caucus. Since we actually want to get libertarians elected to office and accomplish something we’re always looking for those whose good sense and political acumen get them purged from the LP.
Dave Nalle
Chairman, Republican Liberty Caucus