George Phillies announces for national chair of Libertarian Party

Posted at Liberty For All

by George Phillies

Our Libertarian Party stands at its golden moment. American voters are disgusted with their major parties, the parties of perpetual war, perpetual crony bailouts, and perpetual expansion of our national debt. They know Washington politicians don’t care what their constituents think.

The people of America crave an alternative. That’s us. That’s our Libertarian Party, the Party of Common Sense.

Our opportunities stand right before us.

All we need to do is to reach out and take them.

We need to show America we are the Party of Good Sense. We do that by running on issues that people care about, issues like Peace, Opportunity, and Liberty.

*Peace? End the Asian Land Wars. Bring our troops home to their families.

*Opportunity? End Washington fiscal profligacy. Stop bailing out the crooked cronies of a corrupt Congress.

*Liberty? Shut down the warfare surveillance state.

That’s our Common Sense Libertarian message.

Yes, we’re Libertarians. We thrive on civil disagreement. We need a National Committee ready and able to fight our real opponents.

Some Libertarians ask: Do we really need 50-state ballot access? I say: My goal is thriving Libertarian Parties for every state, D.C., Puerto Rico, Guam, and everywhere else our flag flies.

Some Libertarians talk about fund raising. I say: Talk about fund spending! Spend our money on public outreach. Spend our money on local organization. ABOVE ALL, spend our money to elect candidates. Spend our money effectively, and our donors will reward us ten-fold.

Some Libertarians talk about purity tests. I say: Leave purity tests to high school students. Elect an LNC that wants to do work.

Some Libertarians fear a takeover. I say: We need a make-over. Bring small-L libertarians into our party. Embrace the anti-war coalitions that Republicans and Democrats hate. Greet the GLBTQ activists Obama and McCain scorn. Welcome women’s rights supporters double-crossed by Congressional liberals.

Some Libertarians mobilize for platform debates. I say: Yes, Mobilize the Libertarians. Mobilize our fellow Libertarians to do real politics.

How do we do that? We need a national party leadership with a vision for the future. We need a national party leadership with sensible plans. We need a national party leadership with fire in its belly. We need a national party leadership willing to work for our party.

I’m delighted to see that across America good Libertarians are announcing their intent to run for our National Committee. They share a glorious objective: Put our Libertarian party on the New Path, the path to Libertarian Renaissance.

Last week, Angela Keaton used the pages of Liberty For All to urge me to run for National Chair. This week, Eva Kosinski used Gold America Group to do the same. Since then, I’ve been deluged with words of encouragement.

Let me paraphrase a distinguished foreign leader, many of whose fellow nationals and their descendants are now fine Americans: My life is but a feather. My duty to my party is a crushing mountain. Mindful of the words of my fellow libertarians, I find I have no alternative: I must shoulder this burden.

I hereby announce that I am a candidate for National Chair of our Party.

George Phillies is a contributing editor for Liberty For All. You can contact Dr. Phillies at phillies@wpi.edu.

0 thoughts on “George Phillies announces for national chair of Libertarian Party

  1. Mik Robertson

    “Last week, Angela Keaton used the pages of Liberty For All to urge me to run for National Chair. This week, Eva Kosinski used Gold America Group to do the same. Since then, I’ve been deluged with words of encouragement.

    Mindful of the words of my fellow libertarians, I find I have no alternative: I must shoulder this burden.”

    Does this mean that you are only running because you were coaxed into it?

  2. Danny S

    I will have to think about it. Mr. Phillies definition of libertarian (even small-l) has seemed extremely exclusionary to me. I like anybody who wants to get work done, but not if they will tear apart the party in the process.

  3. Brian Holtz

    George, this all sounds very good. I agree with many of your ideas for improving how we spend our money. I also like almost all of what you advocate as Libertarian Centrism. But I’m extremely disturbed when you write things like this (referring to Ron Paul):

    As was well known prior to the discovery of his racist newsletters, he is a homophobic bigot, an antiabortionist, a Christian dominionist who believes the Bible trumps the Constitution, an opponent of the Constitution who rejects the 14th amendment etc.

    More important, though unsurprisingly, he is a Republican.

    The Libertarian Party was founded to establish a party separate from all others. Attempting to use party resources to support a Republican was a gross breach of the fiduciary duties of the national committee.

    The LNC had a choice as to whether or not to support homophobia, racism, dominionism, seeking the death of our daughters via back room abortions, not to mention attaching ourselves to a candidate who courted the conspiracy folks on Alex Jones.

    They made the wrong choice.

    They also sought to recruit this person as our party?s presidential nominee.

    They, not Ms. Keaton, should be expelled from the LNC.

    My questions:

    1) Given your harsh attacks on Ron Paul such as above, how would you be able to position the LP to work with the Tea Party movement, the Campaign For Liberty, etc?

    2) You’ve criticized “conservative bigots bleating about ‘Federalism’ and their Jim Crow ‘states rights’ doctrine”. Do you believe a libertarian can advocate federalism and decentralism without being a “conservative bigot”?

    3) In Dec. 2007 you called for the mass resignation of the LNC for inviting Ron Paul to seek the LP nomination, and said the LNC is guilty of “theft and fraud”. Can you tell us which of the current LNC reps, if any, you do not oppose being re-elected?

  4. Aroundtheblockafewtimes

    I urge Mr. Phillies to come up with a complete slate for all LNC officer positions, the at-large seats, and regional natcom seats, too. Otherwise, the historical tendency has been to have two or even three factions sniping at each other and taking up time that could be used more productively. Transparency (even announce whether you would keep key office staff) so your position either wins with the delegates or loses, thus making obvious the direction the majority of the LP wishes to take.

  5. Michael

    Most of what you say sounds pretty good, however I take exception to this part:

    “Welcome women’s rights supporters double-crossed by Congressional liberals.”

    I assume women’s rights include the right to kill their unwanted children? What about the rights of children not to be killed before they’re even born?

    “…nor be deprived of LIFE, liberty, or property, without due process of law;”

  6. JT

    Aroundtheblockafewtimes: “The historical tendency has been to have two or even three factions sniping at each other and taking up time that could be used more productively.”

    I think that’s just called having a board of directors. Not all Libertarians have the same exact vision for the party, so every elected board member won’t have the same vision either. Some disagreement amongst board members is common to any organization and isn’t necessarily bad. Unproductive, mean-spirited sniping is a character issue, not the result of not being in lockstep with other members.

  7. Joey G. Dauben

    It’s going to be hard for your past record of electoral failure to be used as a springboard into the party’s highest office, George.

    Your rhetoric concerning Ron Paul won’t win you much, either.

    You’re very skilled at exposing the darkness behind the scenes and in those LNC meetings. Stick to that.

  8. Don Lake .......... More Paul Harvey Moments

    “I find I have no alternative: I must shoulder this burden.” Does this mean that you are only running because you were coaxed into it?

    Lake: Thots from a non Libertarian. Rots of ruck! [It did not work for me and the Deform/ Reform Party and I doubt it will work for you especially given your [Phillies] reputation of a (San Diego County) Richard Rider style two legged sand paper!]

    I admire your (and Rider’s) intellect but you have the ‘does not play well with others ‘ tradition of the John (Deform Party) Blare kindergarten wrecking crew.

    Just a thot. I predict that this will not end well!

  9. Don Lake .......... More Paul Harvey Moments

    More snarking: Like Bleary Eyed Steve Kubby photos, your graphic representation is not appropriate for public office. (Sears photo was at lunch that day and you walked over to K-Mart ?????)

    Your official photo, which I have informed you as early as 2007, looks like the self satisfied stuff shirt whom has secretly let gas in a crowded elevator.You assured me (as a master of human behavior ?????) that if true it was not worth worrying ’bout. Oh well!

  10. Aroundtheblockafewtimes

    Of course, JT. I didn’t mean to imply Phillies should surround himself with rubber-stamping yes men and women. His “slate” should consist of men and women of integrity who will, if they disagree, do so in a respectful and conscientious manner. “Factions,” however, usually consist of those who hang together on every point just because it’s “my team” that’s playing the “other team.”

  11. Clay Barham

    BE CONFIDANT!
    Most people who argue politics get angry because they really do not have a handle on their subject, though a strong feeling. It is easier to gain confidence than you think. Just look at the roots to understand the whole tree. Answers or, better, questions, flow easily when the roots are clear. There are only two sides to a political argument. One side says community interests are more important than are individual interests, and the reverse is the other side. Look at this site and take the ten simple steps to have a clear and confidant vision from which all issues are easily grasped and discussed.

  12. Brian Holtz

    LP Chair isn’t “public office”, and George’s appearance is perfectly fine for this job. There’s nothing wrong with pointing out that people have asked you to run; modesty is classy. And George may also be too modest to write about how much he’s donated to LP causes and candidates. The FEC says it’s at least $8K, plus another $80K to his 2008 presidential campaign. FEC data are spotty, and his lifetime total is surely well into six figures.

  13. Shane

    George does have that “never say die” spirit. I’m thinking this is his fourth or so run for chair.

    George and his supporters have always been a curiosity to me. George specializes in tearing down the national party and has done so for many, many years. I’m not sure if George feels he’s doing a service to the party by continually creating mountains out of molehills (or less) or if it’s part of a personal strategy to keep LP’s infighting alive and well so it will continue to be ineffective.

    When I first heard of George years ago, he was complaining about the LNC’s FEC reports not matching the financial statements. I called him up and attempted to explain to him that one report required cash accounting and the other accrual. He didn’t want to hear it and told me bluntly that I could “argue my case” by submitting an article to his publication.

    I knew right then and there that George didn’t want to hear the truth — or have the truth heard. George wanted to continue to spread negative information without looking into the facts.

    His latest efforts even involved filing complaints with the federal government, which I take great issue with.

    Our party is full of folks that love a good argument. I’m one of them. However we have a handful of guys who love to create arguments when it suits their interests. George and Tom Knapp come to mind.

    There are significant differences between Tom and George. Tom appears to spend a good deal of effort with research before firing up his political wrecking ball.

    Tom recognizes where the line of integrity is and toes the line, but I haven’t seen him knowingly cross it.

    George on the other hand, seems to intentionally avoid the facts so he can cry foul at every corner.

    Now, does what George says above sound good? A bit over the top but sure. I would love the LP to reduce the cost of fundraising, support more candidates, better define itself and elect Libertarians.

    To do that, it’s going to need an overhaul in leadership, and thinking IMO.

    Previous chairs (I worked for three of them) had their standard stump speech vision but in the end, either no time or experience to really turn the LP around.

    George clearly has the time for the chair position but can he motivate folks, build coalitions, organize a membership organization while inspiring others to join him and become a Libertarian?

    If delegates elect him, I guess we’ll find out.

    If we can’t get a chair with the time and experience, I say we go with the co-chair model and put in place Keaton and Starr. At least that would be entertaining.

  14. paulie Post author

    If we can’t get a chair with the time and experience, I say we go with the co-chair model and put in place Keaton and Starr. At least that would be entertaining.

    LOL.

    Of course, if this were a serious proposal, the bylaws would have to be changed to allow it, and you’d have to get them to agree to run.

  15. Thomas L. Knapp

    Shane,

    You write: “George specializes in tearing down the national party …”

    As far as that goes, it is true. What you leave out is that his notion of “tearing down” is similar to someone who sees a structure as decrepit or unsound and wants to tear it down so that he can build something better in its place.

    Agree with his strategy or not, he does offer a strategy for how he believes the national party should function, even going so far as to write a book on the subject (Stand Up For Liberty.

    In brief, he describes the operating strategy of the national LP as “membership recruitment” and proposes that that strategy should be replaced by “local organization.” If you want the details, read the book (I’m pretty sure it’s available free online at this point).

    I do agree that George sometimes mistakes disagreement for mendacity and ends up making opponents into enemies. He’s not the only one who suffers from that particular ailment (mea maxima culpa).

    On the other hand, some of his opponents attempt to put over actual mendacity in the guise of “collegiality,” which can be just as bad.

    George would not be a perfect chair, but who would be?

    I believe he’s more than qualified for the administrative/executive duties of the office.

    I also believe that after nearly 40 years of one strategy which has not delivered a breakthrough, it makes sense to give his alternative strategy, which he’s provided details of in a way that no prior chair candidate I’m aware of has, a try.

    This is George’s fifth run for chair.

    I’ve voted for him twice, and supported him all four times — I was not on the floor for the vote in 2004 and did not attend the 2006 convention.

    Among the candidates currently declared or widely speculated about, I consider him the superior choice for the chairmanship of the LNC. As a prospective 2010 delegate, I naturally reserve the right to change my mind if circumstances warrant, but at this time my intention is to cast my vote for Phillies for Chair in St. Louis.

    Regards,
    Tom Knapp

  16. Eric Dondero

    George’s heart is in the right place. While I disagree vehemently with many of his policy positions, on a strictly personal level, George Phillies is a Class Act.

    Not sure if this will hurt him in his run, giving my somewhat controversial reputation within the Libertarian Party, but as a 25+ year dues paying member of the LP, and as a former Libertarian National Comm. member (1986/87) he has my endorsement.

    Eric Dondero
    Angleton, Texas

  17. The Inquirer

    Mr. Dondero and Mr. Knapp,

    In what ways do you believe George Phillies will be a better chair than Mark Hinkle and Wayne Root, the other two known candidates? Please include both Root and Hinkle in your reply.

    If other candidates jump in the race, are you likely to consider supporting them, or is your endorsement of Dr. Phillies firm?

  18. The Inquirer

    Sorry – forgot Ernie Hancock.

    Please include him in your comparison as well.

    Anyone else care to endorse any of these four and explain why they are better than the others?

  19. Brad

    Dondero supports Phillies over Root?

    This, I would not have expected.

    Maybe Phillies has a chance after all?

    What chances do people here think these candidates have right now of being the next chair?

  20. Shane

    Tom, you made some good points.

    To your question, “George would not be a perfect chair, but who would be?”

    Good question. As I said earlier, the LP needs an overhaul in leadership and thinking. That starts with a chair who has a clear vision but also understands the obstacles our party faces — which are severe.

    In my opinion, George has been so concerned about tearing down the party that he never took the time to find out what it takes to build it up.

    Being a critic is easy. Being the target of critics? Not so much because you actually have to perform.

    Aside from my dream team of Keaton and Starr (Paulie always has to put a damper on my entertainment), I would like to see Mark Rutherford back in the game or bring in Carla Howell. If given a board that comprehends marketing, give Dasbach another shot.

    There are several qualified candidates for chair out there, but most are too smart to take the job.

    But if we’re just looking for an alternative strategy, let’s recruit Imperato or we can roll with the angry vibe and nominate Christine Smith.

    Also, I wouldn’t consider local organizing something we haven’t tried. Remember UMP and UMP II? National funded the state parties for years and they were free to spend as they pleased. Could National have done a better job at guiding state and local orgs? Absolutely, but top down leadership in the LP is not an easy task — and something we should look at changing.

  21. Michael H. Wilson

    It is quite obvious that this party needs to find a way to get back on the path. Maybe electing George Phillies will do the trick. The news letter is much improved. Thank you whoever is responsible. Whatever is done we need to develop new literature, update the website, and get out regular news releases. Those of us here in the peanut gallery can help and there has been some talk of getting our help. I just hope it proves to be more than talk. I have faith in Wes and the office crew and am willing to give them time.

    The party also needs to provide some guidance to the local groups by showing them how to do some of the basics such as how to conduct a fair meeting or convention, how to publish a news letter, how to recruit people both as members and candidates, how to raise funds, how to use bulk mail and a number of other small issues that go to make up the whole. Much of this has been done in the past. It just needs to be brought together in a place where the members have access to it. Along the way national needs to reward the best, make a big scene of it, promote excellence, and share their ideas with the rest.

    Maybe I should shout out the last sentence.

  22. Thomas L. Knapp

    Inquirer,

    I happen to like Mark Hinkle a lot as a person. As an LNC member, however, my take on his recent record is that he embodies Edmund Burke’s warning: “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” Over the last year, Starr and Sullentrup, with the acquiescence (or perhaps active support) of Redpath, have turned the LNC into an internal political battleground. Hinkle is among those LNC members who could have shut that shit down cold and chose not to.

    Wayne’s a different story. First of all, everything Wayne does is about Wayne, and that’s not a good approach for a chair. Secondly, his record as a CEO speaks for itself — and nobody who listens to it speak is likely to seriously consider giving him the reins of an enterprise that they expect to stay in the budgetary black and not bend its stockholders over for a good screwing.

    Ideologically, I’m a lot more comfortable with Ernie Hancock than with any other candidate for the most part, and also has some good ideas about the role of the national party. But:

    1) Chair of the LNC is a partisan position and last time I looked he still hadn’t, so far as I can tell, decided whether he wanted to be a partisan Libertarian or a “Ron Paul Republican;” and

    2) He talks and thinks “big picture” without getting much involved in the sausage-making. George attends the LNC meetings. He has, and expresses, informed opinions on the LNC’s activities and proceedings (note: That doesn’t necessarily mean I agree with ALL of those opinions, just that I recognize them as informed). If the devil is in the details, George is the devil.

    Regards,
    Tom Knapp

  23. Thomas L. Knapp

    Shane,

    There’s a difference between “local organizing” as a function or activity and “local organization” as a strategy.

    UMP I & II were not “local organization” as advocated for by Phillies, and in fact they tended to incentivize in the other direction.

    I’m going to leave it at that. While I’m prepared to argue in favor of giving George and his strategic approach a chance, I’m not particularly interested in savaging everyone who advocated or advocates for the “membership recruitment” strategy. I don’t have to think someone evil to think him incorrect.

    Regards,
    Tom Knapp

  24. Robert Milnes

    This is GREAT news! Thank you, George, for accepting the requests of Angela, & Eva et al, including myself quite some time ago, to run for LNC Chair.
    The Party is in bad shape or BTP would not have spurted last year.
    You are absolutely correct about Ron Paul, as you, Tom & I have consistently stated our finding that he is a dixiecrat conservative, not a libertarian. Hopefully many will catch up on this realization.
    Hopefully you will win & not W.A.R.
    You have my endorsement and total support.

  25. Shane

    Tom, you write like the two strategies are mutually exclusive.

    The purpose of “membership recruitment” is primarily fundraising. The LP’s renewal program is by far the most lucrative (meaning zero-dues wasn’t too bright of an LNC move). Our problem is that we haven’t been recruiting, we’ve been re-acquiring donors at great expense. No adequate testing had been done in prospecting really ever.

    The proceeds of the membership program fund basically anything else you need to do to carry out the mission — whether local organization, candidate support and training, earned media, marketing, etc.

    But with a dwindling donor base that becomes a challenge to do anything other than chase membership numbers — hence the flaw in the system and why folks think of it as a singular strategy.

    Can this be corrected? Pretty easily if there’s consistency in the membership program. But prospecting for new members is the big question mark. We’ve never developed a control package that won’t lose massive sums of money — and I’m not sure that we can.

    If you want to run with a singular “local organization” strategy as your candidate prefers, you’re going to need to build a quarter to a half million reserve, shut everything down and then go all in at the local level. Doable but risky.

    Regardless, I’m not arguing in favor of any particular strategy. I don’t know the answers, I just know the nuts-and-bolts reality of the LP’s past few years.

    We still have lots of potential but it’s not going to get any easier especially if folks continue to focus on the petty while others make massive “inside-baseball” moves right under our noses. George must have missed that meeting.

  26. Thomas L. Knapp

    Shane,

    Please keep in mind that although I do favor the “local organization” strategy, it is not my purpose to argue the point here, or to set myself up as that strategy’s public advocate. Like I said, George has written a book on the subject, is running for chair on his proposals, and is fully competent to argue his case himself.

    My case for George is that:

    – He differs from most, perhaps all, past chairs and chair candidates to the extent that he’s laid out his ideas on how the national party should operate at length and in detail; and

    – Whether or not one believes that past approaches have been more or less successful, it’s fairly obvious that none of them have resulted in “breakthrough,” and George is in fact offering a strategy which has not, in the form he offers it, been attempted yet, and which is not a bizarre or unreasonable proposal.

    I do not believe, and am not trying to advertise, that George’s campaign or, if elected, his tenure as chair will transpire without risk or rancor, and I’d give good odds that he and others (possibly myself included) will disagree on some things, and perhaps even get nasty about it.

    At the same time, my endorsement of his campaign is not lukewarm. I believe he has the best interests of the party at heart, I believe that he will be a competent chair, I believe that his strategic ideas deserve their shot in action, I believe that of the four announced or likely candidates, he is by far the better choice, and I cannot offhand think of any “dark horse” out there whose entry into the race would change those estimations on my part.

    That’s just how I see it, and even though I expect that there will be plenty of mud slung before the votes are cast, I’ll try to be as respectful as possible of the fact that others may see it differently.

    Regards,
    Tom Knapp

  27. Catholic Trotskyist

    Along with my two fellow controversial colleagues Eric Dondero and Robert Milnes, I, too, as the chairman of the Catholic Trotskyist Party of America, endorse George Phillies in his run for LNC chair, on behalf of myself and the Catholic Trotskyist Party of America. I have received from the Lord God of hosts, many interpretations of the religious mysteries of the Bible Codes, and it has come to pass that the Libertarian Party and the 2010 convention in particular has a major role in the divine plan of Catholic Trotskyism. I will soon be writing in this more details, either in the form of a gangsta rap or a Renaissance style poem, according to popular demand.

    I wish all of IPR a magnificient winter solstice as we prepare for the official birthday of Jesus the Christ, the Lamb of God.

    And he George Philles shall feed his flock, like a shepherd.

  28. Aroundtheblockafewtimes

    All the smart, competent leaders in the LP should be building their state organizations, not worrying about LNC. There’s entirely too much time and effort lavished on what the LNC is doing or should be doing. We should be more concerned that the local county LP hasn’t been running candidates than whether or not Mr. Redpath improperly ruled on a motion to table an agenda item that might prove embarrassing to one of his allies. Maybe the LNC should consist of retired successful state chairs? If the LP can’t or won’t be a success at the grass roots, local level, it will never be a success! It would not be a disaster if the LNCwas changed into a body consisting of the state chairs, electing its officers from among its own membership, and meeting no more than twice a year.

  29. LPorDie

    George, you’ve effectively slit the throats of Ron Paul supporters (the most active, effective and energetic group) and driven them away.

    Just saying that you welcome “small-L libertarians” won’t make us forget. Our big, gaping scars are still there, we see them in the mirror every day.

    We ARE the small-L libertarians.

  30. Robert Milnes

    Ron Paul artificially garnered support from the anti-war right and some leftists because he was the only elected official there. Over the years he has passively benefitted from the label libertarian when he actually is not a libertarian. All George & others have done is point out these inconsistencies. The real libertarians will return to libertarian politics. The real leftists will return to leftist politics. The real GOP reactionaries & counterrevolutionaries will be left with him. He never had any chance to win a single primary despite 35 million. What is wrong with that?

  31. Shane

    Sorry, Angela. While I would love to have you curse my name each day for two years, it’s just not fun anymore.

    I went to the last LNC meeting and after 42 seconds, tried to stab myself with a croissant from their breakfast setup. Even R. Lee was boring and non-confrontational.

    If you read between the lines on the proposals, it’s outrageous stuff that’s going on (as always) but without anyone pounding a table or insulting someone, it’s like watching Leave it to Beaver minus Eddie Haskell and the Beave.

  32. Shane

    Yes, Robert, that’s right. I’ve also ordered the CIA to continue monitoring your brainwaves. Additionally, I cut supplies of aluminum foil to your surrounding area. Sorry, man. I can’t have you messing with my plans with your Progressive Alliance Strategy.

  33. spinnikerca

    Wow, you really have a complex when it comes to Ron Paul, don’t you?

    When someone runs a newsletter that gives contributors individualistic free reign (and is run by an independent paid editorial staff) one can’t really have the content attributed to one’s own beliefs. He has been in office 21 years and HIMSELF has never said a word that was racist or bigoted — clearly or people wouldn’t have to go back 20 years to newsletter written by others when he wasn’t even in office.

    Someone threatened by Rand Paul recently posted something racist on his web page, as well. No one believes it was him, and his primary opponent’s attempt to cash in on the situation resulted in a new poll showing Rand at something like 45% against the establishment guy’s rating of something like 23%. The last poll, they were close to neck and neck.

    These slurs can backfire.

  34. Thomas L. Knapp

    spinnikerca,

    There’s a bit of a problem with your account there.

    In 1996, Paul took public responsibility for the writings published with his name in the author’s slot, and defended them.

    In 2008, he attributed them to a ghost writer and repudiated them.

    Both accounts can’t be true. Was Paul lying in 1996, or was he lying in 2008?

  35. LibertarianGirl

    I would like to hear from George how he would work amicably with an LNC full of people he’s publically trashed. Seems to me , infighting would be at an all time high .

  36. Robert Milnes

    spinnikerca @41, are you referring to me @35? Yes, I really have a complex when it comes to Ron Paul. I’m sick of his dinosaur fossil dick up my ass with no lube.

  37. Jay Matthews

    It’s nearly a year later and Milnes is still hating Ron Paul. Truly incredible. Makes one wonder what Bob will do if/when RP retires. Perhaps he’ll move onto hating Walter Jones.

  38. Robert Milnes

    paulie @40 & wesrulesdc @ 34, I’ve got no problem with a debate between George & Shane. I’m confident George would win. Be sure to cover it in IPR. Title: Comeback of the Nerd. OR: Nerd TKO’s Turd.

  39. Michael Seebeck

    Psst: got news for you all: comment @34 wasn’t Keaton–not her style, and she wouldn’t put AWC on the link if it was. Besides, she’s blocked IPR permanently for other reasons.

  40. Thomas L. Knapp

    Bob,

    You write:

    “What does ‘…she’s blocked IPR permanently for other reasons.’ mean?”

    It means she no longer reads IPR because active/ongoing participation in internal LP squabbles drives her blood pressure through the roof, and because she’s got priorities which don’t fit well with that.

    I empathize. One of these days, Tamara’s going to find me drooling and twitching here in my chair after I stroke out over the keyboard. I’d bet money that the site on the monitor will be IPR. That’s okay for me — I’m a junkie — but I’m happy whenever anyone can give it up.

  41. The Inquirer

    Seebeck,

    It was Keaton. Her style is easy to recognize, and as an addict, she just can’t keep away. Shane instantly recognized her, too.

  42. Thomas L. Knapp

    Inquirer,

    Highly unlikely. The message is too short to really get much “style” vibe from, but to the extent that there is a vibe at all, it’s one of poorly attempted impersonation.

  43. Michael H. Wilson

    @ 53 TK writes “I empathize. One of these days, Tamara’s going to find me drooling and twitching here in my chair after I stroke out over the keyboard. I’d bet money that the site on the monitor will be IPR. That’s okay for me — I’m a junkie — but I’m happy whenever anyone can give it up.’

    Tom ya gotta look at this as entertainment. I used to walk away from the computer with my face red and about ready to burst a blood vessel and one day I realized that IPR could be entertainment. Well somethings on it are and some of the people are as well.

    Like the word Libervention. I just rotflmao over that one.

  44. Robert Milnes

    I personally would get more burnout at AWC & everytime there was a GLBT setback than at IPR. She could get uniquely involved if she accepted my vp offer. Instead of same old beating one’s head against a brick wall.

  45. Libervention Debate Club

    Our only rule is: we don’t ever start the debate, but we always finish it.

    liberate v. to free (a nation or area) from control by a foreign or oppressive government

    intervene v. to become involved intentionally in a difficult situation in order to change it or improve it, or prevent it from getting worse

  46. Libervention Debate Club

    Good question! We in the Club are sure that Mr. Wilson had a very good reason for bringing the subject up.

  47. LibertarianGirl

    seriously , can we get back to vetting Phillies. Unless a whole new slate gets elected to the LNC (unlikely) , I wonder how he will fare working with a group of people he has publically trashed and does not trust . and vice versa

  48. Thomas L. Knapp

    LG,

    You write:

    ” Unless a whole new slate gets elected to the LNC (unlikely) ”

    Not as unlikely as it might seem.

    I haven’t heard whether or not Michael Jingozian intends to run for vice chair again, but if he’s considering a presidential run he probably won’t.

    I’ve heard that Bob Sullentrup is not running for Secretary again.

    If a credible candidate stands for election as treasurer, I suspect that Aaron Starr will either not run again or will lose badly.

    Some of the at-large and regional reps would probably be able to work and play nicely with George; of those who wouldn’t, who knows if they’ll run again or, if they do, whether or not they’ll be re-elected?

  49. paulie Post author

    liberate v. to free (a nation or area) from control by a foreign or oppressive government

    intervene v. to become involved intentionally in a difficult situation in order to change it or improve it, or prevent it from getting worse

    This presumes that Democratic and Republican politicians, regime bureaucrats, etc., can be counted on reliably to determine which government are oppressive, and that US invasion and occupation would make things better rather than worse.

    An assumption I don’t share.

  50. spinnikerca

    Knapp – sorry for the belated reply. However, he took ‘moral responsibility’ as in ‘I’m not going to quibble about this, they were in my newsletter even though I didn’t know about them. I COULD have exercised more control, but didn’t. Still, I didn’t say them and don’t feel the same way.’ In over 20 years in the public eye, he never has said anything racist.

    Me, I’ll judge him by what HE does and says, given that he does have an extensive record of his own. At least until you show me someone with a better personal record. And I’m open to finding someone with that record — eager, even, given RP’s age. So far, I haven’t been able to find such a candidate. If the Libertarian party has some hiding in its committees, kindly trot them out, not like last election (although some of the runners up seemed promising.)

  51. Thomas L. Knapp

    spinnikerca,

    You write: “he took ‘moral responsibility’ as in ‘I’m not going to quibble about this, they were in my newsletter even though I didn’t know about them.”

    Yes, he did so in 2007.

    In 1996, on the other hand, he admitted to being the author of the writings and defended their content.

    Was he lying in 1996, or was he lying in 2007? It seems like a simple question, yet I never seem to be able to get a straight answer to it.

  52. Michael Seebeck

    Inquirer @54: and Brad @56:

    Nope. To paraphrase the late Lloyd Bensten: I know Anglea Keaton. Angela Keaton is a friend of mine. And that post was not Angela Keaton.

    She’s very happy to be busy working the Holiday Matching Pledge drive at AWC. Please donate today.

    And Shane Cory can’t recognize a cardinal in a flock of magpies, either.

    Tom @53 and @55 is right on.

  53. Brian Holtz

    Tom, it’s possible that Ron Paul was admitting responsibility for quotes that were not the entirety of the controversial quotes. Reason has all the 1996 Ron Paul admissions here: http://reason.com/blog/2008/01/11/old-news-rehashed-for-over-a-d

    Those admissions don’t necessarily cover the most egregious newsletter statements, documented here: http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/angry-white-man

    I don’t know of any evidence against the widely-circulated rumor that Lew Rockwell was the author of the most egregious newsletter statements.

  54. Robert Milnes

    Tom @63, I’ve been thinking about this. It may very well be possible for the radicals to take over the LNC. Angela’s resignation was a mistake in that she could have helped in that if only just by being there occupying a seat. If anyone can, George can pull it off. That will solve the problem of the rightward drift of the LNC and diversion of funds & other resources to various rightists & their causes GOP, candidates, websites, campaign funds/percentage for processing etc. Then comes the big problem. Purist radicals are going to-if they want to win instead of just replacing rightist losers with radical losers-pursue PLAS and the fusion executive ticket. Gravel/Ruwart might be possible again. Milnes/Ruwart. Any progressive/Ruwart. Ruwart has got to be convinced. This is no small thing. It is the difference between winningv& losing.

  55. Thomas L. Knapp

    Brian,

    You write:

    “I don’t know of any evidence against the widely-circulated rumor that Lew Rockwell was the author of the most egregious newsletter statements.”

    I do. It’s right there above those statements: The words “by Ron Paul.”

    That said, it really doesn’t matter if Rockwell was the ghost writer.

    If you knowingly and voluntarily allow something to be advertised as “by” you, you’re accepting authorial credit, for better or for worse.

    If you do that and then don’t look to see what is being published under your byline in a newsletter that you own and that has your name on it, well, you’re an idiot.

    If you do that, and then ten years later take credit for it a second time and defend it (at a time when, for better or worse, it’s fairly “mainstream Republican” stuff of the era), then another ten years goes by and you decide it’s embarrassing now and decide to repudiate it and blame it on an unnamed ghost writer, that’s just horseshit.

    Ron Paul is, like many politicians, related to Fonzie. He can’t bring himself to admit that he was ever wr … wrrrrrrrrrrr ….. wrrroooong. But there are some things that you have to do that on.

    Fuck, even George Wallace managed to do it on this particular subject, and the Paul stuff wasn’t quite as bad in most places as Wallace’s “segregation now, segregation forever” stuff.

  56. Don Lake .......... More Libs Lacking a Lib Perspective

    “………. admitted to being the author of the writings and defended their content.

    Was he lying in 1996, or was he lying in 2007? It seems like a simple question, yet I never seem to be able to get a straight answer to it ……”

    So you guys do have a taste for what life on the dysfunctional, deform, reform movement is like ??????

  57. Pingback: Libertarian National Committee races | Independent Political Report

  58. Brian Holtz

    I wrote: “I don’t know of any evidence against the widely-circulated rumor that Lew Rockwell was the author of the most egregious newsletter statements.”

    Tom, it doesn’t count as evidence for you to merely assume that the words “by Ron Paul” appeared above any of the most egregious newsletter statements.

    Kirchik tells us in his TNR article: “Few of the newsletters contain actual bylines. […] Of course, with few bylines, it is difficult to know whether any particular article was written by Paul himself. Some of the earlier newsletters are signed by him, though the vast majority of the editions I saw contain no bylines at all.”

  59. Andy

    “Ron Paul is, like many politicians, related to Fonzie. He can’t bring himself to admit that he was ever wr … wrrrrrrrrrrr ….. wrrroooong. But there are some things that you have to do that on.”

    This is NOT true. Here is a clip of Ron Paul admitting that he changed his position on the death penalty.

  60. Brian Holtz

    I would like to know if Mr. Phillies disagrees with anything in the following draft St. Louis Accord.

    The Party’s purpose is to implement and give voice to the Statement of Principles by uniting voters who want more personal and economic liberty behind the electoral choices that will most move public policy in a libertarian direction. The Party’s ultimate goal is to banish force initiation and fraud from human relationships. The Party does not claim to know how close our society can come to this ideal, but we are united in our conviction that governments must never add to the amount of aggression in the world. Principled libertarians can disagree about how best to reduce aggression or even about precisely what constitutes aggression, but we are united in defending the full rights of each person to his body, labor, peaceful production, and voluntary exchanges. Principled libertarians can disagree about whether every function of government can be performed by the free market, but we are united in opposing government’s growth beyond the protection of the rights of every individual to her life, liberty and property. Principled libertarians can disagree about how best we may each serve the cause of freedom, but we are determined to build a Party that welcomes and unites all those who want more personal and economic liberty. We defenders of freedom are too few, and the enemies of freedom are too many, for us to indulge in seeking heretics in our midst, rather than awakening allies across this freedom-loving land.

  61. Jake Witmer

    Please investigate the website http://www.jurorsforjustice.com and http://www.fija.org for ways in which you can make a difference, no matter who wins the chairmanship of the LP.

    I support Root for the job, but I also like Phillies. I hope they work together once Root wins. I just had a conversation with Phillies which clarified some of my earlier misgivings about him. Best of luck to all, let’s avoid negative campaigning.

  62. Straight .......... from Lake

    Jake THE FAKE Witmer: “I support Root for the job, but I also like Phillies. I hope they work together once Root wins. I just had a conversation with Phillies which clarified some of my earlier misgivings about him. Best of luck to all, let’s avoid negative campaigning.”

    Whoa, whoa, whoa: the Democans and the Republicrats are targets for uncovering duplicity! Why should the Loyal Opposition be allowed to ‘get away’ with blatant false hoods ?????????

    Libs [and Greens and (so called) Constitutionists ALL] claim to be the third largest American partisan group! Hmmmmmmmmmmm

    (Bruce) Wayne Root claims and does not apologize that the American debt is an unbelievable $100T!

    (Doctor) George Phillies STUPIDLY proclaims that the Libs are the only peace party, in a sea of anti war organizations, and does not retract the illogic!

    TO PARAPHRASE ANDY: Andy // Dec 28, 2009 at 3:36 pm

    “[Bruce Cohen, Wayne Root, George Phillies] , are/is, like many politicians, related to Fonzie [aka the Fonz]. He can’t bring himself to admit that he was ever wr … wrrrrrrrrrrr ….. wrrroooong. But there are some things that you have to do that on.”

    Plz wake up Jake Witmer // Do not love the person, love the truth!

    “Let’s avoid negatives ”

    [a] usually mouthed by mean spirited agents provacatuer

    [b] also a cover for incompetance ……….

Leave a Reply

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