LP Monday Message: Libertarian candidates on November 2009 ballot

October 26, 2009

Dear Friend of Liberty,

This coming November 3 is Election Day in many places throughout the U.S. Since it’s an odd-numbered year, there are relatively few races. Nevertheless, dozens of Libertarians are on the ballot for various positions.

While you may not live in a place with a Libertarian on the ballot, perhaps you’ve got friends or family who live where one of our Libertarians are on the ballot. If so, I hope you’ll encourage them to vote for the Libertarian candidates in their area.

You can view our list of Libertarians in upcoming 2009 races.

Only two states have gubernatorial elections in 2009 (New Jersey and Virginia). Ken Kaplan is the New Jersey Libertarian Party gubernatorial candidate.

Last week we posted an entry on our blog about Matt Drew, who is in a run-off for Durham City Council in North Carolina. He placed second in a five-way primary on October 6.

I am especially thankful for every Libertarian candidate who throws their hat in the ring and runs for office. In some cases Libertarian candidates do win and have the opportunity to directly implement libertarian policies. Usually our wins come in small towns or small jurisdictions where there aren’t too many voters and a candidate can campaign door-to-door.

On the other hand, many of us live in large cities where winning isn’t feasible in the short term. Nevertheless, every Libertarian on the ballot helps to publicize the Libertarian Party and our ideals, and helps build the party for future races.

I’ve run for office five times myself. As Executive Director of the Libertarian Party of Texas, I helped get a record 173 candidates on the November 2008 ballot in Texas. As your national Executive Director, I’m looking forward to recruiting an army of candidates across the country for the November 2010 mid-term elections.

I hope you’ll visit our website and make a contribution to help us prepare for the upcoming 2009 and 2010 elections.

Sincerely,

Wes Benedict
Executive Director
Libertarian National Committee

77 thoughts on “LP Monday Message: Libertarian candidates on November 2009 ballot

  1. Robert Milnes

    Yes, I just got this email. Evidently not enough people-party officials, candidates, activists, voters etc -have expressed their support for the Progressive Libertarian Alliance Strategy to Wes. He does mention that there are many ballots with no Libertarian. But he doesn’t mention how many of those ballots also do not have a Green i.e. How many have a Lib & no Green e.g. Nj Governor & how many have a Green & no Lib. & how many have BOTH & how many have NEITHER e.g. Virginia Governor. He mentions it is a odd number year. The implication is not much s expected. But that is still a good opportunity to try the PLAS. Since he’s conceding the situation is dreadful, why not try a different strategy? Everybody who supports the PLAS get on your computers & phones & contact Wes & his counterparts in the GP, I believe that would be Scott & Starlene. & contact your local party office & candidates & anyone you know who might be nterested. I plan to vote for Ken Kaplan, Libertarian for NJ Governor. Even though he is almost certain to lose. UNLESS enough progressives support him in exchange for Libertarian support elsewhere in this big country & many elections still in the odd year. We need a press conference in Washington, WHERE WES IS & also I believe SCOTT & STARLENE. FLOOD these people with emails & phone calls. THEN, we can FLOOD the voters with information about vote coordination. This could be done if enough people get with it. I, for one AM DOWN WITH IT! Are you?

  2. HS

    I’m wondering if running just to run in big partisan elections is the overarching problem for the LP. My view is that it has effectively marginalized the LP candidates as perpetual candidates with no chance at winning. So the result is that people know the libertarians are there, but that’s about it as they are cast off as unable to win so why bother. In the meantime, the LP just spins its wheels.

    I have the same problem with the Independent Green Party who said something like “running is winning.”

    I’ve always thought the libertarians should tear it all down and start over in order to gain something of a fresh start among voters.

  3. HS

    I should qualify that I have a lot of respect for the LP activists, so hopefully nobody takes it as offensive.

  4. Susan Hogarth

    I’m wondering if running just to run in big partisan elections is the overarching problem for the LP. My view is that it has effectively marginalized the LP candidates as perpetual candidates with no chance at winning. So the result is that people know the libertarians are there, but that’s about it as they are cast off as unable to win so why bother.

    I understand the sentiment, but the Party-building positives from running candidates in larger races is too good to be given up, I think. I also think you’d face the same problem – only worse – with a ‘clean slate’ – the US system is *designed* as a duopoly, and any third-party is going to face the same circumstances.

    Think of your new party. At least Libs can say that we do have elected Libs serving in some places; your new folks won’t be able to say that.

    The sort of people who are only going to vote for a Party they think will ‘win’ aren’t going to vote for your new Party any more than they will the LP.

    The LP’s ‘overarching problem’ is simply that we have a mighty big hill to climb.

  5. HS

    Yes, the big hill to climb is the problem. I just think that this marginalized (in my opinion) view of the LP makes the hill even bigger. My example prior to getting involved in third party politics on the tiny level that I am is that I like to vote for the candidate and not the party. But when I see “libertarian,” I have always just cast them off. I did, however, vote for independents even though they didn’t have a shot. Maybe I’m just messed up and am totally out there in my view of the LP.

  6. Robert Milnes

    One thing that would be very dramatic would be if Joseph Dobrien, Libertarian candidate for NYC mayor, would announce he supports the PLAS & withdraws from the race & endorses the Green, Billy Talen. But still vote for the other 2 Libertarians for NYC office-Public Advocate & Comptroller. They have no Green competitor.

  7. Susan Hogarth

    My example prior to getting involved in third party politics on the tiny level that I am is that I like to vote for the candidate and not the party. But when I see “libertarian,” I have always just cast them off.

    I appreciate your insights and viewpoints. I’ve just come through a ten-day outreach (State fair) – I wasn’t there every day, but I did put plenty of time in, and I heard a lot of talk like yours, so I do know were you’re coming from.

    On the other hand, I think it’s fascinating that you claimed that you used to not vote *for* a party name, but did use party affiliation as a reason to *discard* a candidate. I appreciate your honesty, and think this is quite often the case with voters who feel themselves ‘independent’. I don’t think we can do much to change those people, but I think what we need to do is to identify and motivate people who *are* Libertarians – and avoiding races we think we ‘can’t win’ isn’t a good way to do that, I think.

  8. George Phillies

    The LNC is refusing to support National Party (and Massachusetts State Committee) member Joe Kennedy, who is working hard on securing his nomination for our January 19th election. Kennedy is campaigning hard, but needs moderately more money — another $5000-$7000 or so — to get on the ballot.

    You can read much more about Joe in my new column at Lee Wrights’ LibertyForAll dot net, which the IPR staff is welcome to reproduce here.

    You can read much more about him and his fine libertarian stands, none of which the LNC is telling you, at his web site JoeKennedyForSenate dot com.

    $5000 is less than the national committee spends on web site maintenance–each month. $5000 is a few per cent of what the LNC spends each year to have a corner upstairs office in a class A office building in downtown D.C.

    Fortunately, we lucked out. On the day that mattered, rather before the special special election was called, Joe was a registered voter enrolled as “Unenrolled” (Independent). He will be appearing on the “Liberty” line, as he may legally do. If Joe had been registered “Libertarian”, he would have had to run as a Libertarian Party candidate, he would have $60,000 to get on the ballot instead of under $15,000 (of which he has raised half) and he would have been told not to bother trying unless he could write the check himself.

    Joe Kennedy has been endorsed by a unanimous vote of the Libertarian Association of Massachusetts State Committee.

    Go Joe!
    George Phillies

  9. Richard Winger

    Massachusetts ballot access procedures for members of small qualified parties to get on their own party’s primary ballot are a disgrace, the worst in the nation. There should be agitation against those laws in Massachusetts. They are so bad, they even injure Republicans in Massachusetts. In 2008, out of 10 U.S. House races, there was no Republican in 6 of them.

  10. JT

    Re Post #8: I agree with Susan. Only the statewide and presidential Libertarian candidates get radio/TV coverage (not much compared to the Rs/Ds, but some). Those races are the ones that offer the best recruitment opportunities. And as the late Harry Browne said, who would want to join a political party that ran no candidate for president?

    Re Post #14: Is that because of ballot access laws? Or is it because any Republican has zero chance of winning in that district anyway? It may indeed be the former, but there should be evidence beyond the fact there’s no Republican in the race. Unless it’s a presidential or statewide election, the Rs/Ds sometime don’t bother with a candidate if it’s a foregone conclusion that person will lose the election.

  11. Robert Milnes

    Richard Cooper @16, even if true, & I don’t think so, that’s not the point, is it? The point is to get greens & Libertarians elected & vote out dems & reps. Separately neither can do it. But together they can. There is plenty of disagreement to go around.

  12. Brian Holtz

    Here’s a message from David Nolan to Bob Barr campaign manager Russ Verney that Dr. Phillies printed in his Liberty For America journal in 2008:

    Yesterday, I received a fundraising appeal from you that quotes a news release concerning Bob Barr’s remarks on the “Bailout from Hell.” The first sentence reads as follows: “Today on Fox News, former Congressman Bob Barr called the taxpayer bail out of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac a “BOFH” — the “bailout from hell.” FORMER CONGRESSMAN Bob Barr ??? Shouldn’t that be LIBERTARIAN PARTY PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE Bob Barr ???  I find it odd and dismaying that Mr. Barr’s party affiliation is nowhere mentioned in this. The word LIBERTARIAN is also conspicuously missing from the Barr ’08 website, the campaign brochure, the bumper sticker, and virtually all campaign material. Why is this? Is Mr. Barr trying to hide his party affiliation? A lot of longtime Libertarian activists, myself included, find this pattern very disturbing.

    In fact, the Sep. 30 Verney email that I got did describe Barr as a “Libertarian”. Also, the description of Barr as a former congressman is actually embedded in a paragraph that is clearly identified as a quote from Politico.com. Indeed, the subject of the email was: “New York Times and Politico agree. . . Bob Barr wins!”.

    Note that the Verney email — a fundraiser presumably sent largely to the choir — was triggered by a 4-minute Barr appearance on nationwide Fox News.  In that appearance, Barr was introduced as the “Libertarian” nominee, thanked at the end as the “Libertarian” nominee, and labeled prominently on-screen for much of the interview as the “Libertarian” nominee. I have data from a few dozen Barr media appearances showing both that he frequently used the Libertarian label and that he was frequently labeled that way.

    Some of Nolan’s other charges were true, at least at the time. However, note that the word “Libertarian” is completely missing from

    • the front page of Joe Kennedy’s web site
    • all three of Kennedy’s videos
    • the yard sign offered on Kennedy’s front page
    • every one of the 56 campaign items offered for sale on Kennedy’s Cafe Press store

    In fact, Google Search finds the word “Libertarian” on only three pages of Kennedy’s site — and it’s now been removed from one of them.  (The Donation page apparently changed “As an unknown and a Libertarian” to “As an unknown”.)

    We’ve heard that Massachusetts law makes it cheaper for Kennedy to eschew the LP ballot line.  But does Massachusetts law prevent him from promoting the brand that the LNC is trying to grow?  As an LP donor, I’d prefer that the LNC target any money that it gives to candidates — if it in fact ever does so — to candidates who promote the Libertarian brand.  Like this:

  13. Thomas L. Knapp

    Quoth Brian Holtz:

    “As an LP donor, I’d prefer that the LNC target any money that it gives to candidates — if it in fact ever does so — to candidates who promote the Libertarian brand. Like this:”

    How about like this?

    “Joe Kennedy is running for the United States Senate, but it’s not the nephew of the late Ted Kennedy. He’s a man from Dedham who shares the same, famous name. And he’s running as an Independent with deep ties to the National Libertarian Party.” WBZ 38 TV, Boston (CBS), 09/28/09

    “Joseph L. Kennedy, 37, of Dedham, a member of the National Libertarian Party collecting signatures to run as an independent …” Boston Herald, o9/28/09

    “Joe Kennedy, a Libertarian Party activist, has thrown his hat in the ring …” — Washington Indepdendent, 09/21/09

    ” [T]he other Joe Kennedy – a Libertarian who has been largely unknown until now – says he is all in.” — CBS News blogs, with video from WBZ Boston, 09/29/09

    “One other recent entry into the race has a familiar name, but is otherwise largely unknown — Libertarian candidate Joe Kennedy …” – Associated Press story picked up by Boston Globe, Worcester Telegram, Yahoo! News, National Public Radio, WTOP Radio, CBS 3 News, Huffington Post, et. al., 09/29/09

    “A member of the national Libertarian Party, Kennedy said his general focus will always be on smaller government, fewer taxes and protecting Constitutional freedoms.” — Dedham, Massachusetts Transcript, 09/30/09

  14. Robert Milnes

    Brain, you moron. You actually try to badmouth Prof. Phillies with Bann Bobb Barr/Varney material? LOL. You just took on The Nolan, Prof Phillies, Tom K. & ME! Good luck withb that. I guarantee I followed Prof Phillies closely last year. I wanted to endorse him until the Gravel/Ruwart possible fusion ticket fell into the Libs’ laps. If he endorses somebody it is certain that someone is a bona fide libertarian. Just like I can guarantee that liberal democrat Kennedy made VERY sure Obama was a liberal. The big problem with the big tent eform is that rightists like Barr & Verney & W.A.R get in and influence the party towards the CPAC dixiecrat conservative right. So you are WAYYYYYYY off base, buddy.

  15. Robert Capozzi

    It would be interesting to see if the LNC ever supports specific candidates. Are they legally able to? Would that be appropriate? Would it be appropriate to support an independent who is a member of the LP? Would the appropriateness change if the candidate stood a chance of winning, or even getting, say, over 10%? Did the LNC support, for ex., Ed Thompson in his WI guv bid, when he DID get 10%?

    Comparing variable costs to fixed costs is NOT appropriate by most business economic analysis I’m familiar with.

  16. George Phillies

    @23
    Does the LNC ever support specific candidates?

    That’s why they are a Federal PAC, in part. That’s why they sent $20,000 to the Carla Howell ballot drive in the early 2000’s. That’s why they mention candidates on the front page of their web site. Joe Kennedy regularly called and emailed the National Headquarters in DC, and never got an answer. LNC members were given a false and overstated list of what he had requested, when he had in fact asked ‘can you do’ for a list of choices, a list I will be publishing quite soon now but not this AM.

    Did the LNC support Ed Thompson? I think he got mentioned on the web pages and the newsletter, though of course that requires having a newsletter.

  17. George Phillies

    The front page:

    New Video: Biography

    Learn more about Joe Kennedy by watching a brief video biography.

    images/stories/tradeimg.gif
    New Video: Trade Deficit

    Joe Kennedy talks about his views on the Trade Deficit.

    images/stories/jobsimg.png
    New Video: Jobs

    Learn more about Joe Kennedy’s view on the job market, the economy and how important these topics are to address today.

    The lawn sign gives
    Joe Kennedy
    U.S.Senate
    and his URL.

    That’s all that fits on a sign.

    Grass Roots campaigns require grass roots methods of communication. If you can’t make a donation or purchase a lawn sign, just click here, print out this PDF fileand display it to let people know you support Joe Kennedy in his run for Senate. Your voice is more powerful than your wallet.
    Last Updated on Monday, 12 October 2009 03:23

  18. Robert Capozzi

    gp: Joe Kennedy regularly called and emailed the National Headquarters in DC, and never got an answer.

    me: The tense here seems unclear. JK announced pretty recently, yes? Are you saying he’s been emailing and calling LPHQ and they are not returning his messages? Or are they saying “we’ll get back to you”?

    It seems reasonable that the LNC would need to consider whether they should support an independent, even if they are a member of the LP. That would always be true, but especially true in lean times.

    Now, if they just don’t respond at all, that’s just rude and incompetent.

  19. Aroundtheblockafewtimes

    I wonder how it would play with the voters if we changed our name to the Porcupine Party?

  20. paulie

    LNC, shmellNC.

    I recommend everyone reading who has any money in their wallet or bank other than what they need for food, housing and the like send Joe Kennedy a few bucks, and if you have the ability to do so come up here and help us collect some signatures for him. If you can do both, even better.

    Thanks in advance!

    http://joekennedyforsenate.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=84&Itemid=124

    Committee to Elect Joe Kennedy to Senate
    P.O. Box 368
    Needham Heights, MA 02494-0003

  21. Thomas L. Knapp

    Bob,

    You write:

    “It would be interesting to see if the LNC ever supports specific candidates. Are they legally able to? Would that be appropriate? Would it be appropriate to support an independent who is a member of the LP? Would the appropriateness change if the candidate stood a chance of winning, or even getting, say, over 10%?”

    Obviously, opinions vary. Here’s mine:

    Ballot access requirements vary from state to state.

    For example, here in Missouri we had to petition one time, and now as long as we poll at least 2% in a statewide race every four years, we have “automatic” ballot access for our nominees.

    In other states, the barriers are much higher. I’m told that the difference between running as an “indepdendent” or under the “Libertarian Party” label in Massachusetts is the difference between ~$15k and $60k in signature collection costs and such.

    I’d say that in a state with that kind of barriers, if someone wants to run as an independent while clearly branding themselves Libertarian and demonstrating actual substantial connections with the party, it doesn’t hurt to AT LEAST give them the modicum of publicity a partisan LP candidate in an “easy” state gets — list/link them on the party’s web site, reprint updates if they’re provided, etc. The marginal cost of adding one more candidate to that kind of treatment entitlement is probably very low.

    In Kennedy’s case, more support, possibly including financial support, might be justified.

    The Massachusetts press is trumpeting his Libertarian branding, and since he’s the only person on the ballot with the last name “Kennedy” (and, as it happens, the same first name as the son of the late US Senator he’s running to replace) he’s probably going to attract some attention and benefit at the polls to at least some degree. He’s not pretending to be one of “those” Kennedys, btw, but the name similarity certainly doesn’t hurt.

    I wouldn’t be surprised to see him show up at 10%+ in the polls — and possibly spark a backlash from the Democrats that increases his profile further. If the Democrats decide they have to station a worker outside of every polling place to hand out fliers saying “Joe Kennedy isn’t Ted Kennedy’s son, he’s a Libertarian, our candidate is XXX” then they’ll be doing some of our work for us, won’t they 😉

    There’s also some inside baseball to consider here.

    Last year, the LP nominated a presidential candidate that the Massachusetts LP didn’t care much for, and there was some rancor — but in the end, the LP won a major ballot access victory (and developed its positive relationship with the ACLU) there WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF GEORGE PHILLIES and other Libertarians who could just as easily have said “piss on Bob Barr.”

    So, if there is a question of financial assistance to be decided, all other things being equal (i.e. the money is available, there’s not some greatly preferable candidate to support with it, etc.), the question is “does the LNC punish the Massachusetts LP for maintaining its long history of typical New England dissent, or does it reward the Massachusetts LP for doing some damn good work under trying circumstances when it could have declined?”

  22. HS

    Tom Knapp’s comment kind of reminds me of that Eddie Murphy movie, “The Distinguished Gentleman,” where he had the same name as someone else who was well-known in the district and won.

  23. ellie mae

    tk, is there any evidence that the LNC is planning to not offer JK support as a means to punish LPMA?

  24. Thomas L. Knapp

    ellie mae,

    That’s the kind of thing that’s hard to produce “evidence” for, since each member of the LNC is an individual who may act from any motive and who may be truthful, false or just silent as to what that motive is.

    In the hypothetical situation I described (the money is available, there’s no other more meritorious or urgent claim, etc.), the subsequent question is one of perception.

    If that hypothetical obtains, providing assistance will be saleable as rewarding the Massachusetts LP’s hard work and party loyalty, while not providing it will be seen, accurately or not, as punishing an affiliate because some of its principals were assertive in their dissent from the national party’s chosen course last year.

  25. libertariangirl

    am i crazy> why should the LNC give money to a candidate running as an Independent?

  26. Robert Milnes

    george, if there is some kind of rightist dominated LNC payback against LPMA going on here, all the more reason for radicals to take over the LNC & you to run for Chair.

  27. Robert Milnes

    HS, yes, Tom is kind of stuck on name recognition as a requirement for candidates. That is one reason I gather, that he doesn’t support me, a trailer trash nobody bum with no connections.

  28. robert capozzi

    tk, I get the impression no money is available. Did the LNC fund the other (erstwhile) recent special election, the Sundwall campaign? Did the LNC fund campaigns in 08, aside from Barr/Root, in kind?

    gp says they funded the Howell campaign, but that was a decade ago.

    I have no position on all this, but flying off the handle with accusations based on perceptions is contra-indicated.

  29. George Phillies

    The requested support was specifically asked was publicity — front page mention, link to site, etc.

    The wildest accusation here is Mr. Capozzi’s…’flying off the handle’.

  30. Brian Holtz

    So the LP.org front page should link to a site whose front page contains neither the word “Libertarian” nor a link to LP.org? JK’s site doesn’t even hide “libertarian” in its meta keywords list.

    Tom, I didn’t mean to suggest that Kennedy was trying to stop the media from identifying him as libertarian. I merely suggested that he could and should do more to identify with the L/libertarian brand. I’m curious whether you agree.

    I’m also curious how Dr. Phillies defines a “Real Libertarian”, a phrase he uses as a mantra to describe Kennedy. For example, what is the Real Libertarian position on education? Joe Kennedy’s position is simply federalism: let “state and local governments” control “that money” that the federal Education Department currently spends. Tom Knapp and George Phillies have vilified Libertarians like Bob Barr and Wayne Root who have staked out federalism as their position on various issues, but Kennedy apparently gets a pass on education.

    Ditto for marijuana, on which JK says nothing about legalizing even this most innocuous of drugs, and instead would merely “remove the Federal Government from what should be a State issue”.  Here’s what Phillies says about Wayne Root’s drug stance:  Root does talk about ending prohibition. For most libertarians, that is a truly fine issue. Drug prohibition wastes tens and tens of billions of dollars a year, and has blighted the lives of millions of young men and women. Medical marijuana prohibition is a consummate anti-libertarian doctrine. Root instead goes on – entirely justly – about gambling prohibition, especially internet gambling. Drug prohibition…not so much.  Nevertheless, Phillies says Root “substantially eliminates any suspicion that he is a libertarian”, while JK is a “Real Libertarian”.

    Phillies also complained that Root’s book doesn’t mention Afghanistan.  By contrast, JK’s site mentions it, saying: “After the tragic events of 9/11 we all understood that we had to attack Afghanistan and go after Osama Bin Laden”.  Afghanistan was barely mentioned on phillies2008.org, but we do read that “finding Mr. Bin Laden is a job for spies, not a job for tank divisions.”  Apparently one can be a “Real Libertarian” and still have advocated that our tax-financed military take down the Taliban for harboring al Qaeda.  I applaud this ray of ecumenicism.

    I would try to score JK on my 20-question quiz, but I haven’t seen any information on his site that tells how free he thinks we should be:

    • From government censorship
    • From government monitoring
    • From government religiousness
    • To donate for any political ad
    • To risk your own body
    • To choose whether to procreate
    • To pay for adult entertainment
    • To use drugs if you’re an adult
    • To invest your own retirement savings
    • To control your child’s tuition dollars
    • To accept any currency or interest rate
    • To take a job at any wage

    (Endorsing the LP platform would be a handy way to answer all these questions.)

    George says the word “Libertarian” won’t fit on JK’s yard signs because they have his name, office sought, and URL.  But last year George had what I still consider to be a great proposal for standardizing Libertarian yard signs:

    I think Kennedy is a very attractive Libertarian candidate and (what Steve Jobs would call) an insurmountable opportunity for the LP.  That’s why it would be all the more tragic for his campaign to not try to reinforce the L/libertarian brand as the only electoral choice that is neither Left nor Right, neither liberal nor conservative

    That is how I judge a libertarian campaign in a race that we won’t be winning.  It’s not enough to advocate a good mix of conservative economic policies and liberal social policies. Unless you actually have a good shot at winning, you need to tie that mix to the L/libertarian brand, so you move the ball forward for future libertarian-branded candidates.  It doesn’t much help the cause of freedom when a losing candidate picks up a few extra votes that policy makers can dismiss as coming from his name or his looks instead of his libertarian advocacy.

    To the discourteous and uncivil Mr. Milnes: the only opponent I’ve taken on here is inconsistency and falsehood.  For example, Tom suggests @31 that JK isn’t on LP.org’s candidate listings, when in fact he is, and probably has been for a while.  I’ve been noticing lately that LP.org these days has a lot of per-state information on LP candidates, office-holders, and campus groups.

  31. JT

    Re Post #41: I agree with much of what you write, Brian. But I’m guessing you haven’t been a Libertarian for long. If you were, you’d know that almost every Libertarian candidate *does* think he or she has a good shot of winning. Actively running for office takes time, energy, and money. Very few people are willing to be candidates just to help build a party. It’s the idea of winning the election that motivates them.

    Then they inevitably go down in flames, and their state party and the national party have gained nothing. And on and on and on…

  32. tab

    “http://www.lp.org/candidates/liberty-candidates-09”

    Wow, that is bad. They can’t even organized candidates by state? It really wouldn’t be all that difficult. There should be an interactive map for users to click on. Small things that make us look professional matter.

    Not to mention I sent mine in about 4 months ago and my name isn’t listed.

  33. libertariangirl

    jt_If you were, you’d know that almost every Libertarian candidate *does* think he or she has a good shot of winning. Actively running for office takes time, energy, and money. Very few people are willing to be candidates just to help build a party.

    me_ i beg to differ. The LPNevada runs a slate of candidates every election who are interested in building the party and know that they wont win .I imagine every state affiliate is the same.

    On election day we pray to win ballot access again, not win , we we know is far in thw future for things like Congress , County Commission , Governor etc.

  34. Brian Holtz

    Re: “haven’t been a Libertarian for long”, touche. I’m not really a Libertarian activist at all, I just play one on TV (and the web): http://libertarianmajority.net/bh-lp-activism

    @44, the candidates are also listed by state on ca.lp.org. I just said that @41.

    Re: interactive map, your wish is my command: http://defendsliberty.com/. I’m about to start updating it for the current election cycle. If anyone wants to make sure that non-California candidates are included, just send me the data in lines like this:

    [ “Wayne Dunlap”, “U.S. Congress – CA 50”, “Del Mar, CA”, “DunlapForCongress.com”],

    If you want photos, then also send me a headshot, and a thumbnail of it scaled to 39 pixels tall.

    Note that this candidate map can be embedded in any website. An example embedding, zoomed to show California candidates, is at http://more.libertarianintelligence.com/.

  35. Susan Hogarth

    JT @43, you say
    If you were, you’d know that almost every Libertarian candidate *does* think he or she has a good shot of winning. … It’s the idea of winning the election that motivates them.

    How do you know this?

  36. tab

    Brian,

    Thank you for the link. Would you mind if I tried to embed that map on a LPWV website as long as cite the source?

    I might have a couple more people to email you to add to the map.

  37. Brian Holtz

    I’d be delighted. I’m not so much worried about credit, as making sure other LP activists know they can embed it too.

    Caveat emptor: as you perhaps can tell above, the map itself tends to scroll if you use the keyboard to scroll the browser pane in which it’s embedded, if it’s not embedded as an iframe. Using an iframe (like at http://defendsliberty.com/) avoids that problem. When embedding as an iframe, there are two handy arguments you can play with, mapCenter and zoomLevel:

    http://marketliberal.org/DefendsLiberty/index.html?mapCenter=94022&zoomLevel=10

    While we’re on the subject of imbeddables for libertarian sites, here’s an easy one to use:

    Warning: some Greens seem not to like some of the above stickers. 🙂

  38. JT

    lg: “The LPNevada runs a slate of candidates every election who are interested in building the party and know that they wont win .I imagine every state affiliate is the same.”

    First, I wouldn’t make such an assumption about 50 different state parties. Second, the Nevada LP runs a slate of statewide and federal candidates every election cycle who promote libertarianism, use the Libertarian label everywhere possible, and recruit new people to the party? The Nevada LP has significantly more members, money, and activists after each election cycle than it did before? If so, I stand corrected. Good for you guys.

    Brian: Re: “haven’t been a Libertarian for long”, touche. I’m not really a Libertarian activist at all, I just play one on TV (and the web): http://libertarianmajority.net/bh-lp-activism

    That suggestion wasn’t an insult. It looks like you’ve been an LP activist for a while to me. Enough to know that building the party isn’t the primary goal of most statewide and federal LP candidates (the ones who get most of the radio/TV coverage). If they put any of their own money and energy into their campaign, their goal is to win.

  39. libertariangirl

    HIJACK ALERT!!

    Wayne Allen Roots book hits the #6 spot for political books on Amazon.
    YEAH!
    congratulations Wayne!
    still kicking ass I see:)

  40. Brian Holtz

    I’m most familiar with California, but I don’t know of a statewide or federal candidate here in recent years who seriously thought he had a significant chance of winning. I was indeed a little put off by Judge Jim Gray’s slogan in his Senate race: “This time it matters.” But he was good about L-branding his campaign, and he has continued to help the LPCA since his race.

    Monotonically increasing levels of success is a pretty tough standard to meet, but I agree it should be our goal — even though politics is a multi-player game, and new levels of success would elicit countermoves from our opponents. Yes, newbie candidates too often expect the LP to provide them with money and volunteers, and that’s why we work almost as hard on “educating” candidates as we do on educating voters. However, only experience can inoculate first-timers against the idea that the press and public were just waiting for someone to finally say what the first-timer stands up to say.

  41. Thomas L. Knapp

    Brian,

    You write:

    “Tom, I didn’t mean to suggest that Kennedy was trying to stop the media from identifying him as libertarian. I merely suggested that he could and should do more to identify with the L/libertarian brand. I’m curious whether you agree.”

    Yes, I absolutely agree, and I hope he starts getting more aggressive about LP branding — especially if he wants support beyond a bare minimum from the national office.

    I do not know if the LNC has any plans to shell out “candidate support” money in this timeframe. They may not. The LP’s financial situation isn’t exactly stellar at the moment, and it being an off-year/special election cycle, such money doesn’t necessarily buy as much in ripple effect (i.e. promoting one candidate promotes the brand, thereby indirectly supporting all the other LP candidates to at least some extent — there aren’t a bunch of other candidates TO benefit in that way).

    If the LNC is entertaining the notion of throwing money into candidate support at the moment, though, I think that Kennedy is a good prospect, especially if he’s willing to beef up to prominent and frequent use of the L-word.

    As a matter of fact, throwing some LNC money at him could itself be a brand promotion act. I’ve seen two MSM stories in the last couple of weeks — DNC throws money at Deeds for Governor in Virginia, NRCC throws money at Scozzafava for Congress in New York — that the LP could try to replicate the effect of in Massachusetts.

    If the LNC wants to give Kennedy $5k to help with ballot access, they should send Wes Benedict up to Boston with one of those big-ass “sweepstakes winner” style checks to give it to him at a press conference and attempt to generate some “national Libertarian Party invests in Massachusetts race” press.

  42. Robert Milnes

    lg @57, “It also hit #5 in the USA in POLITICS with only Glenn Beck, Michelle Malkin and Dick Morris ahead of me: ” What does the “me” mean in that sentence? Is it some kind of Freudian slip? Or are you Root using lg’s computer? What?

  43. libertariangirl

    oh Watson you got me …
    Wayne sent an email to his list subscribers and I cut and paste it Einstein

  44. Tom Blanton

    Well, I see Root has floated up to the top, but there appears to be a counting problem. He is number five with “only” 3 people ahead of him.

    Root should feel right at home with the 3 folks ahead of him.

    Come to think of it, maybe Joe Kennedy is reluctant to advertise himself as a libertarian because he’s worried people might think he is like libertarian Glenn Beck.

  45. Robert Capozzi

    tk: As a matter of fact, throwing some LNC money at him could itself be a brand promotion act. I’ve seen two MSM stories in the last couple of weeks — DNC throws money at Deeds for Governor in Virginia, NRCC throws money at Scozzafava for Congress in New York — that the LP could try to replicate the effect of in Massachusetts

    me: The MSM covers political campaigns like horseraces. So, when the national R or D parties help out an ailing candidate, that’s news. Odds that the MSM would cover the LNC cutting a small check to Joe Kennedy: 100-1 would be my take.

    With admittedly limited data, I’d say promote Kennedy on the website but no cash from the LNC. Cash is better used to grow membership, and I don’t see a special election with a non-online libertarian having a high ROI. I wish JK the best, of course.

  46. Thomas L. Knapp

    Bob,

    You’re tempting me to break my “never bet money you can’t afford to lose, even on sure things” policy.

    Wes Benedict is not incompetent. Neither is George Phillies. There’s no doubt whatsoever in my mind that the two of them could turn a $5,000 LNC check to a US Senate candidate into MSM coverage.

  47. George Phillies

    @62

    Actually, it could be an $18,000 check — special rules for Senate candidates — but an examination of LNC finances suggest $18 is more like it.

    The Lawn sign design issue is a challenge. name race and a couple words is all people read. Since Kennedy, much more so than most of the candidates noted above — has an active, effective web site, the URL is probably relatively effective to distribute. A useful question is whether it is worthwhile to append the http://www. on the front.

  48. Brian Holtz

    The http and the www are always a waste of space when disclosing a URL. Also, the URL should be printed in CamelCase for readability. And ideally, the domain name should be chosen to do double-duty in name and URL disclosure. So standardized signage could be something like:

    Vote Libertarian
    For Senate – For Freedom
    Joe Kennedy.
    DefendsLiberty.com

    Even if the voter doesn’t notice that the name is the first part of the URL, ip2geo info can be used to show the voter all her nearby Libertarian candidates, thus reinforcing the whole the slate. This also lets LP candidates avoid spending money on domain names, because DefendsLiberty.com is already paid for and subdomains cost nothing. It also lets candidates re-use materials when they run for the same office again.

  49. Robert Milnes

    Tom & George, I beg your pardon gentlemen, but I have dibs on Wes this week for the Nov.3 elections. For the PLAS press conference in Washington. January special election is later. Now, as soon as he flubs Nov. 3, good luck with him for January in Massachusetts.

  50. Robert Milnes

    Brian, very good. But in this case George seems to be following Tom’s obsession with exploiting name recognition, so Joe Kennedy first on top. Followed by DefendsLiberty.com. Then For Senate-For Freedom, then 4th line Vote Libertarian. Start out with Vote Libertarian & most attention evaporates. As another commenter said, the Libertarian l-word, was for him an instant turn off. Until recently on his own volition coming to IPR & realizing what he had been doing for years.

  51. robert capozzi

    tk, I would love it if your assessment were the superior one. As gp’s comment suggest, it’s unlikely to be tested.

    My assessment has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with competence, or lack of it. The greatest flak in the world would not make a small check from the LNC MSM newsworthy, in my judgment.

    The Kennedy campaign itself MAY be newsworthy, more as a curiousity like the Stern or Perot efforts at this point. Of course, JK may be the greatest LP candidate of all time, which would be wonderful!

  52. robert capozzi

    tk…more…think of the last time the MSM covered an inside-baseball story about a third-party writing a check to a candidate. I can’t think of one instance, can you? Dog bites man: not news.

  53. libertariangirl

    if the LNC were to give money to a candidate George didnt like , he’d throw a hissy fit.

  54. robert capozzi

    Announcing the Hissy Fit Strategy pulls in a packed house at the National Press Club. 😉

  55. Robert Milnes

    OK, soon to be losers-again. Obama won & is president because he coordinated the progressive vote. But since he is not a progressive Iprefer the word in his case -manipulated-the progressive vote. Progressives are disenfranchised, having no party of their own. Last year the big thing was anti-war. Whichever democratic candidate was anti-war AND looked like could win, got the progressive vote. That’s why Kucinich & Gravel didn’t get the progressive vote despite being anti-war. They didn’t look like they would win. That is also what got otherwise counterrevolutionary Ron Paul so much support. He was anti-war right. Ronulan Paulnuts simply deluded themselves that he could win. I want the war to end so bad & I want Ron Paul to win to end the war so bad therefore he MUST win! But anyone who read The Libertarian Vote knew he could get 13-20%not enough to win a single primary. So Obama made phony noises that he would end the war. & the Progressives for Obama bought it. So the progressive vote about 27% + the liberal vote +the vote black because you are black vote got him over Billary. But NOW Nov. 3, the REAL Progressives can speak up with their vote. Only instead of adding their vote to the fake progressive, they can add their vote to the other real progressives-the libertarians. The progressive vote 27% + The Libertarian Vote 13% =40% which is very competitive to get a plurality victory in a 3 way race, progressive+libertarian 40%, democrat 30%, republican30%. This is The Progressive Libertarian Strategy.

  56. Robert Milnes

    & Billary voted for the war. Liberal democrat Teddy Kennedy voted against it. So Obama, endorsed by Kennedy, had some credibility against the war. & could possibly win. Either an anti-war black man or pro war white woman would win. The progressives made sure it was the anti-war person who won. So the progressive vote is very powerful. We need a press conference in Washington asap of anyone who supports the PLAS. THEN we need a flood of voter education about it & how they should vote by it. In EVERY voting district. So, first things first. We MUST call a press conference in Washington ASAP! With OR without Libertarian and/or Green party officials.

  57. paulie

    Hi folks, sorry, no time to read all the comments but I see Joe Kennedy is discussed here.

    You can help in at least three ways:

    1. Donate

    http://joekennedyforsenate.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=84&Itemid=124

    or

    Committee to Elect Joe Kennedy to Senate
    P.O. Box 368
    Needham Heights, MA 02494-0003

    2. fundraise

    25% commission on any money you can raise by phone, email, web ads, or any other methods. Call me at 415-690-6352 for details. Unfortunately I have very little time for/access to internet right now, it’s a lot easier by phone.

    3. Gather ballot access signatures

    Currently at $1/signature paid by check on delivery. The price may go up if the fundraising does well, but right now Joe is just trying to recoup the money he borrowed against his house for the bare minimum of signatures. I’m up here getting him signatures now, and we need more petitioners.

    Oh yeah….you can also help with publicity by spreading joekennedyforsenate.com as widely as possible.

  58. Thomas L. Knapp

    Bob,

    You write:

    “tk…more…think of the last time the MSM covered an inside-baseball story about a third-party writing a check to a candidate. I can’t think of one instance, can you? ”

    I can’t think of the last time a third party publicly presented a check to a candidate.

    Obviously you’re not going to get a bunch of MSM buzz if a check is mailed, deposited, logged and its only public mention is a line in the campaign finance reports.

    If you want MSM coverage, you make the check a four-foot sweepstakes-type monster, you present it in a public place and with as much fanfare as you can manage (and for a couple hundred dollars you can manage more than you think), and you announce to the press that you’ll be doing so, with some background that saves them work on finding the “angle.”

    It’s not the check, or the amount of the check, that’s the news. It’s the public presentation of it with fanfare, and the symmetry between it and bigger checks from major parties to their candidates, and the fact that you’re making it EASY for the MSM to turn it into a story.

    Would the MSM coverage be of sufficient quality and quantity to be worth the $5,000 investment (plus probably $2-300 in event costs)? I don’t know … but if you think it would be difficult to get SOME MSM coverage for this kind of thing, you’re high.

  59. Robert Milnes

    Tom, spinmeister, media meister. I say with you my media guy & Skyler my campaign manager guy, all we would need to win the presidency would be a libertarian vp gal. Even Root lover lg.

Leave a Reply

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