Posted by Ernest Hancock at Freedom’s Phoenix. H/T Chuck Moulton in comments on a previous IPR post.
California’s Libertarian Party State Convention provided an opportunity for 3 of the 4 declared candidates for National Chairman to make presentations. (Ernest Hancock – Wayne Allen Root – Mark Hinkle – George Phillies, not in attendance)
Candidates were placed in a room isolated from the convention and brought in one at a time. The speaking order was Ernest then Wayne then Mark.
Although Dr. Phillies was unable to attend due to his work schedule, IPR will post a response from him if he sends us one.
JJM, you’re saying that Hancock told you the Libertarian Party doesn’t need to be a political party? I have a tough time believing that any Libertarian would make a flatly contradictory statement like that.
The difference lies in what a Libertarian believes is the core function of a party. I think the core function of a party is to run candidates for political offices in order to effect policy–whether directly or indirectly. Whatever else a party does or doesn’t do, getting candidates on voter ballots under the party label (if possible) is the essential characteristic that defines a party. If you want the central focus to be on pickets, protests, and parades–which can be valuable sometimes–I don’t think you should look to a party as the vehicle for that.
John,
That’s funny, I was just told a story about you but after reading this, I have my own questions.
Are you the guy who “decided in Wendy’s” to run for chair? If so, was David Nolan sitting with you at the table, pushing you to run to be a stalking horse to Root?
Regardless, good use of the “two primary contenders” as an analogy that represents our party.
A strategy of mailing lists, templates, etc. all fine and good but a mailing list is useless if it does not increase in size.
You’re going to take a hit for beating up the anarchists. Come to think of it, you’re probably helping out Wayne on that one as the target will be put on your back instead of squarely between his shoulders.
Interesting . . .
John,
You write:
“Many men strike at the branches of evil, I will strike at the root.”
Hmmm.
Announce that you’re running against an anarchist.
Announce that you believe anarchism will marginalize the LP until it ceases to exist (until anarchism ceases to exist, or until the LP ceases to exist?).
Then close with an anarchist quote.
Does not compute.
Attending the State Chairs Convention I got the sense that one of two candidates was going to win the LNC, either Wayne or Ernie. I believe that either one would be the wrong choice.
Being put in this rock and a hard place I put my hat in the ring. I have not been a State Chair or on the LNC as an at large member, but I love the Libertarian Party and I don’t want to see it hijacked or destroyed.
Here is why I am running:
My vision for the Libertarian Party is to empower the local chapters of the LP, typically County Affiliates of the LP. The past focus of the national LP, as implemented by the LNC, was 50 state ballot access. The amount of money wasted on this effort by purchasing petition signatures is quite large. Such a top-down approach by the national party is completely antithetical to the bottom up philosophy that the LP preaches. So while ballot access financial assistance might still be provided in certain cases, the focus of the national LP would be to provide support to local organizers.
So what does “support to local organizers mean”. It means mailing lists, web site templates, pre-designed marketing material, cookie cutter candidate recipes, and much more with a single goal – TO GET PEOPLE ELECTED WHO WILL REDUCE THE SIZE OF OUR GOVERNMENT.
Until this country is even remotely close to being limited to the scope of the Constitution. Much of our bickering only divides us it is argument for the sake of argument. The one common thing we share is we all want less government and more freedom. We need to frame our message more clearly, and in a way that makes sense to all Americans. We want to bring our troops home now, we want to end the corporatism in our government and get the government out of our businesses, mainly ending the cozy relationship between banks and businesses.
I am running because I want to capitalize on the golden opportunity we have in front of us, most people are fed up with government, and before we allow other parties to be created and steal our thunder, we need to strike.
We represent what the average American believes but we have never been able to capitalize on this. We may be failing to capitalize on this due to too much distraction from our simple message “less government”.
I am running for LNC chairman because the two primary contenders do not represent me, and I believe do not represent the vast majority of Libertarians. Wayne is a conservative who supports our wars in the Middle East and continues to support Israel’s war-monger policies. Ernie is an anarchist who believes that ALL taxation, and therefore, ALL government should be abolished. The anarchist philosophy will continue to marginalize the LP until it ceases to exist.
I also believe that the LNC chair is the face of the party, someone who speaks to our principles in such a way that makes people interested in the party and motivates them to get involved.
We have Ernie passing out “Obama Deception” dvds at our state chairs meeting, which regardless on where you stand on Alex Jones, you understand that if this is the face of the party and the media runs with that story it is over. Growth will be stunted and our message blurred. We will be marginalized completely. I believe our government is corrupt and lord only knows what they are willing and able to do, but if that’s what you believe, then the best solution is to limit the size, scope, and power of government and build a coalition of all who want to do that. We have to be careful how we deliver our message, or we will go from 3rd largest party to 6th largest party in days. We have a message that makes sense to most people – obey the Constitution, let people keep their property and the fruits of their labor, let the voluntary decisions of individuals dictate how resources are allocated, and stop interfering in the internal affairs of other nations. You can’t have corruption or conspiracy when there is less power to buy or money to spread out, and most people understand and agree with this message.
Ernie told me at Freedom Fest he doesn’t believe we need to be a party at all, and asked me why I bother voting. I am trying to make Dallas County the best county in the nation, but I can not do it if our leaders at the top don’t understand that WE ARE A POLITICAL PARTY. We are showing up, giving our time and money, and running for office so that we can get people elected. No one will join a party in order to not vote for candidates for public office. We should be boycotting the two major parties, not boycotting the political process entirely.
Wayne says he wants to appeal to the right because “that’s where the money is” and told me at a meeting at my home that “we have to be in middle east to protect Israel”. Bringing our troops home now from around the world to me is our biggest selling point, it sets us apart from the other parties.
Wayne thinks we should change the name to the “Wayne Allyn Root Party” I said that before and someone told me that “the bylaws would not allow for it” I was joking, but it’s scary that people believe he would try.
I just want you to know that I understand that we are a political party and that I have a plan and a vision to grow the party, educate our members and the general public, and get people elected. I understand that we will not attract new membership unless we distinguish ourselves from other parties without alienating the majority of Americans. The Libertarian Party is the only one that stands for the American principles that defined our country, and it can once again, but only with leadership that focuses on our true principles and lives those principles every day.
As a candidate John Jay Myers for U.S. Congress, I want to End the Wars and bring our troops home, I want to end corporatism by getting government out of business, I want to end the banks ties to Washington, I want to reduce/end entitlement spending, and make marriage, religion, and a nanny state none of governments business.
As John Jay Myers candidate for LNC chair I want to make sure I that I can get that other John Jay Myers elected.
From our by laws on our purpose:
“by: functioning as a libertarian political entity separate and distinct from all other political parties or movements; moving public policy in a libertarian direction by building a political party that elects Libertarians to public office; chartering affiliate parties throughout the United States and promoting their growth and activities; ”
Neither Wayne or Ernie is planning on doing any of these things. One does not consider us a political party and one is completely tied to another party and set of issues.
Many men strike at the branches of evil, I will strike at the root.
Thanks
Chuck,
Thanks!
The computer I am borrowing keeps crashing, but I’ll try.
If I don’t, someone else please post.
Pay close, close attention to this loose cannon from New England ……….
“So you are a big fan ????? He [like so many other LP ‘stars’] is a just big bag of wind! The only anti war party ???????? Yeah!”
Here is a George Phillies video that should be posted either as an update to this post or in a separate post:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7VUQuoIaok
Mr. Hinkle,
Thanks for your response. What confuses me is that you’ve consistently voted with the establishment majority on the LNC this term — to expel Angela Keaton from the LNC, with the majority on Lee Wrights, and against Mary Ruwart on the donor confidentiality report. Doesn’t your voting with Bill Redpath, Bob Sullentrup, and Aaron Starr so often indicate that you generally support how they run the party? If not, could you explain your votes with them on these issues and your refusal to speak out against their handling of the party, as have Ruwart, Wrights, and others?
My sense from viewing the three LPCA videos, as well as previous comments by George Phillies, is that Hancock and Root are charismatic figures who offer radical changes in LP governance (though in completely different directions), while you and Phillies present yourselves as skilled managers who want to change the way the LP does business and make it more effective, thereby growing the party. Of the two of you (you and Phillies), you unquestionably have more experience at turning around state parties and managing troubled organizations. What concerns me is that, unlike Phillies, you have a track record of working very closely with the very people who seem to be running the LP off a cliff, and also unlike Phillies, you haven’t articulated any major steps you plan to take to turn the LP organization around. In the video, you said that you want to subdivide LNC responsibility by giving each member specific tasks that are their responsibility. That’s a great idea, but do you really think it’s comprehensive enough to change the direction of the party? If not, what are your other, more comprehensive ideas for doing this?
Jeremy said “I think Hinkle is the best candidate available if you think the party is going in the right direction and you want someone who’s qualified, ethical, and friendly.”
My talent, such as it is, is to turn around stagnant and dis-functional LP organizations. Witness my last 4 years as LPC Chair (1997-2003) where we more than tripled membership, quadrupled fund raising, ran and elected a record number of candidates, opened the current LPC office (first one in over 10 years at the time), hired an Executive Director with a real salary, did monthly fund raising letters (in cooperation with the LP HQ to avoid over saturation), produced monthly issues of a newsletter, etc., etc., etc.
And trust me, if I wanted the status quo, I wouldn’t have bothered to run for the LNC in 2008, nor would I take the time or money to seek the LP Chair’s position now.
The Party is dying and I’ve put over 35 years into this organization and I won’t let it die without a fight. Organizations either grow or die.
I am the only candidate for LP Chair that has demonstrated the ability to turn around a troubled state Party with dramatic results.
I think we can do it again with a lot of help.
Yours in liberty………….Mark Hinkle,
Candidate for LP Chair
Lidia: “George is a product of where he lives. I have a LOT of relatives in that general part of the Bay State. ”
George’s voice isn’t the result of where he lives; it’s the result of him being a huge geek. I know the LP attracts people who are more intellectual than the norm, especially those who work in the sciences, which helps with the philosophical integrity of the party. But the image of a nerdy professor isn’t a good one for the party’s national chairman OR presidential nominee. How party leaders look and sound is important to public perception (just look at some guy named Barack Obama).
Also, Lidia, what’s the deal with inserting all kinds of information about yourself in your posts? You’re a mom, you’re an introvert, you have a soft voice, you’re the size of an overweight Amazon, etc. How fascinating. Could you tell me some of your childhood memories?
Dean verses Steele ???????? MUCH too simplistic!
We Lib’s are the ONLY ANTI WAR PARTY! Quit smoking that stuff! EVERY ONE was anti war out side of the DC Belt Neocoms.
You not only are entitled to your opinion —— you deserve it! Voice mail, email, what ever, my direct contact with Doctor Phillies [as a non Lib] is that he is a cover lad of 21st Century Libertarianism. Rude, crude, and lude. Just another over educated white dude offending the rest of us! Off handed OPINIONS given out as virtual fact!
So you are a big fan ????? He [like so many other LP ‘stars’] is a just big bag of wind!
The only anti war party ???????? Yeah!
Interesting. Anyhow, I didn’t mean any of it as a criticism — Phillies is not only one of my favorite Libertarians, he’s the one whose personal views happen to conform most closely to mine. So I’m a pretty big fan.
George is a product of where he lives. I have a LOT of relatives in that general part of the Bay State. My grandmother lived her whole life in Ludlow, MA– that gives you some idea. A bunch of my relatives have a similar tone of voice. That’s definitely not his fault.
As for Mary, her biggest problem is volume. Her ideas are fine, her presentation can be good, but it’s often hard to hear her. To be 100 percent fair, I’ve been told I have a very soft voice over the phone or radio as well (which is weird, since I’m the size of an overweight Amazon and I spent half of my teen years bellowing at the top of my lungs)
I agree in both cases, from what I was able to judge from videos. Phillies’ speaking issues are no longer his own fault — it’s simply that his voice is alarmingly nasal.
As an academic (in training) with a fairly nasal voice, I certainly feel for the guy.
I watched Phillies’ presentations improve immensely as he traveled from convention to convention. He is a much better speaker now than when he began campaigning for President.
If only Mary Ruwart had declared early enough to improve as much as Phillies did pre-convention…
As a presenter of the Libertarian brand, I would rate Phillies a better speaker than Barr or Browne, though clearly not as good as Badnarik or Ron Paul. Ed Clark remains the best speaker of the LP nominees I’ve seen.
Chuck Moulton affirms my impression that Root is not a serious candidate for Chair, and that most supporters of the status quo in the LP, save those who are members of Root’s personality cult, will vote for Hinkle.
I’m surprised to see him support Hancock over Phillies, however. Hancock is an unabashed radical, while Phillies is ideologically positioned to appeal to people from across the Libertarian spectrum (witness Brian Holtz’s complimentary comments toward him a couple of days ago at IPR). Also, Phillies has unquestionally put more of his time, not to mention his own money (and he is not a particularly wealthy man), toward building the LP.
I also find the argument about Phillies not having served on the LNC to be ludicrous. Unlike Hancock and Root, Phillies has attended all LNC meetings since at least when I began following the LP (late 2007). He has volunteered his time for Presidential campaigns, too, most recently as (I believe) the outreach coordinator for the Badnarik campaign.
I also don’t understand why people see Phillies’ previous divisive comments as a problem. Phillies isn’t going to be alienating Ron Paul supporters as Chair because he isn’t going to be doing much public relations as Chair. Neither are any of the other candidates except Root, and in Root’s case that’s a bad thing, because he won’t be attending to Party business. Phillies is rigidly ethical, and he’ll treat all comers to the Party with fairness; that’s all that should be asked of a national chair, not that he be on the best of terms with all people who’ve ever considered themselves part of the Party.
I think Mr. Moulton is correct to support Hinkle given his own views of what the party needs. I think Hinkle is the best candidate available if you think the party is going in the right direction and you want someone who’s qualified, ethical, and friendly. However, I think Phillies is the strongest candidate available if you don’t like the party’s direction and you want someone who’s qualified, ethical, and friendly.
I’ll add one final point. I’m not a Libertarian in any sense of the word, though my own views make me a strong supporter of all third parties. As such, I’m basing my comments on what I’ve seen over the last two and a half years’ worth of observation of and about the candidates. I think all the candidates have their strengths, but as someone who wants the LP and all other third parties to be as strong as they can be, I believe Phillies is the best candidate to make this happen, not to mention one of the best candidates available. His unfortunate speaking style makes him a poor candidate for President, but his commitment, energy, and integrity, not to mention his master plan for expanding party influence, make him the best choice in my view.
My take of the candidates for Chair
1. Ernie. I think my ears are still hurting, Ernie. Yes I know you’re passionate for Liberty but geez, do you have to scream that at me?!? I’m always thinking of the newbie Libertarian– and I think of myself 10 years ago, and I would have RUN away from Ernie. Sorry.
2. Root. wow, you’re almost as loud as Ernie, Wayne. Yes you’re a salesman, can you handle the fact that the LP tends to bring in introverts? Can you use that to advantage, or are you going to denigrate us as you did on Sunday. oh yeah, and one of the reasons that the LPC is short on money has a lot to do with Starr’s attempt at flipping elected officials over to the LP. I see just how successful that was.
3. Hinkle. Well Mark, you’re experienced and you’re at least more level-headed. But I suspect you’re way overburdened in your life. I respect that– after all I’m a mom, and look at all the conversations I had to run from to catch up with John. The difference is, I don’t try to bite off more than I can chew– being Chair is a very large bite of time, indeed? How are you going to shuffle your personal time to accommodate that?
4. This leaves George. Sure, I’ve got my concerns about George too. He’s all the charisma of granite. And yeah, he’s not experienced at the LNC. Or is he? Who is the person who combs through all the budgets and finds the problems? Oh yeah, George. He has a working relationship with a number of LNC people already and knows a lot of what is going on. When my husband was looking to help the LPC out, we spent two years doing legislative work before he ever sought a seat. By that time we knew the score and he was able to contribute. He wasn’t on the LPC but he might as well have been. I think that George has spent so much time on the outside looking in that it counts as if it were LNC experience.
Thank you.
Thank you
Slight problem with replying by comment number, the numbers can change when comments are pulled out of spam or (more rare) deleted. But, as you wish.
LOL, that’s a level of paranoia even I don’t have. I don’t even use my last name here, but jeez louise, how many people have a name that starts with M? And about your voicemail a minute ago – I was not even checking your IP. I can recognize your writing style.
Not M Carling if that’s what you are thinking. Give me a call if you have a couple of minutes
is that M ??
Paulie I prefer that you refer using my number instead of any initials. Of course I could work another way around this, all together.
Ernie rocks!
Still voting? Vote for Ernie!
@24 – Gotta love those anonymous shout-outs. And I’m sure you ARE “right behind” Wayne; we can tell by the big brown smudge on your nose.
M.,
Your support isn’t scoring Wayne any points here.
Wayne is the only viable Candidate for Chair. Anything less would put us as usual NOWHERE!! If some of the people don’t realize this they will be left behind. Further behind than ever before. Don’t let your emotions, ego and whatever else interfere. Wayne sees the big picture. He knows. We should be sooooo grateful he is going full steam ahead for this LP party and not another party. I am right behind Wayne. I am dam tired this party has not been were it should have been HOW LONG NOW.
Susan, I agree.
Yes.
I’d like to see Moulton run for Chair. But, alas, I suspect it’s not in the cards for this term.
@3 – I don’t agree 100% but Chuck Moulton’s observations make a lot of sense. I haven’t endorsed any of the Chair candidates to date; I plan to meet with each of them at the LSLA event in Austin Feb. 26-28 and may do so afterwards.
Mister Wrights, contact me about #17.
Re: #17
That is a silly campaign issue, don’t you think. One the other candidates shouldn’t spend any time on. The Chair of the LNC has no power to do such things. But, Wayne does not seem to let reality or the truth stop him from saying meaningless things. Just another example of why he would make a terrible Chair.
Wayne Root wants to fix VA Hospitals around the country and he is the only Chair Candidate who has said so.
Wayne would surley go for President in 2012, but until this party is better situated and ready for prime time.
When was the last time the LNC had a chair that hadn’t had considerable experience serving on LNC first? Was it Randy Ver Hagen in the mid-80s? But, then maybe having a total LNC rookie as Chair would be a feature not a bug?
Does that work in the real world? {Sure, the new CEO may not have a background in canned soup, but probably led, say, a frozen food company before.}
The Chuckster speaks good sense.
Whatever his level of detractors here, I’ve always found Bill Redpath reasonable, professional and articulate on matters LNC and as a State Chair. His promotion and support of ballot access is a success. Perhaps it’s the best a national party of ours can do given such anemic budgets. Even a lot more money wouldn’t change that equation much.
via anti establishment politics:
Mike Seebeck // Feb 18, 2010:
“I was the privileged audience of one for that most animated and entertaining and interesting conversation ——– Those free-for-alls could be a really good format for those folks. Seriously.”
Yeah, that’s what millions of citizens, fed up of Democan and Republicrat crap, want to do, continue the bull shit debating society!
The videos are good, but y’all missed the fun stuff in the green room. I was the privileged audience of one for that most animated and entertaining and interesting conversation–even a participant at times. I had the best seat in the house.
Those round-robin free-for-alls could be a really good format for those folks. Seriously.
Apparently the conversation that went on in the “room isolated from the Convention” was even more interesting. Mike was the person in there. I’m wishing he’d had a recorder on him.
As a non Lib whom literally HATES the Democans and the Republicrats [since Nixon – Kennedy 1960] let me give one other perspective.
The Ghandi Model:
I am so sorry that the Libs have not progressed in the 21st Century. I see it as a lack of ethics. The major minors, including LP, claim to be Number Three. None can substantiate the claim for any give period.
Dean verses Steele ???????? MUCH too simplistic!
We are the ONLY ANTI WAR PARTY! Quit smoking that stuff! Every one was anti war out side of the DC Belt Neocoms.
ONLY ANTI WAR PARTY ?????????? Out and out lie!
“……… activism, support volunteers, and go for the 50 state strategy — his party crushed the Republicans in 2006 and 2008, because his strategy was ‘Winning is me helping you’ ……. ”
Oh, two terms of the worst President and the worst Vice President in history does not count for any thing ??????? A one armed wall paper hanger could have walked through the Oval Office in 2009! [Just another Lib Lie!]
From my experiences with Tessiler, Rider and other dishonest Sand Paper pols in Sandy Ego; the horrible reputation of Libs [Bruce Cohen and Company on the West Coast] from state to state, and the lack of sweat and effort as one ball, one opportunity after another is baubbled!
All that general talk of smaller government and nothing on the specifics such as dysfunctional veterans programs. The bigs hint at privatization of Social Security! The Lib response? The silence was deafening!
I’m not aiming to convince anyone.
Chuck,
Fair enough.
Of course, that does not convince anyone as far as the issue of trust, but that’s your call.
As for me, I believe in the maxim “trust but verify.”
And as for something happening “years ago” on IPR, I think you must either be exagerating – since we have been in existence for less than two years – or conflating us with TPW (RIP) or LFV (walking dead).
I voted Kubby for VP.
I see no reason to dredge up old issues re: George. I was simply giving my opinion — and no one should rely on hearsay putting too much stock in my views. If you trust George, that’s fine. I don’t.
When my issue with George was discussed on IPR years ago, all of George’s followers came out of the woodwork to support him. I was Facebook de-friended by several of them (e.g., Rob Powers). The people who were there on the ground witnessing things emailed me privately that I was right, but declined to involve themselves in the brouhaha. Another such he said / she said debate benefits no one — least of all me. And that’s all I’ll say about that.
I should also mention that George Phillies does put his time and money where his mouth is, which I respect a lot.
I largely agree with Chuck in just about every detail.
Minor differences/questions:
I think he’s told me before what lie he says George Phillies told, but I don’t remember. When accusing someone (anyone) of telling a bald-faced lie, I would hope to see the alleged lie identified.
Also, while I voted for Kubby until he was eliminated, Ruwart after that on every remaining ballot, and Kubby on every ballot for VP – and don’t regret my vote – I also like Wayne. Just not for chair – or president.
Oops, when I said George is “divergent” I meant to say “divisive”.
Mark Hinkle doesn’t have as much pizazz as the other candidates, but he does have experience: both experience on the LNC dealing with national issues and experience leading a large state party.
I am very reluctant to vote for someone as Chair of the LNC who has never served on the LNC. Ernie and George could have easily been elected At-Large many conventions, but for some reason they want to lead before following and learning how things have been done in the past. Change is fine; however, I want candidates to have some institutional memory before wholesale discarding our structures and processes.
Mark is a very even headed guy. He listens to ideas, thinks logically, and expresses his opinion. Mark is able to work with others and diffuse controversy rather than creating it. I see in Mark a solid administrator who will help the LNC navigate around the potholes that our national board has consistently created every meeting and often in between.
Ernie Hancock’s main problem in my mind is he won’t serve on the LNC in a lesser capacity before running for Chair. I agree with Ernie on a lot of issues. As an economics student myself, I’m with Ernie on spontaneous order and tapping into our grassroots volunteers. The Ron Paul campaign provided a vivid example of impassioned activism from the grassroots and incompetence from paid campaign staff.
Too many LP leaders emphasize money and donations when the emphasis should be on volunteers and activism. Unfortunately our staff is a self-perpetuating feedback loop… they have a financial incentive to maximize donations while ignoring volunteerism. Often there is an opportunity cost in member/donor recruitment that seeks only income while ignoring skill sets and passion that can be converted into free labor for liberty. This dichotomy can be seen in the floor fee controversy and in the emphasis of appeals via email and snail mail. Ernie understands how to energize activists, which is what we need.
Although I am a radical/anarchist libertarian myself, I disagree with Ernie about the need to keep everything as pure as possible. In my opinion LP press releases and the website ought to be ecumenical (as Brian Holtz would say), either being generic enough to be inclusive of all libertarian viewpoints or explicitly listing several alternative libertarian solutions.
I believe the Libertarian Party should be all about the candidates. Instead of quoting the LP Chair or the LP Executive Director, press releases ought to quote libertarian candidates with expertise or a strong opinion on the relevant issue. Instead of arguing about libertarian philosophy in a vacuum, we need to have many candidates running on a variety of libertarian platforms and let the free market of ideas sort things out.
I should mention a bit about the national office. I agree that it’s crazy to have a the national office in the Watergate paying absurd rent. At a minimum we should move across the river to Arlington where rent would be half. The benefits of having interns by locating near George Washington University could be obtained by locating near any college in the country. And the benefits (if there are any) of having a media guy in Washington D.C. where he could be easily interviewed could be obtained by having the media guy work out of his home in D.C. and the rest of the office staff somewhere else much cheaper.
George Phillies bothers me because he is a divergent guy. A prime example of this is his characterizations of Ron Paul and the R3VOLution. George has consistently alienated Ron Paul followers by criticizing Dr. Paul and the activists who promote him. He refers to all Republicans in quite a derogatory sense. But the fervently libertarian, young, anti-war, anti-government Ron Paul followers are one of the main demographics we ought to be targeting.
Although George has significant organizational talent and expertise and has the potential to be a great party administrator, he too has never served on the LNC. His actions and words always criticizing the LNC for the bad and never complimenting for the good have alienated a lot of people who work hard for the party. I still respect George for all of his hard work for liberty, but he lost my trust when I caught him in a bald-faced lie at the convention and he refused to acknowledge it. All that said, George is still better than None of the Above.
Wayne Root is worse than None of the Above in my opinion. I agree with Wayne that more media and more donations would be great. But Wayne is a cult of personality. He promotes himself more than the LP. That is appropriate for a candidate for public office — like President or Vice-President or U.S. Senate or Governor. It is not appropriate for the LP Chair.
In the course of his promotion he portrays libertarianism as Republican-lite rather than fiscally conservative AND socially liberal AND anti-war. That message is fine for Fox News and Fox Business, but it creates the wrong impression for outreach as a whole.
I voted for Wayne Root for President all the ballots until he was eliminated. Then I voted for Bob Barr. My reasoning was media savvy and speaking ability is the most important quality in a presidential candidate. Mary Ruwart is relatively a terrible speaker. She’s a great writer, but she desperately needs Toastmasters training. Seeing the mistakes the Bob Barr campaign made — especially making Ron Paul an enemy — I regret my final vote. I should have voted for Mary Ruwart. Ruwart would have gotten less media, but at least she wouldn’t have made the colossal mistakes Barr did.
So when I say Root would make a terrible Chair, I don’t say that as someone who dislikes Root. I like Root a lot and I’d like to see him increase his participation with the LP by continuing his media appearances and running for office in the future (like mayor of Las Vegas or U.S. Senate).
But the main problem with Root is he doesn’t really want to be the administrator. He admits as much in the video above. In that power vacuum, what will happen? The answer is fairly clear: Aaron Starr will be de-facto running the meetings and running the party. I do not support Aaron Starr for that position.
That’s my two cents.
Based on what I know so far, my personal ranking of the candidates is as follows:
1. Mark Hinkle
2. Ernie Hancock
3. George Phillies
4. NOTA
5. Wayne Root
Unless another candidate enters the race or something drastic changes, that’s how I’ll be voting. I’ll elaborate on why in a separate comment.